Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Nuke plant radiation leak

  1. #1

    Nuke plant radiation leak

    More than once I have heard a news report about the "cloud of radiation" from the disabled nuclear power plant in Japan.
    I have a hard time envisioning a 'cloud' of high speed alpha or beta particles or EMR.

    They mean a 'cloud', or more properly perhaps, a 'plume' of steam, dust, smoke containing radioactive isotopes, right?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,536
    I believe they may be referring to steam that has radioactive elements in it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16,659
    Yes, I don't know how much of it is ignorance and how much is due to their "keep it stupid simple" rules, but I'm seeing much use of the word "radiation" where "radioactive material" or similar terms would be appropriate.

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    7,169
    But you have to remember: Ingestion of alpha emmitters is a very bad thing. They reside in you forever and they don't turn off. They continue to cook your bloodstream. They are not good for you.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    But you have to remember: Ingestion of alpha emmitters is a very bad thing. They reside in you forever and they don't turn off. They continue to cook your bloodstream. They are not good for you.
    One hopes this was somewhat of an attempt at sarcasm? Granted ingestion of alpha emitters is bad for you, but they aren't some magical thing that can violate the conservation of mass and energy.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16,659
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    But you have to remember: Ingestion of alpha emmitters is a very bad thing.
    No, it's dose dependent, and everyone ingests alpha emitters because alpha emitters exist in nature. There's more wrong with what you said, but never mind. Please don't add to the bad science.

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    But you have to remember: Ingestion of alpha emmitters is a very bad thing. They reside in you forever and they don't turn off. They continue to cook your bloodstream. They are not good for you.
    Bad, ...yes!
    reside in you forever, and don't turn off,...not so much so.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    7,169
    Us Navy handbook on radioactive particles. Argue with them.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,451
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    Us Navy handbook on radioactive particles. Argue with them.
    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...radiation.html

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html

    http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publica...TM-3r1_web.pdf

    The Marine Corps manual seems to concur with these civilian sources of information: http://www.usmc.mil/news/publication...%205104.3A.pdf

    As does this joint forces military field manual on the Treatment of Nuclear and Radiological Casualties:
    http://milmed.pmk.ac.th/FM%204-02x28...-Rad%20Cas.pdf

    As stated earlier;
    Dangerous,...yes!
    reside in you forever, and don't turn off,...not so much.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16,659
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    Us Navy handbook on radioactive particles. Argue with them.
    Quote the relevant text here. I fully expect that it will have little relation to what you claimed, aside from mentioning alpha particles. I would expect they would discuss dose and perhaps note some specific issues dealing with different radionuclids. I would hope it would discuss the differing risk between inhaling and ingestion (in ingestion, if you don't eat too much, there's a far chance that all of the material could pass on through without ever interacting with body tissue - it doesn't take much to block alpha particles.)

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
    Bad, ...yes!
    Well, I'd say that depends on dose. At low dose, it's possible to ingest alpha emitters but not have any of them produce alpha particles that interact with living human tissue. (it take very little material to block alpha particies . . . like the food and liquid that's getting processed in your gastrointestinal system).

    And, anyway, the risk at low doses is also very low, so "bad" seems unclear. If there is a lot, sure. Think of alcohol: It always has poisonous effects, but small amounts are of little concern. Large amounts are a very different thing.

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    7,169
    Can you say " alvioli" ? Sure. That's a fancy word. They line your lungs. They are real little. Very small. And stuff lingers there. You don't want stuff there.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16,659
    So no quote? I thought not. Oh, and did you notice where I mentioned inhalation risk versus ingestion risk?

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    35,275
    Gentle members,

    We already have a whole bunch of Science & Technology threads going with debates on the dangers (or not) of nuclear power. May I suggest that we leave this one, in Bad Astronomy in the Media for only bad media reports on the event (even if it isn't astronomy). It is hard enough moderating all the current threads, please don't generate even more. Thanks,
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    7,169
    Hi Swift, As it shall be.
    Best regards,
    Dan

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    They reside in you forever and they don't turn off.
    Mutually exclusive statements, including one which is just plain wrong.
    If they're forever they aren't radioactive, if they don't turn off they're deeply magical.

    Every single alpha emission is an atom that won't do that again.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  17. #17
    In reading responses what I come away with is that I was correct in noticing that the descriptors used were erroneous.

    Yes, they mean clouds (ie. volumes of air) containing radioactive particulate or gaseous material.

    Why does it bother me?

    Because there is enough bad science in books movies and the nternet without trained journalists contributing to the dumbing down of the general population.

    It reminds me of back when microwave ovens were first on the market and I experienced more than one person who was afraid to open the door before the beeping finished because they did not want to let the radiation out. I explained more than once that once the klystron cut off they could not open the door fast enough to still have microwaves bouncing out the open door.(like turning to watch the last light waves flow from a bulb as you turn the switch off)

    As for long term residency of paritcles in the lungs,, I quit smoking 20 years ago. I ingested a huge amount of very fine , very bad stuff. Its been said that this clears out well once you quit. Surely after 20 years none of the carp I sucked in volutarily is still there. Would there be a reason why strontium or cesium might stay longer?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    7,169
    Isotopes linger. Strontnium collects in the bones and joints and continues to damage those structures. And with a half life of .....oh it's only 90 years .... well, you be the judge.
    Cesium 137 , half life of 30 years , beta and gamma emmitter. Liquid at 83 ° .

Similar Threads

  1. Can A Neutron star produce radiation similar to Hawking Radiation?
    By tommac in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2010-Oct-10, 04:45 PM
  2. Anti Nuke
    By Brain in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-29, 08:00 PM
  3. nuke space
    By anaklinskywalkar1 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2004-Sep-04, 03:51 PM
  4. Nuke an Asteroid
    By Superluminal in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 2003-Oct-28, 01:20 AM
  5. Nuke the Sun and Mars too
    By Amadeus in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2003-Oct-25, 06:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •