background radiation

[<:"3~]

in terms of background radiation why is it that some places have higher levels than others (within UK) and which jobs cause the highest exposure to radiation?

thanks

[swansont]

in terms of background radiation why is it that some places have higher levels than others (within UK) and which jobs cause the highest exposure to radiation?

thanks

 

You have background from the earth, which depends on the local makeup of the land. If you have lots of granite around, for example, you'll tend to have more background because there's Uranium and other materials from the decay chain. Areas at higher altitude get more background from the sun and outer space because there's less atmosphere to attenuate it. Certain areas are prone to atmospheric conditions which can trap radon gas, which would otherwise tend to disperse.

[John Cuthber]

I think that being a space explorer gives the highest doses.

[Joatmon]

People who have recently been exposed to severe, even fatal, doses of radiation are those dealing with nuclear disasters such as has happened in Japan and Russia.

[nuclear1]

People who have recently been exposed to severe, even fatal, doses of radiation are those dealing with nuclear disasters such as has happened in Japan and Russia.

 

Since this is a "Science" forum I suggest that posters stick to facts and not make stuff up.

 

 

For example there has not been a single fatal or even severe dose of radiation from the Japan disaster.

 

The doses received in Japan by the nuclear plant workers were below what are considered normal background

levels in certain parts of the world such as Ramsar Iran.

[swansont]

Since this is a "Science" forum I suggest that posters stick to facts and not make stuff up.

 

 

For example there has not been a single fatal or even severe dose of radiation from the Japan disaster.

 

The doses received in Japan by the nuclear plant workers were below what are considered normal background

levels in certain parts of the world such as Ramsar Iran.

 

In keeping with the spirit of your post, how about a citation for these claims?

[Aethelwulf]

 

In keeping with the spirit of your post, how about a citation for these claims?

 

Yes, seconded.

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

Yes, seconded.

 

 

Yeah, I hate to do a me too but that really needs to be supported...

[Aethelwulf]

Yeah, I hate to do a me too but that really needs to be supported...

 

Very well.

 

Can I see some citations to back nuclear1's post?

[John Cuthber]

Define "recently" but

"The three operators' doses were far above permissible limits at 3,000, 10,000, and 17,000 mSv; the two receiving the higher doses died several months later."

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident

[nuclear1]

I assumed Joatman was referring to the Fukushima disaster since it was coupled to Chernobyl in his sentence.

 

Here is a recent article in "Nature" that backs my position.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686

[swansont]

"two operators in the control rooms for reactor units 3 and 4 received doses above 600 mSv" Average exposure for humans from background is around 3 mSv per year. Wikipedia says that the Ramsar exposure levels are 10 to 260 mSv.

[Joatmon]

Since this is a "Science" forum I suggest that posters stick to facts and not make stuff up.

 

 

For example there has not been a single fatal or even severe dose of radiation from the Japan disaster.

 

The doses received in Japan by the nuclear plant workers were below what are considered normal background

levels in certain parts of the world such as Ramsar Iran.

OK I'll limit myself to say that there seems to be no doubt that several workers at Chernobyl gave their lives in trying to limit the radiation effects.

 

"In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of whom 31 died within the first three months.^[13][99] Most of the victims were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the exposure to radiation in the smoke was.

I personally applaud the heroism of the Japanese workers who, knowing of the Chernobyl disaster, were prepared to also give their lives in the same way.

Radiation can not only kill you quickly, but can kill you slowly by starting cancer and even kill the unborn through genetic defects. It's probably too early (IMO) to say that there will be no deaths among the Japanese workers as a consequence of the risks they took to benefit the Japanese population. We may need to wait tens of years for scientific evidence before we can say nobody died.

 

http://en.wikipedia....nd_local_people

Edited July 2, 2012 by Joatmon

[nuclear1]

It is interesting to note how few people died from Chernobyl considering it was the worst case scenario of a badly designed reactor with a positive reactivity coefficient, run by operators who did not know what they were doing, running a dangerous experiment.

Unlike the west, where we encase our reactors in buildings with metres thick concrete walls, Chernobyl had only a sheet metal shed to keep the weather out.

 

To quote from the wikipedia article Joatman referenced, Chernobyl increased lifelong cancer rates over 80 years as 0.3%. To put this in perspective, this is in comparison to the roughly 30%-40% of people who will get cancer from drinking beer, eating red meat etc.

 

In the case of Fukushima, the numbers of people who are expected to suffer any radiation related consequences are even lower.

 

The sad thing with both Chernobyl and Fukushima is that far more death and suffering was caused by radiophobia. When people referred to them as "The Walking Dead" etc, these poor people suffered psychological damage and engaged in risky life damaging behaviour like drinking and smoking etc.

 

Personally, I believe the people responsible for spreading this fear to advance their own agendas, who outright lied and distorted the facts, should be held accountable.

It is akin to falsely yelling fire in a theatre, knowing that people will panic and injure themselves.

 

[Enthalpy]

It is interesting to note how few people died from Chernobyl considering it was the worst case scenario of a badly designed reactor with a positive reactivity coefficient...

Unlike the west, where we encase our reactors in buildings with metres thick concrete walls, Chernobyl had only a sheet metal shed to keep the weather out.

 

Chernobyl killed provably many dozens of people, made a province unusable for several centuries... If you include deaths due to low dosis, it's thousands more - that's why nuclear propagandists spread nonsense as a "minimal dose" for cancer. Compare that with a worst case scenario of wind or Solar power.

 

About positive reactivity coefficient, you should have a look at the "Fouth generation reactors"... The ones cooled with sodium. As opposed to water cooling, loosing the sodium increases the reactivity.

 

Some reactors have a confinement, some have none, in Russia (the VVER) as in the west (the research reactor in the middle of the city of Grenoble).

Shall I remind you that the Fukushima reactors, whose confinement failed each and every time, were of Mark-1 type, designed in the US by GE?

 

Did you notice you're on a science forum? Please keep your standard arguments for the kindergarten public.

[John Cuthber]

I suspect that both sides of the debate exaggerate their cases.

 

In an attempt to bring some levity to the discussion

http://xkcd.com/690/

[nuclear1]

Chernobyl killed provably many dozens of people, made a province unusable for several centuries... If you include deaths due to low dosis, it's thousands more - that's why nuclear propagandists spread nonsense as a "minimal dose" for cancer. Compare that with a worst case scenario of wind or Solar power.

 

About positive reactivity coefficient, you should have a look at the "Fouth generation reactors"... The ones cooled with sodium. As opposed to water cooling, loosing the sodium increases the reactivity.

 

Some reactors have a confinement, some have none, in Russia (the VVER) as in the west (the research reactor in the middle of the city of Grenoble).

Shall I remind you that the Fukushima reactors, whose confinement failed each and every time, were of Mark-1 type, designed in the US by GE?

 

Did you notice you're on a science forum? Please keep your standard arguments for the kindergarten public.

 

Which part of what I said is incorrect?

 

 

What's with your tone and personal attacks?

 

"province unusable for several centuries" do you have any data to back this up?

 

I addressed the idea of low dose cancers in my post. Look up the "Sciences" article I linked to or UNSCEAR for projected numbers of extra cancers.

0.3% extra chance seems small to me.

Also there is a marked difference between single high doses and long term lower doses. As long as the dose is well below the spontaneous DNA mutation rate the body doesn't notice any difference. That is why people who live in areas of higher natural background radiation do not have higher rates of illness than those who live in low radiation areas.

 

As for Sodium Fast Reactors, they rely mainly on thermal expansion of the fuel which allows more neutrons to escape, damping the chain reaction. Do you have a more specific concern? I would be happy to answer but you were a bit vague.

 

I suspect that both sides of the debate exaggerate their cases.

 

In an attempt to bring some levity to the discussion

http://xkcd.com/690/

 

I have tried to back up my assertions with reliable sources.

Here is a good one for levity and radiation perspective.

(I love xkcd)

 

http://xkcd.com/radiation/