Japan Fukushima nuclear thread
Discussion
rovermorris999 said:
Indeed and there is also a confusion that arises in the general public's mind regarding radiation and that's the 'dose' that is received. A dose of ionising radiation received externally is one thing, ingesting small particulates of an ionising substance is another. Unless the external exposure is large then the internal scenario is far more concerning.
That's sort of true, dose in Sieverts takes into account the way the dose is received and the biological sensitivity of organs with weighting factors such that a committed effective dose (internal) should have the same risk as an equivalent dose (external) dose but you will need far less Grays (energy absorbed) of internal exposure than for external exposure of the same dose.A dose of 1 sievert is assessed currently as giving a 5.5% of developing cancer, though this has changed over time as more experience of low level doses is gained. Originally the only info was from big exposure events then scaled down, however that has not proved to be a linear scale.
Edited by Gary C on Tuesday 25th November 19:29
Gary C said:
That's sort of true, dose in Sieverts takes into account the way the dose is received and the biological sensitivity of organs with weighting factors such that a committed effective dose (internal) should have the same risk as an equivalent dose (external) dose but you will need far less Grays (energy absorbed) of internal exposure than for external exposure of the same dose.
A dose of 1 sievert is assessed currently as giving a 5.5% of developing cancer, though this has changed over time as more experience of low level doses is gained. Originally the only info was from big exposure events then scaled down, however that has not proved to be a linear scale.
1st para: Why did you back into Gray's having dealt with the different Sieverts!? Most people haven't heard of Sieverts, let alone Grays! Actually, it could be argued that in some cases internal dose is less 'effective' (as in less harm/potential harm) as the dose is delivered possibly over many years (up to 50) but counted in year 1.A dose of 1 sievert is assessed currently as giving a 5.5% of developing cancer, though this has changed over time as more experience of low level doses is gained. Originally the only info was from big exposure events then scaled down, however that has not proved to be a linear scale.
with your 2nd para you're drifting way off topic for the general discussion! ... and someone followed you!
hidetheelephants said:
Health physics is moving on, LNT is on borrowed time as a regulatory and safety framework.
hmmm... I would actually be surprised if we were to move significantly away from it within my remaining professional life (which I expect/hope to be roughly 15 years).For the benefit of anyone actually interested but confused: LNT = Linear Non-Threshold. i.e. the generalisation that health effect (for instance cancer induction) is directly proportional to dose received, with no minimum dose threshold - so even a tiny tiny dose of radiation could be responsible for a cancer, but the probability would be very low and difficult to attribute.
Having followed the pair of you down the rabbit hole I'll step away from my temptation to comment on the recent discussion and have another sip of wine!
PS - not that I should really be surprised with PH - but sometimes caught out by the collective knowledge that is available here!
Sway said:
No evacuation happened where he was. Certainly within ten miles - he could see the plant from his bedroom window...
Bottled water ran out after two days. There was a couple of week period where they were drinking anything they could.
Sorry to be blunt, but can you please re-check this? I'd like to hear the name of the town/village where he was living. It just doesn't seem to add up for me.Bottled water ran out after two days. There was a couple of week period where they were drinking anything they could.
Also slightly nonplussed to hear that his daughter is still living in the area? This despite her apparently being part of an 'AKB48'-style performance troupe which would have daily activities in the major cities (and mainly Tokyo). I can't imagine that regular commuting from anywhere near Fukushima would make logistical sense - let alone any other kind of logic - given her career.
At the very least, I think there might be a fair bit of misunderstanding involved here.
I'll have a chat with SiL to get more details. There may be an element of Chinese whispers due to the route info takes to me - only relaying what I'm told.
As for the daughter, she's 16, and mother is still in the area. No idea how much time she spends there, but she's not old enough to have permanently moved out.
I'm not personally close to that side of the family - never met or even spoken to ill brother before he came down to visit a couple of months ago. SiL visits every few months, but more to catch up with my other half.
I will be asking what has been said about exposure being the cause, and whether it's been reported through the 'right' channels.
As for the daughter, she's 16, and mother is still in the area. No idea how much time she spends there, but she's not old enough to have permanently moved out.
I'm not personally close to that side of the family - never met or even spoken to ill brother before he came down to visit a couple of months ago. SiL visits every few months, but more to catch up with my other half.
I will be asking what has been said about exposure being the cause, and whether it's been reported through the 'right' channels.
llewop said:
hidetheelephants said:
Health physics is moving on, LNT is on borrowed time as a regulatory and safety framework.
hmmm... I would actually be surprised if we were to move significantly away from it within my remaining professional life (which I expect/hope to be roughly 15 years).hidetheelephants said:
There are moves afoot in the US, although as with all such things the legislative process is liable to do odd things.
aahhh - the country that hasn't even adopted the last set of dose limits proposed by ICRP (incorporated in UK legislation in 1999). The basis for my statement is the cycle of recommendations, directives, regulations that we're subject to, we're currently expecting next version of IRRs in 2 - 3 years time, based on 2007 ICRP recommendations. So even if this/next year ICRP were to dramatically change their recommendations (which going away from LNT would be) it would take quite some time to be debated and agreed before being mandated into legislation. Enough on that from me - if you want to continue discussing, I'd suggest as thread in 'science' rather than O/T here.
llewop said:
Gary C said:
That's sort of true, dose in Sieverts takes into account the way the dose is received and the biological sensitivity of organs with weighting factors such that a committed effective dose (internal) should have the same risk as an equivalent dose (external) dose but you will need far less Grays (energy absorbed) of internal exposure than for external exposure of the same dose.
A dose of 1 sievert is assessed currently as giving a 5.5% of developing cancer, though this has changed over time as more experience of low level doses is gained. Originally the only info was from big exposure events then scaled down, however that has not proved to be a linear scale.
1st para: Why did you back into Gray's having dealt with the different Sieverts!? Most people haven't heard of Sieverts, let alone Grays! Actually, it could be argued that in some cases internal dose is less 'effective' (as in less harm/potential harm) as the dose is delivered possibly over many years (up to 50) but counted in year 1.A dose of 1 sievert is assessed currently as giving a 5.5% of developing cancer, though this has changed over time as more experience of low level doses is gained. Originally the only info was from big exposure events then scaled down, however that has not proved to be a linear scale.
with your 2nd para you're drifting way off topic for the general discussion! ... and someone followed you!
hidetheelephants said:
Health physics is moving on, LNT is on borrowed time as a regulatory and safety framework.
hmmm... I would actually be surprised if we were to move significantly away from it within my remaining professional life (which I expect/hope to be roughly 15 years).For the benefit of anyone actually interested but confused: LNT = Linear Non-Threshold. i.e. the generalisation that health effect (for instance cancer induction) is directly proportional to dose received, with no minimum dose threshold - so even a tiny tiny dose of radiation could be responsible for a cancer, but the probability would be very low and difficult to attribute.
Having followed the pair of you down the rabbit hole I'll step away from my temptation to comment on the recent discussion and have another sip of wine!
PS - not that I should really be surprised with PH - but sometimes caught out by the collective knowledge that is available here!
next the becquerel !
V8 Fettler said:
Some involvement in the construction of THORP but minimal experience of an operational reprocessing environment, I have an important question for the seasoned nuclear engineers on here: is it possible to "zone out" of the Sellafield beep?
Not completely. You ignore the ping/pong, until it stops. Then run.eldar said:
V8 Fettler said:
Some involvement in the construction of THORP but minimal experience of an operational reprocessing environment, I have an important question for the seasoned nuclear engineers on here: is it possible to "zone out" of the Sellafield beep?
Not completely. You ignore the ping/pong, until it stops. Then run.
hairykrishna said:
hidetheelephants said:
Is there an english translation of this available?
It's the criticality alarm. It constantly makes a slow 'ping pong' noise when everything is ok...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtNgOeqBKQU
hidetheelephants said:
eldar said:
V8 Fettler said:
Some involvement in the construction of THORP but minimal experience of an operational reprocessing environment, I have an important question for the seasoned nuclear engineers on here: is it possible to "zone out" of the Sellafield beep?
Not completely. You ignore the ping/pong, until it stops. Then run.eldar said:
V8 Fettler said:
Some involvement in the construction of THORP but minimal experience of an operational reprocessing environment, I have an important question for the seasoned nuclear engineers on here: is it possible to "zone out" of the Sellafield beep?
Not completely. You ignore the ping/pong, until it stops. Then run.brass electroplatingquote=eldar]
Would running help? Or would it likely be too late by then.V8 Fettler said:
Some involvement in the construction of THORP but minimal experience of an operational reprocessing environment, I have an important question for the seasoned nuclear engineers on here: is it possible to "zone out" of the Sellafield beep?
Not completely. You ignore the ping/pong, until it stops. Then run., shielding, distance, etc.rhinochopig said:
Einion Yrth said:
eldar said:
V8 Fettler said:
Some involvement in the construction of THORP but minimal experience of an operational reprocessing environment, I have an important question for the seasoned nuclear engineers on here: is it possible to "zone out" of the Sellafield beep?
Not completely. You ignore the ping/pong, until it stops. Then run., shielding, distance, etc.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff