A guide to radiation for the clueless...

Percy1983

I does my head in when people don't understand the basics, by all means I am no expert but I can see the differences between Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Was trying to explain to a women at work how with Chernobyl the top of the reactor literally blew off and there was no containment stucture in place. In Fukushima the reactors are mostly intact and the containent structure seem to have held, yes Fukushima could still turn into a bigger problem but it has a long way to go to become Chernobyl.

I remember watch some videos about the liquidators (or bio robots) at Chernobyl laiterally clearing the roof of the Chernobyl reactor, the radiation levels they where exposed too must have been something else and I would be suprised if many survived. (Good few videos online online to watch about them)

michaels

To be fair tho they do have a 'half life' and indeed it is the decay of these elements that makes them dangerous but also means that the level of danger declines - plutonium of course has a long half life...

ninky wrote: »

there is a difference between radiation and radioactive isotopes (e.g. iodine 131 and cesium 137). whilst radiation levels may reduce relatively quickly radiocative isotopes once released get into the food chain and cause longterm health problems. radio active isotopes have now been detected in the food chain (and tap water). this is more of a longterm worry than radiation levels tbh.

mbga9pgf

Well, lets put it this way, its going to be a great opportunity for Japan to update its outdated reactors (built in the 1970s). THing is, will there be the political will power?

ninky_2

Percy1983 wrote: »

Was trying to explain to a women at work how with Chernobyl the top of the reactor literally blew off and there was no containment stucture in place.

there is no containment on the (re-criticalised) spent fuel rods. these pose an even bigger threat than chernobyl.

so there is a difference yes. but one which makes fukushima a greater (not lesser) threat than chernobyl. not to mention the geographical proximity to a highly populated and globally significant city.

ninky_2

michaels wrote: »

To be fair tho they do have a 'half life' and indeed it is the decay of these elements that makes them dangerous but also means that the level of danger declines - plutonium of course has a long half life...

the half life is offset by the fact that they become ever more concentrated with each stage of the food chain.

mbga9pgf

Percy1983 wrote: »

I does my head in when people don't understand the basics, by all means I am no expert but I can see the differences between Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Was trying to explain to a women at work how with Chernobyl the top of the reactor literally blew off and there was no containment stucture in place. In Fukushima the reactors are mostly intact and the containent structure seem to have held, yes Fukushima could still turn into a bigger problem but it has a long way to go to become Chernobyl.

I remember watch some videos about the liquidators (or bio robots) at Chernobyl laiterally clearing the roof of the Chernobyl reactor, the radiation levels they where exposed too must have been something else and I would be suprised if many survived. (Good few videos online online to watch about them)

Yep, brave, brave men...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8oVzYCBqNA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH7ot08Y3ms&feature=related

The reporter that shot this footage was dead within a week of radiation poisoning. They had to be buried in lead lined coffins to prevent contamination.Many commented they could taste a metallic taste as they were up there. Absolute hero's .

If you watch the video, they are shovelling the radioactive pile (control rods, core material and highly radioactive ash) back in.

ninky_2

the 'zone of alienation' at chernobyl was only 30km. prypiat only had a population of 50k. compare that to what is happening at fukushima. contaminated food is being detected 75 miles from the plant. contaminated tap water even further afield.

drc

I wonder what level of radiation these guys were exposed to;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94ZWE8qxiAg

Percy1983

ninky wrote: »

there is no containment on the (re-criticalised) spent fuel rods. these pose an even bigger threat than chernobyl.

so there is a difference yes. but one which makes fukushima a greater (not lesser) threat than chernobyl. not to mention the geographical proximity to a highly populated and globally significant city.

Well yes it is of course the stored rods which are the problem right now and it worrying to think they weren't contained by design.

By all means yes the location is a lot more populated to which there is the potential for much larger problems.

My point is chernobyl went boom and immediately the harm was done with little to stop it (essentially all they could do is contain and clean up), in Japan there is still a very good chance that it can be stopped before such a problem happens.

ninky_2

the WHO is now saying that the situation regarding food chain contamination is "more serious than we thought".

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/21/japan.nuclear.food/

The detection of high levels of radioactivity in certain Japanese foods -- and the nation's subsequent clampdown on their sales -- signals the food safety situation is "more serious" than originally thought, a World Health Organization official said Monday.
Peter Cordingley, the Manila-based spokesman for the WHO's regional office for the Western Pacific, said his organization believes people in Japan "have to be cautious" about what they eat and drink.

all very well to signal caution. not so easy when the shops have sold out of bottle water and contaminated tap water is the only option for irrigating crops and giving to animals as well as cooking and washing yourself and clothing.