A guide to radiation for the clueless...

mbga9pgf

Proof?

The fuel in these reactors isnt refined/enriched enough to provide a critical reaction. Besides, even IF id did go critical, you are talking about a momentary reaction. Nuclear weapons rely on focussed explosive charges and/or booster fission stages... Any very minor explosion would seperate the elements and wouldnt be anything like a critical reaction. look up what happend in the labs during the research for nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticality_accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin

JWF

ninky wrote: »

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.

Caesium from Chernobyl contaminated land in Cumbria enough to cause long term restrictions on the sale of sheep from the area, a significantly greater distance than 75km. That's not to say that Fukushima isn't serious and may get worse, but it definitely isn't as large a release as Chernobyl at the moment.

mbga9pgf

The two cant be compared. Chernobyll released thousands of times the mass of highly radioactive material than the bombs on Japan generated.

you get the idea from this:

amcluesent

I hope the iPhone 5 has a scintillation counter to show how many mSieverts/hr are about. Would be v.handy if Islamists explode a dirty bomb to help avoid the contamination.

Generali

Did anyone read the link in my OP? Just wondering because I'm seeing a lot of hysteria and little of it seems to refer to the post in the beginning.

drc

Generali wrote: »

Did anyone read the link in my OP? Just wondering because I'm seeing a lot of hysteria and little of it seems to refer to the post in the beginning.

I did. To sum up: The chart basically shows that we don't need to be worried about dying from radiation from the Japanese disaster. Great diagram btw :T.

RabbitMad

in the tory graph there is the statistic that 7 people have die from nuclear power in the last 10 years and 44 from windfarms.

Given the amount of energy generated that makes windfarms over 200 times more dnagerous than nuclear power.

A great use of statistics! (even if it is cobblers)

mbga9pgf

The issue with nuclear is the Fear, rather than the actual chances of death. I blame all those 60s B movies and daily mail articles about Devil GM crops.

Percy1983

mbga9pgf wrote: »

The issue with nuclear is the Fear, rather than the actual chances of death. I blame all those 60s B movies and daily mail articles about Devil GM crops.

This is true, how mnay believe if you live near a nuclear power station you babies will have 3 heads.

Joe_Bloggs

Bananas are a source of potassium. Potassium 40 is radioactive with a half-life of 1,248,000,000 years. Potassium 40 constitutes 0.012% of a Potassium sample .
Bananas contain the same ratio of potassium 40 to ordinary Potassium 39 and 41 as the human body. The human body does not accumulate potassium beyond what it needs thus the net radiological effect of eating a banana is zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

Nuclear power companies tend to get away with very low average radiation rates while their plant is working properly. It is only when the plant self destructs that the average, based upon past performance, becomes a distant memory.

There are alternative designs of nuclear power plant. Thorium based technology is worth a look.

J_B.