• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

r-j said:
If the radiation source is alpha radiation, distance matters a whole lot more than if it is beta. To know a source is 100 mSv/hr, you have to include the distance from the source.

Which is why they use becquerels per Kilo to describe radioactivity in soil and water and so forth.

Radon is dangerous because it is breathed into the lungs, not just standing near it. Or bathing in it. (radioactive hot springs!)

I hope low doses are beneficial. That would be great.
Click to expand...

Yes, the activity of a source (in Bk) should not be confised with the dose rate (in Sv/hr) received by the irradiated organ. The dose received does depend on the distance from the source, as well as on its activity.
 
kowalskil said:
Yes, the activity of a source (in Bk) should not be confised with the dose rate (in Sv/hr) received by the irradiated organ. The dose received does depend on the distance from the source, as well as on its activity.
Click to expand...

Yes, certainly, the measurement of "equivalent dose", in sieverts, takes that into account as well as the type of radiation (alpha is scored 20 x higher than beta, neutrons are scored by their energy) and the sensitivity of the organ receiving the radiation. That is why there is no fixed conversion between the two; it all depends on circumstances. You won't find an equivalent dose meter, even though a sievert is equivalent in units to a gray (one joule of energy captured in a kilogram of body mass).

Geiger counters and such measure the density of the radiation field at the point of the probe. All forms of radiation fall off with distance through the distance squared (for a point source); neutrons and gamma rays are absorbed exponentially by whatever medium stands between the source and the measurement, while alpha and beta display Bragg absorption curves, where the end point is well defined. In air, common alpha travels about 4 cm in air, while beta travel about a meter (depending on energy content), gamma and neutrons typically travel 100's of meters in air.
 
shadron said:
Since I'm certainly no richer than you, all we have is the wikipedias's words and the abstract.
Click to expand...

There is certainly enough interest, and enough money and power involved, to know with certainty the short term and long term effects of all the types of radiation, produced when a reactor spills it's load out of containment.

I'm actually opposed to using chimps for testing, but even so, I find it hard to imagine in the 60 years of using nuclear reactors, not a single scientific body, government or military ever tested radioactive fall out elements on chimps, to find out in essence, both the lethality, the amounts, the symptoms, and remedies for radiation poisoning.

Or at least rats or dogs or any animal.

That sort of evidence would go a long way towards convincing people of the safety or nuclear power.
 
I've heard the old saw "only cockroaches would survive a nuclear war" many times, in the distant past.

I assumed it meant they did test, and the only animal that didn't die from fall out was the cockroach. Or maybe it was the only living animal they found on the islands where they did all the testings. Or out in the deserts where they tested.

Something like that.

When I see no scientific study being presented that shows how safe radio-cesium actually is, it makes me wonder. Are there really no such studies? Or is it more like the tobacco story, where the studies clearly showed danger, so they didn't present them?
 
r-j said:
I've heard the old saw "only cockroaches would survive a nuclear war" many times, in the distant past.
Click to expand...

Part of the definition of weighting factors in the computation of effective dose, a la sieverts:

wiki "sievert" said:
For other organisms[besides humans], weighting factors have been defined, relative to the effect on humans:

Viruses, bacteria, protozoans 0.03 – 0.0003; Insects 0.1 – 0.002; Molluscs 0.06 – 0.006; Plants 2 – 0.02; Fish 0.75 – 0.03; Amphibians 0.4 – 0.14; Reptiles 1 – 0.075; Birds 0.6 – 0.15
Click to expand...
Note the sievert is units of Joules/kilogram. I don't even want to know what a kilogram of virus looks like. :)

Note that molluscs are better off then insects.
 
Last edited:
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML120520264.html

Transcripts. The very first one I found that the Japanese had informed the US they were venting radiation (before the first explosion), and had high radiation levels.

Then after they see the first explosion on TV, they describe it as a catastrophic loss of containment. Which was pretty obvious to everyone in the world.

It's fascinating reading.

Well, until you get to the page after page of censored material.
 
Last edited:
The official transcripts are really amazing. It's hard evidence of many things. Especially the high radiation levels that were happening during the crisis in Fukushima.
 
My bad. If only there were a Fukushima Nuclear Disaster topic to discuss this in.

I forgot that reality about what happened at the Fukushima nuclear plant doesn't apply to this topic.

Now, lets discuss how dangerous coal is.
 
I don't know what you do for a living, r-j, but I just cannot spend the hours required to wander through these meandering phone conversations. They show us what kind of people are working on this (or at least last May), but could you give us some kind of index as to where the meaningful parts are? I just spent a half-hour wandering through the first one, and there is nothing in it I could find that said anything about reactor safety issues; it's mostly about tired and busy people trying to sketch in informational tidbits. Is any of this really relevant today?

r-j said:
The official transcripts are really amazing. It's hard evidence of many things. Especially the high radiation levels that were happening during the crisis in Fukushima.
Click to expand...

If you want to bring something to the focus, then do so. I'll grant you the context, or fill it in as needed.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
My bad. If only there were a Fukushima Nuclear Disaster topic to discuss this in.

I forgot that reality about what happened at the Fukushima nuclear plant doesn't apply to this topic.

Now, lets discuss how dangerous coal is.
Click to expand...

It'd been explained to you numerous times : nothing is 100% safe. So citing one or two incidents amounts to the same thing as anecdotes in that it's not half as useful as statistics. And those statistics clearly show that nuclear is safer than the alternatives.
 
shadron said:
I don't know what you do for a living, r-j, but I just cannot spend the hours required to wander through these meandering phone conversations.
Click to expand...

You make a very good point. At the moment I'm mostly retired, and often have long periods of time to simply read. And I realized yesterday (after my life partner pointed it out) I spent almost 10 hours reading the transcripts.

Yes, I am that much of a nerd/geek, whatever you call somebody who is simply fascinated by things like this. I can't link to anything, and the transcripts are not searchable. I will figure out a way to make it easy for you to read the important parts.

So far, I discovered that the highest level of nuclear experts consider reactor troubles, like the ones at Fukushima, a very very serious threat. And they had a very good idea, early on, that reactors were melting down, long before the press said anything about it.

Obviously they didn't want to panic anyone.

In the future I will consider the casual readers lack of time, and try to make the conversation more meaningful.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
And those statistics clearly show that nuclear is safer than the alternatives.
Click to expand...

For myself, personally, I believe, at present, that nuclear power plants are far safer than coal. As long as there is no problem with a nuclear reactor, it's not only safer, it's much better for the quality of life as well.

Currently I live 5 miles from two working reactors. No joke. I just bought a house, down wind from a nuclear power plant. Not kidding at all.

Much better than being near a fossil fuel one.
 
r-j said:
I've heard the old saw "only cockroaches would survive a nuclear war" many times, in the distant past.
Click to expand...
According to latest issue of Wired, "only cockroaches will survive World War III" is a myth. All insects can wihstand far more radiation than mammals, but by insect standards cockroaches are actually on the low end of radiation tolerance scale. 6500 rad is lethal for cockroaches, and mere 1000 rad renders them sterile. Pharaoh ants are far more likely to inherit post-holocaust world, as they withstand over 150,000 rad.
 
I just had a funny thought. One could argue nuclear war is safer than conventional war. It certainly was for my countries troops in WWII.

Prove me wrong.
 
Mark6 said:
According to latest issue of Wired, "only cockroaches will survive World War III" is a myth. All insects can wihstand far more radiation than mammals, but by insect standards cockroaches are actually on the low end of radiation tolerance scale. 6500 rad is lethal for cockroaches, and mere 1000 rad renders them sterile. Pharaoh ants are far more likely to inherit post-holocaust world, as they withstand over 150,000 rad.
Click to expand...

Mollusks withstand radiation better, and the denizen of sea are protected by dozen/hundreds of meter of water. The half value distance for water is not that small, but that adds up over meters.
 
r-j said:
For myself, personally, I believe, at present, that nuclear power plants are far safer than coal. As long as there is no problem with a nuclear reactor, it's not only safer, it's much better for the quality of life as well.

Currently I live 5 miles from two working reactors. No joke. I just bought a house, down wind from a nuclear power plant. Not kidding at all.

Much better than being near a fossil fuel one.
Click to expand...

Then what the hell is your point ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom