Japan Fukushima nuclear thread
Discussion
MOTORVATOR said:
I'm mindful that we claim 100s of thousands of deaths per annum from lung cancer caused by radon but when we see graphs like yours above is it actually a case of 14% of those are actually caused by medical emmissions? Of course not, but the incidence must I guess have been lower prior to any additional man made emmissions.
Don't know that anyone can quantitfy it precisely.
We may well have a case here of a very minor increase of something actually killing us all to death.... a bit like CO2.
I think your figures are a little out: from a quick check lung cancers per year are slightly over 40,000 - 85-90% of which can be related to smoking - radon may be responsible for something like 9% (so No 2 behind smoking as a cause/risk) - about 3,600/year.Don't know that anyone can quantitfy it precisely.
We may well have a case here of a very minor increase of something actually killing us all to death.... a bit like CO2.
On the wider cancer issue, some are more particularly associated with radiation exposure and others not - but don't ask me to list or rank them, not my area of expertise!
MOTORVATOR said:
Don't know that anyone can quantitfy it precisely.
Almost certainly not. Have you read anything of the scientists monitoring Chernobyl? They routinely tape over their dosimeters. Alcohol is not allowed but they get pissed every night.Can't say I blame them for the latter. What they are doing is very dangerous, and they understand that. I'd want a drink, too.
llewop said:
MOTORVATOR said:
I'm mindful that we claim 100s of thousands of deaths per annum from lung cancer caused by radon but when we see graphs like yours above is it actually a case of 14% of those are actually caused by medical emmissions? Of course not, but the incidence must I guess have been lower prior to any additional man made emmissions.
Don't know that anyone can quantitfy it precisely.
We may well have a case here of a very minor increase of something actually killing us all to death.... a bit like CO2.
I think your figures are a little out: from a quick check lung cancers per year are slightly over 40,000 - 85-90% of which can be related to smoking - radon may be responsible for something like 9% (so No 2 behind smoking as a cause/risk) - about 3,600/year.Don't know that anyone can quantitfy it precisely.
We may well have a case here of a very minor increase of something actually killing us all to death.... a bit like CO2.
On the wider cancer issue, some are more particularly associated with radiation exposure and others not - but don't ask me to list or rank them, not my area of expertise!
I think nationally we use a figure of around 1000 directly attributable to radon but even then it is very distinctly down to an individual area. As developers we have to check for it and put in safety measures on new housing but know before the results come back that it's mainly a west country problem.
Point is it's probably impossible to determine which death was attributable to smoking or radon and then what about the ones that are a bit of both.
The smoking will be an interesting one as well, don't know what they'll blame it on when they finally make smoking illegal.
Brazil Nuts and the dentist that's it. 
MOTORVATOR said:
Sorry Llewop I was talking worldwide figures.
I think nationally we use a figure of around 1000 directly attributable to radon but even then it is very distinctly down to an individual area. As developers we have to check for it and put in safety measures on new housing but know before the results come back that it's mainly a west country problem.
Point is it's probably impossible to determine which death was attributable to smoking or radon and then what about the ones that are a bit of both.
The smoking will be an interesting one as well, don't know what they'll blame it on when they finally make smoking illegal. Brazil Nuts and the dentist that's it.
okay - that would explain the order of magnitude difference - we'd been talking UK figures so I was sticking with those. But absolutely right about determining which was which, very very difficult except in some specific cases.I think nationally we use a figure of around 1000 directly attributable to radon but even then it is very distinctly down to an individual area. As developers we have to check for it and put in safety measures on new housing but know before the results come back that it's mainly a west country problem.
Point is it's probably impossible to determine which death was attributable to smoking or radon and then what about the ones that are a bit of both.
The smoking will be an interesting one as well, don't know what they'll blame it on when they finally make smoking illegal.
Brazil Nuts and the dentist that's it. we're topic drifting, but yes radon levels vary massively - even between adjacent houses. It also does some weird things when your workplaces are less conventional!
llewop said:
fair enoughto carry on... radon is vearing into 'the dark arts' in some respects; at times there seems little logic in where you find it and what it does
My understanding from a building perspective is that it is naturally produced gas from the chain of decay of uranium all through the earth. Obviously more concentrated where ore containing rock is.
Has a short half life in the order of a few days but is supplied at something close to the rate of decay so is in rough equilibrium in atmosphere.
The problem with housing is that the lack of air movement removes the ability for it to maintain the equilibrium with the rest of atmosphere and you get a build up internally if you are in high radon venting areas. So we seal the floors up and provide positive ventilation underneath to stop the problem.
Other than that I know it's radioactive but the mechanics of what it does to you I wouldn't have a clue.
I tend to be more up on source / pathway / receptor of hydrocarbon and heavy metal contamination etc as that's what we get to deal with in cleaning up sites before development, but it makes me aware of the cumulative nature of any form of contaminant. i.e. the arsenic or lead in your wall paint won't kill you on it's own as won't the uptake in your carrots from the garden, the fallout from a coal burning fireplace, the shellfish platter or a high concentration in your drinking water supply but have all of them together and you may well get a problem.
The long winded point being that I distrust anything that says only a small percentage addition so don't worry.
Interesting stuff. I expect diesel particulates have far more effect than radon, and smoking far more than that - very difficult to quantify.
I think some people are better build to withstand radiation too - susceptibilty appears to vary from person to person.
I was reading a couple of fascinating articles about what happens when you get too close to powerful sources, you probably know them already but I'll link them here for people who don't.
The first is the Goiania Accident, September 13, 1987, a piece of medical equipment is abandoned, for legal reasons it gets neglected and after a while someone steals it for scrap. Then a whole bunch of people are attracted to the glowing blue source and play with it and use it as body paint..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
The second is the 'Demon core' a bunch of people playing around with a ball of plutonium and some beryllium hemispheres. Fun while it lasted but unbelievably cocky, Louis Slotin was balancing criticality by the wedging a flat screwdriver between the top neutron reflector and certain death. He slipped and got a fatal dose in probably under a second - he passed away 9 days after.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
In Japan it looks like the temperature of Unit 1 is falling, the rest seems to be a game of pumping in water at the top and sucking it out of the bottom, I wonder how long it will be until they can so a proper survey of the pipework and joints.
I think some people are better build to withstand radiation too - susceptibilty appears to vary from person to person.
I was reading a couple of fascinating articles about what happens when you get too close to powerful sources, you probably know them already but I'll link them here for people who don't.
The first is the Goiania Accident, September 13, 1987, a piece of medical equipment is abandoned, for legal reasons it gets neglected and after a while someone steals it for scrap. Then a whole bunch of people are attracted to the glowing blue source and play with it and use it as body paint..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
The second is the 'Demon core' a bunch of people playing around with a ball of plutonium and some beryllium hemispheres. Fun while it lasted but unbelievably cocky, Louis Slotin was balancing criticality by the wedging a flat screwdriver between the top neutron reflector and certain death. He slipped and got a fatal dose in probably under a second - he passed away 9 days after.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
In Japan it looks like the temperature of Unit 1 is falling, the rest seems to be a game of pumping in water at the top and sucking it out of the bottom, I wonder how long it will be until they can so a proper survey of the pipework and joints.
Globs said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
In Japan it looks like the temperature of Unit 1 is falling, the rest seems to be a game of pumping in water at the top and sucking it out of the bottom, I wonder how long it will be until they can so a proper survey of the pipework and joints.
Jeepers! That's not bravado; it was just plain stupidity.In Japan it looks like the temperature of Unit 1 is falling, the rest seems to be a game of pumping in water at the top and sucking it out of the bottom, I wonder how long it will be until they can so a proper survey of the pipework and joints.
Let's hope the Japs are being more sensible.
MOTORVATOR said:
My understanding from a building perspective is that it is naturally produced gas from the chain of decay of uranium all through the earth. Obviously more concentrated where ore containing rock is.
Has a short half life in the order of a few days but is supplied at something close to the rate of decay so is in rough equilibrium in atmosphere.
The problem with housing is that the lack of air movement removes the ability for it to maintain the equilibrium with the rest of atmosphere and you get a build up internally if you are in high radon venting areas. So we seal the floors up and provide positive ventilation underneath to stop the problem.
Other than that I know it's radioactive but the mechanics of what it does to you I wouldn't have a clue.
I tend to be more up on source / pathway / receptor of hydrocarbon and heavy metal contamination etc as that's what we get to deal with in cleaning up sites before development, but it makes me aware of the cumulative nature of any form of contaminant. i.e. the arsenic or lead in your wall paint won't kill you on it's own as won't the uptake in your carrots from the garden, the fallout from a coal burning fireplace, the shellfish platter or a high concentration in your drinking water supply but have all of them together and you may well get a problem.
The long winded point being that I distrust anything that says only a small percentage addition so don't worry.
Yep - a couple of stops down the chain from uranium-228. What it does to you? Much the same as Uranium itself could - because it is a gas is why it ends up being mainly a lung risk. After it gets there or decays there..is where it all gets murky - the mechanisms of radiation damage are not well understood, including the latency period that can run to decades.Has a short half life in the order of a few days but is supplied at something close to the rate of decay so is in rough equilibrium in atmosphere.
The problem with housing is that the lack of air movement removes the ability for it to maintain the equilibrium with the rest of atmosphere and you get a build up internally if you are in high radon venting areas. So we seal the floors up and provide positive ventilation underneath to stop the problem.
Other than that I know it's radioactive but the mechanics of what it does to you I wouldn't have a clue.
I tend to be more up on source / pathway / receptor of hydrocarbon and heavy metal contamination etc as that's what we get to deal with in cleaning up sites before development, but it makes me aware of the cumulative nature of any form of contaminant. i.e. the arsenic or lead in your wall paint won't kill you on it's own as won't the uptake in your carrots from the garden, the fallout from a coal burning fireplace, the shellfish platter or a high concentration in your drinking water supply but have all of them together and you may well get a problem.
The long winded point being that I distrust anything that says only a small percentage addition so don't worry.
I've learnt to trust what I can measure - damned sight easier to measure (most) radioactives than some of the other things you mention, certainly in terms of career exposure.
Contaminated land investigations can (almost literally) be a minefield, have tripped over a few interesting ones over the years, corporate memories of what has happened in the past can be shorter than you'd like.
llewop said:
Yep - a couple of stops down the chain from uranium-228. What it does to you? Much the same as Uranium itself could - because it is a gas is why it ends up being mainly a lung risk. After it gets there or decays there..is where it all gets murky - the mechanisms of radiation damage are not well understood, including the latency period that can run to decades.
I've learnt to trust what I can measure - damned sight easier to measure (most) radioactives than some of the other things you mention, certainly in terms of career exposure.
Contaminated land investigations can (almost literally) be a minefield, have tripped over a few interesting ones over the years, corporate memories of what has happened in the past can be shorter than you'd like.
True about the measurements. I'm a qualified operator for x-ray flourescence sampling as some bright spark environmental engineer reckoned it would be suitable for instant anaylsis of individual soils samples allowing us to sort stockpiles immediately and improving process times in a heavy metals environment.I've learnt to trust what I can measure - damned sight easier to measure (most) radioactives than some of the other things you mention, certainly in terms of career exposure.
Contaminated land investigations can (almost literally) be a minefield, have tripped over a few interesting ones over the years, corporate memories of what has happened in the past can be shorter than you'd like.
All approved technically by the EA as a method but when I done back to back testing lab tests for individual elements it proved next to useless with visual and olfactory evidence and an idea of historic use actually giving a better estimate of what we were dealing with. Went through numerous recalibrations etc but just could not get meaningful results probably due to the small sampling area and depth.
And yes corporate memories are short and there would be many a person on here surprised just what they are living next door to. Problem is the EA rely on redevelopment to fund clean up rather than polluter pays as either the legislation would have to be used retrospectively or the polluter just doesn't exist now.
The problem with that is that if the clean up cost exceeds the eventual land value then it is just not going happen so the really bad sites don't get done.
Globs said:
horrible radiation accidents
You missed the living autopsy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Kelley_critical...
llewop said:
fair enoughto carry on... radon is vearing into 'the dark arts' in some respects; at times there seems little logic in where you find it and what it does
We had to have active underfloor vents, a radon sump, fans on permanently and external pipes up the side of the house to get it down to 200 bq m-3.
The quote below from http://www.ukradon.org/article.php?key=reduceradon suggest that even that isn't ideal:
"Radon Action Level and Target Level
What is the Action Level?
The Health Protection Agency recommends that radon levels should be reduced in homes where the average is more than 200 becquerels per metre cubed (200 Bq m-3). This recommendation has been endorsed by the Government.
This Action Level refers to the annual average concentration in a home, so radon measurements are carried out with two detectors (in a bedroom and living room) over three months, to average out short-term fluctuations.
What is the Target Level?
The Target Level of 100 Bq m-3 is the ideal outcome for remediation works in existing buildings and protective measures in new buildings. If the result of a radon assessment is between the Target and Action Levels, action to reduce the level should be seriously considered, especially if there is a smoker or ex-smoker in the home.
Lost_BMW said:
Our house in the Derbyshire Dales (new built in 1997) had Radon levels over twice the recognised 'safe' level at 560 bq m-3 - which we only found out as we got it monitored ourselves, so much for building regs and care of the builders, nice one!
A little too early to get caught by the regs I think. From memory 2000 building regs when it became a statutory requirement to identify it so difficult to blame the builder as around the time it was built was when the finalisation of risk levels and areas was taking place. That was all updated 2007 with new areas defining where and what protection is required.As well it's worth understanding that all the different changes in building regulations sometimes make a situation worse. Nowadays we have to build houses so that very little exchange of air from inside to out occurs to save the fluffy bunnies from CO2 effects. You can work out for yourself what that does to your Radon levels internally.
Whether you are down to ideal levels or not is rather dependant on what the levels are outside though, with all the ventilation possible you obviously can't reduce it to less than that.
MOTORVATOR said:
Whether you are down to ideal levels or not is rather dependant on what the levels are outside though, with all the ventilation possible you obviously can't reduce it to less than that.
open air levels tend to be quite low - nothing to keep it there, so it disperses. As Motorvator says, a way of further reducing the internal concentration is to ensure the house is well ventilated (keep some windows open) but that of course has implications on heating etc.From the IAEA report today
"The Agency, in agreement with the Japanese government, will dispatch two reactor experts to Japan. They will hold meetings with the Nuclear Safety Commission, NISA, TEPCO and other Japanese counterparts from Monday 4 April onwards. The objective of this visit is to exchange views with Japanese technical experts and to get first-hand information about the current status of reactors at Fukushima Daiichi, measures being taken and future plans to mitigate the accident."
why has it taken so long ?
"The Agency, in agreement with the Japanese government, will dispatch two reactor experts to Japan. They will hold meetings with the Nuclear Safety Commission, NISA, TEPCO and other Japanese counterparts from Monday 4 April onwards. The objective of this visit is to exchange views with Japanese technical experts and to get first-hand information about the current status of reactors at Fukushima Daiichi, measures being taken and future plans to mitigate the accident."
why has it taken so long ?
From the IAEA:
http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/summary-of-reactor-...
Reactor 2's core is severely damaged (the worst there) and all three reactors still have rods half uncovered, so I guess the main progress is that time has passed and it's decayed a bit.
Containment integrity of 2 and 3 is 'damage suspected' and of 1 is unknown. Still no instrumentation at unit 3. All now have freshwater injection.
I wonder what the cores look like inside. Three mile island looked like this:
- worse than people expected (the picture is a sonar survey).
http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/summary-of-reactor-...
Reactor 2's core is severely damaged (the worst there) and all three reactors still have rods half uncovered, so I guess the main progress is that time has passed and it's decayed a bit.
Containment integrity of 2 and 3 is 'damage suspected' and of 1 is unknown. Still no instrumentation at unit 3. All now have freshwater injection.
I wonder what the cores look like inside. Three mile island looked like this:
- worse than people expected (the picture is a sonar survey).
http://rt.com/news/island-japans-radioactive-water...
Holes reported in #2 containment - I assume due to one of the large explosions at the site.
Reactor #1 is the only one intact now, because it's the only one holding pressure. Reactor #2 and #3 have cracks in the RPV and #2 in the outer containment too it seems.
I guess all those people saying how great the containment systems were are going to have to modify their world view of containment integrity when faced with the force of steam explosions.
I guess now concrete has failed (it probably had no time to set) expanding foam will be used. I suspect the manual on how-to-patch-up-a-failed-containment-during-a-meltdown has not been written yet..
They do not quote for all outlets but these seem high to me - due to mixing perhaps? Units 5 and 6 should have no radioactive output.
Holes reported in #2 containment - I assume due to one of the large explosions at the site.
Reactor #1 is the only one intact now, because it's the only one holding pressure. Reactor #2 and #3 have cracks in the RPV and #2 in the outer containment too it seems.
I guess all those people saying how great the containment systems were are going to have to modify their world view of containment integrity when faced with the force of steam explosions.
I guess now concrete has failed (it probably had no time to set) expanding foam will be used. I suspect the manual on how-to-patch-up-a-failed-containment-during-a-meltdown has not been written yet..
They do not quote for all outlets but these seem high to me - due to mixing perhaps? Units 5 and 6 should have no radioactive output.
IAEA said:
On the 30 March, 180 000 Bq/l of I-131 and 15 000 Bq/l of Cs -137 were detected in the vicinity of the discharge water outlet of Unit 4.
The data reported for 27th - 30th March indicated that the levels at 30 m from the common discharge point of Units 5 and 6 were relatively constant at 45 000 - 55 000 Bq/l for I-131 and 10 000 - 15 000 Bq/l for Cs-137.
The data reported for 27th - 30th March indicated that the levels at 30 m from the common discharge point of Units 5 and 6 were relatively constant at 45 000 - 55 000 Bq/l for I-131 and 10 000 - 15 000 Bq/l for Cs-137.
Iodine-131 and Caesium-137 emissions are believed to be the same order of magnitude as Chernobyl. Both are of concern due to associated health risks, principally thyroid and bone cancers.
New Scientist Link
New Scientist Link
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff