gazza Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Nop. Nuclear bombs create radioactive materials with half lives in the thousands of years timescale. so how are nagasaki and HIROSHIMA lived in still if they last thousands of years, it does not really matter to be honest, the fact remains, buring fuel rods emit more radation than a bomb dropped. plus whats more worrying is, all this water they used, and that has leaked from the plant, is all ready in the sea, which can not be good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Nop. Nuclear bombs create radioactive materials with half lives in the thousands of years timescale. so how are nagasaki and HIROSHIMA lived in still if they last thousands of years, it does not really matter to be honest, the fact remains, buring fuel rods emit more radation than a bomb dropped. plus whats more worrying is, all this water they used, and that has leaked from the plant, is all ready in the sea, which can not be good Radiation does not necessarily irradiate things (and won't significantly for water). The containment vessels are still intact as far as they've said (apart from a crack on reactor 3) so it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 18, 2011 Author Share Posted March 18, 2011 Radioactivity is an energy that travels at the speed of light. Think you need to read up on alpha particles. If you ingest uranium dust, or it contaminates drinking water it is its alpha particles - helium atoms emitted by the breaking down Ur atom - that do the real damage. Luckily because they don't move at the speed of light, and are heavy, they slow down and become unable to do any damage very quickly - so as long as you keep them out of your body your reasonably safe from them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Nop. Nuclear bombs create radioactive materials with half lives in the thousands of years timescale. so how are nagasaki and HIROSHIMA lived in still if they last thousands of years, it does not really matter to be honest, the fact remains, buring fuel rods emit more radation than a bomb dropped. plus whats more worrying is, all this water they used, and that has leaked from the plant, is all ready in the sea, which can not be good Radiation does not necessarily irradiate things (and won't significantly for water). The containment vessels are still intact as far as they've said (apart from a crack on reactor 3) so it shouldn't be too much of an issue. these pools that have the leak in, are full of radation, and the number 3 had the mox fuel with the plutonium in it, radation is bad, plutonium is well death from a milligram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 reports of radation being found in tokyo drinking water. just showshow far its spread While the substance was found in Tochigi, Gunma, Niigata, Chiba and Saitama prefectures as well as Tokyo, traces of cesium have also been found in tap water in two of them -- Tochigi and Gunma, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotsAlan Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Radioactivity is an energy that travels at the speed of light. Think you need to read up on alpha particles. If you ingest uranium dust, or it contaminates drinking water it is its alpha particles - helium atoms emitted by the breaking down Ur atom - that do the real damage. Luckily because they don't move at the speed of light, and are heavy, they slow down and become unable to do any damage very quickly - so as long as you keep them out of your body your reasonably safe from them! But is radioactivity, not an energy? A radio wave transmitted from a particle as it degrades (as I remember, an electron drops to a different valency and clicks out a photon of energy, the half life being a measure of how often it clicks). The popular press, and several Asian Governments say they are checking passengers from Japan for Radioactivity. It's sensationalist scaremongering. Should they not be saying they are checking passengers for radiation emitting particles? After all, light is a radiation, it just has a different wavelength and transferable energy content than a Gamma ray. My point is, I think the press should diferientiate between radiation, and radioactive particles. edit to add: I wonder how many tons of radioactive particles are in the environment because of bomb testing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 My point is, I think the press should diferientiate between radiation, and radioactive particles. I don't think it's sensational, in the non-science community radiation and radiation emitting are synonymous, and I don't think it'd make a great deal to people's understanding. About the severity and actual impacts of this, then maybe they shouldn't be as misleading (by omission). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share Posted March 20, 2011 ScotsAlan please go and read up on radioactivity. Of the multiple types of radioactivity only gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation - alpha and beta particles are respectively helium atoms and either electrons or positrons depending on it's exact form; and radioactive substances also often emit neutrons. These forms of radiation are NOT electromagnetic and can be significantly damaging due to the mass and energy of the particles. When you are contaminated with a radioactive substance you will endanger yourself and others around you due to the radioactivity it emits. In order to find out if you are contaminated scientists will attempt to detect the radiation it is emitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Radiation amounts and effects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Radiation amounts and effects thats a good link. also i like how they say that the extre radation is only like going for a CT scan, well that may be so, but do you live 24 hours in a CT scanner, its like getting 24 CT scans a day which can not be good for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 My point is, I think the press should diferientiate between radiation, and radioactive particles. why should they, they both likely to kill you in huge amounts. Now, if you're talking about particulate matter that contains, let's say, what are called alpha and beta emitters, these are radioisotopes that really are most hazardous if they're taken internally or are in direct contact with the skin. So, when workers get into radiation suits and they wear masks, they're protecting their skin against getting contamination, that if not removed, could lead to a chronic exposure and then deliver radiation to skin tissue, and if inhaled or ingested, could potentially lead to what's called a body burden, where you carry it in your body for a long time, being irradiated potentially for your whole life. So, the primary objective is to prevent inhalation of long-lived radioactive isotopes and to keep it off your skin. So, decontamination typically involves just washing off the contamination that may have accumulated on your skin. However, there are isotopes, like cesium 137, which provide an external radiation hazard. They emit gamma rays, which can go through your skin. So, if there's cesium 137 or other isotopes that are gamma emitters, there's no effective countermeasure against that except limiting where you are. And so decontamination can be expected to have only a limited effect in reducing radiation doses to these workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share Posted March 20, 2011 After 5000 miles the Tsunami arrives in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Radiation amounts and effects That is a good link, though I don't agree that mobile phones don't cause cancer - despite the banana gag! ON NHK this morning they said that radiation levels 500 metres NW of the reactors was averaging 2500 microsieverts - or 2.5 sieverts! So if that's 500 metres away from the reactors god only knows how high the level is at the reactors!!! Those Tokyo firefighters deserve a bloody medal, and everyone's thanks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZK1F9D7FlU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Radiation level maps - general conclusion - even in the prefecture where the disaster has occurred general background levels are only twice their historic values - which is actually lower than the normal background level in some other areas where the background radiation is elevated due to natural circumstances (such as the local geology etc). Obviously this could change, and doesn't take account the very high levels around the plant, but basically this is good news - the disaster currently seems to be locally contained. Touchwood things will stay that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Just to add some more detail to the above - this pdf gives radiation levels close to the plant and are much more sobering. Link for more details. The maximum yearly dose for a general member of the public is meant to be 1000 microSieverts per year. In the areas close to the plant they are recording readings around 100 microsieverts per HOUR - ie 10 hours worth = a years dose! Ouch! But the International Commission on Radiological Protection says the recommended limit for volunteers averting major nuclear escalation is 500 mSv. To get that dose a volunteer would have to remain in these areas for 277 days - ie in the grand scheme of things it is serious, but for dealing with an emergency situation the levels allow people to work in the area for a long time. Obviously the closer you get to the plants the higher the doses and the greater the risk. Unless thinks really escallate the nuclear accident will kill far far fewer people over the next 30 years than the tsunami killed in moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.