Lorry drives for 130 miles leaking nuclear waste
Discussion
This is just shock amazed nobody was killed or injured as a result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/47
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/47
Good old BBC being wooly in the light of a serious incident. Who writes this shit? 11 Year olds? We gather how 
serious it is and radiation causes people to melt, etc, etc. Did the plug leave a trail of material "Material escaped" or was it a shielding plug "Radiation Escaped". For the layman, radiation should not equal material. Did the "beam" (radiation?) irradiate the road surface a thousand times higher than a high dose or is there a trail of actual stuff. They are inprecise and whoever writes this shit should be well fired.
I am very pro-nuclear and leaks are bloody serious, it is a serious issue how this shit is reported and worded correctly. The chumps in question show their lack of education and knowledge. Grrrr
serious it is and radiation causes people to melt, etc, etc. Did the plug leave a trail of material "Material escaped" or was it a shielding plug "Radiation Escaped". For the layman, radiation should not equal material. Did the "beam" (radiation?) irradiate the road surface a thousand times higher than a high dose or is there a trail of actual stuff. They are inprecise and whoever writes this shit should be well fired. I am very pro-nuclear and leaks are bloody serious, it is a serious issue how this shit is reported and worded correctly. The chumps in question show their lack of education and knowledge. Grrrr
love machine said:
Good old BBC being wooly in the light of a serious incident. Who writes this shit? 11 Year olds? We gather how serious it is and radiation causes people to melt, etc, etc. Did the plug leave a trail of material "Material escaped" or was it a shielding plug "Radiation Escaped". For the layman, radiation should not equal material. Did the "beam" (radiation?) irradiate the road surface a thousand times higher than a high dose or is there a trail of actual stuff. They are
I am very pro-nuclear and leaks are bloody serious, it is a serious issue how this shit is reported and worded correctly. The chumps in question show their lack of education and knowledge. Grrrr
I totally agree...
never let scientific reality get in the way of a good story. It wasn't leaking anything, it wat emitting a narrow beam of powerful ionising gamma rays. When they treat cancer patients they have several of these beams which are set to a low dose but are directed at the patient from several angles. where all these beams cross (at the tumour site) the dose is lethal and kills the tumour.
This was an oversight but there was never any real risk to anyone. Unless you were lay in the road as it passed over you (while the truck was at the lights).
Basically the story is utter tosh! Then again the average bbc science editor knows little or nothing about science (a 3rd in chemistry 20 years ago and flicking through New Scientist every thursday doesn't make you a scientist!)
This was an oversight but there was never any real risk to anyone. Unless you were lay in the road as it passed over you (while the truck was at the lights).
Basically the story is utter tosh! Then again the average bbc science editor knows little or nothing about science (a 3rd in chemistry 20 years ago and flicking through New Scientist every thursday doesn't make you a scientist!)
Rob-C said:
WTF have the HSE done that justifies costs of £150k?
Don't you know that the HSE operates by taking money from companies so that they can't afford to fix the problems the HSE are fining them for in the first place? It's a fantastic system, ensuring the health and safety of government executives.
MilnerR said:
never let scientific reality get in the way of a good story. It wasn't leaking anything, it wat emitting a narrow beam of powerful ionising gamma rays. When they treat cancer patients they have several of these beams which are set to a low dose but are directed at the patient from several angles. where all these beams cross (at the tumour site) the dose is lethal and kills the tumour.
Except in the case of a patient who was being treated in a similar way a couple of weeks back who died as a result...
Can't be bothered to read the article... was it a Cobalt source? I have a few of those at work that could easily kill you. I can't give the bloody things away 
Edit: OK I read it... it probably was Cobalt as it was a medical source. Must have been a fairly small one if it only needed a 2.5 tonne container... nine tonnes of lead is usual for a new one. (Further edit: and AEAT would err on the side of caution and use a bigger pot than necessary anyway)
As for the dose rate... typically, the maximum allowable long-term (ie constantly for a 40-hour week) is 7.5uSv/h. That's 'microSieverts per hour', and is applicable to those workers (like me) who have their dose count monitored by the NRPB (records held indefinitely, and we're all guinea-pigs in effect). Non-monitored ('unclassified') workers ie you, the public, is only allowed 2.5 uSv/h.
So if they apply 2.5uSv/h as safe and 7.5 as a high dose, then 100 times that is 7500 and 1000 times that is 75000. Neither of which I would feel comfy standing in a field of for any length of time, although I've seen 10,000 a few times for a few seconds and I'm not dead yet.
As it's an hourly rate, you could divide 7500 by 7.5 and get 100, ie an hour at that rate would be your 'allocation' for 2.5 working weeks. It's cumulative, but not necessarily fatal.
Now I don't have my file of all knowledge to hand, but I'm fairly sure that you need a dose of 1 Sievert/h (ie several times more than 7500 for one hour) to incur actual symptoms of illness and more like 5 Sv/h to risk (almost certain) death.
If that source was 'spent' enough that it was being decommissioned, then I doubt that it would radiate anything like 5 Sv/h from a port of a few millimetres in diameter, even with the shipping plug left out.
So yes, someone fouled up, but short of lying under the truck looking up the exit port for a good while, I think they're exaggerating the seriousness of the issue.
But it's good to know that AEA Technology gets it wrong sometimes too
>> Edited by wedg1e on Saturday 18th February 21:41
Edit: OK I read it... it probably was Cobalt as it was a medical source. Must have been a fairly small one if it only needed a 2.5 tonne container... nine tonnes of lead is usual for a new one. (Further edit: and AEAT would err on the side of caution and use a bigger pot than necessary anyway)
As for the dose rate... typically, the maximum allowable long-term (ie constantly for a 40-hour week) is 7.5uSv/h. That's 'microSieverts per hour', and is applicable to those workers (like me) who have their dose count monitored by the NRPB (records held indefinitely, and we're all guinea-pigs in effect). Non-monitored ('unclassified') workers ie you, the public, is only allowed 2.5 uSv/h.
So if they apply 2.5uSv/h as safe and 7.5 as a high dose, then 100 times that is 7500 and 1000 times that is 75000. Neither of which I would feel comfy standing in a field of for any length of time, although I've seen 10,000 a few times for a few seconds and I'm not dead yet.
As it's an hourly rate, you could divide 7500 by 7.5 and get 100, ie an hour at that rate would be your 'allocation' for 2.5 working weeks. It's cumulative, but not necessarily fatal.
Now I don't have my file of all knowledge to hand, but I'm fairly sure that you need a dose of 1 Sievert/h (ie several times more than 7500 for one hour) to incur actual symptoms of illness and more like 5 Sv/h to risk (almost certain) death.
If that source was 'spent' enough that it was being decommissioned, then I doubt that it would radiate anything like 5 Sv/h from a port of a few millimetres in diameter, even with the shipping plug left out.
So yes, someone fouled up, but short of lying under the truck looking up the exit port for a good while, I think they're exaggerating the seriousness of the issue.
But it's good to know that AEA Technology gets it wrong sometimes too
>> Edited by wedg1e on Saturday 18th February 21:41
Rob-C said:
WTF have the HSE done that justifies costs of £150k?
In the light of it actually being a gamma leak, there is probably little to spend that kind of bucks on, unless the white lines use reflective bacteria!
More of a concern to the public is probably the use of Lead DiChromate in double yellow lines, but then you'd have to spend 4 hours a day licking them to experience any ill effects. Probably a better chance of getting a sore back.
Health and Safety! Better ban yellow lines now, there is a serious risk!
Weetos meet monitor moment 
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff