A guide to radiation for the clueless...

AndyGuil

fimonkey wrote: »

No where in the news are they reporting actual figures for the levels though - which doesn't help anyone discussing it assess the risks. So tapwater is unsafe to drink - just issue iodine tablets then any radioactive iodine won't have an effect.

Does anyone know what the radioactive element coming from the plant actually is? In Chernobyl it was ceasium I believe. Radioactivity's not my area of expertise but it all depends on the length of the half life of whatever's decaying as well as the dose emitted. If the media could give us these facts this could be an intelligent debate rather than panic and scare mongering.

Either way I'm still not bothered, I'll dig out some common risks later which, when in context against the risk of radiation may help give some perspective.

Radioactive cesium-137 and iodine-131 detected.

ninky_2

AndyGuil wrote: »

Radioactive cesium-137 and iodine-131 detected.

over four days last week fukushima emitted half the total amount of cesium 137 as chernobyl.

http://www.canada.com/news/Japan+nuclear+plant+released+half+many+radioactive+isotopes+Chernobyl/4486336/story.html#ixzz1HWncNdjA

ninky_2

robots have been called in to fukushima. clearly they don't mind getting chest x rays. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=robots-arrive-fukushima-nuclear

tomstickland

Useful live news stream from Japan.
http://newsblogged.com/live-video-japan-nhk-tv-news-stream-english

1984ReturnsForReal_2

ninky wrote: »

robots have been called in to fukushima. clearly they don't mind getting chest x rays. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=robots-arrive-fukushima-nuclear

Or stepping in highly radioactive puddles of water

vivatifosi

There is an extraordinarily detailed and fascinating report in today's New York Times about the psychological impact of nuclear disasters on groups affected by them: young mothers living nearby and the clean up workers at the site. It looks at groups near Three Mile Island and Chernobyl which have been under long-term study and compares them to mothers in Tokyo who have been warned about the water. It is very long (3 separate web pages) but worth a read if anyone is interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/24/24greenwire-psychological-risks-loom-in-tokyo-water-warnin-48865.html

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

There is an extraordinarily detailed and fascinating report in today's New York Times about the psychological impact of nuclear disasters on groups affected by them: young mothers living nearby and the clean up workers at the site. It looks at groups near Three Mile Island and Chernobyl which have been under long-term study and compares them to mothers in Tokyo who have been warned about the water. It is very long (3 separate web pages) but worth a read if anyone is interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/24/24greenwire-psychological-risks-loom-in-tokyo-water-warnin-48865.html

thanks for this link. interesting but hardly surprising in many ways. i would be absolutely terrified if i was pregnant or with a young child there. this threat must eat away at your confidence in being able to protect your child. one of the things we consider purest and most healthy - breast milk - is one of the biggest risk factors of radioactive contamination. that said, many modern chemical processes leach their way into breast milk.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

ninky wrote: »

thanks for this link. interesting but hardly surprising in many ways. i would be absolutely terrified if i was pregnant or with a young child there. this threat must eat away at your confidence in being able to protect your child. one of the things we consider purest and most healthy - breast milk - is one of the biggest risk factors of radioactive contamination. that said, many modern chemical processes leach their way into breast milk.

You would be even more terrified if there was no more bottled water left anywhere & you had no choice but to drink from the tap.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Interesting couple of links

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134833909/built-for-bombs-sensors-now-track-japan-radiation

http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-23GMT10:57



By the way readings at the site have been up to 10,000 times normal levels (I take it that is run off water)

China also having radioactive people, planes & ships turning up.

Generali

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Interesting couple of links

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134833909/built-for-bombs-sensors-now-track-japan-radiation

http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-23GMT10:57



By the way readings at the site have been up to 10,000 times normal levels (I take it that is run off water)

China also having radioactive people, planes & ships turning up.

I guess that water that has directly been used to cool the fuel and has run off would be expected to be extremely radioactive. The question then becomes, how hazardous is that in terms of the general environment? A few thousand gallons in the Pacific Ocean I would guess is neither here nor there. If it gets into a local reservoir then perhaps it's a very serious problem.

There are some interesting pieces on the first website you like to.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/03/24/134804037/how-risky-is-infant-formula-made-with-tokyo-tap-water

Another reassuring fact: The reported radiation dose in Tokyo tap water (210 becquerels) versus the Japanese safety limits (100 becquerels/liter for infants, 300 for adults) is not far from the difference in radiation dose people naturally get if they live in a place like Denver versus a sea-level city such as Los Angeles. That's because the thinner atmosphere in Denver provides less protection against cosmic rays.......

...an expert on the health effects of radiation, says these young mothers shouldn't panic.

"If it were my infant, I would make an effort to secure some water that's clean," says Kearfott, a professor of nuclear engineering and radiological sciences at the University of Michigan. But if she couldn't, she says, "I wouldn't be concerned [about using the tap water] unless this continues over a long time period."


How long? "Half a year," she says.


That's because the radiation dose limit for infants — 100 becquerels per liter of water — is based on a year's worth of exposure. The radioactivity from iodine-131 in Tokyo's water, due to the emissions of the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant, is twice that.


So drinking the radioactive tap water for half a year would not exceed the safety standard, she says.


"Using a charcoal filter would dramatically reduce the amount of iodine-131 in the water, by between 50 and 100 percent," she says. These are the kinds of filters available in many grocery stores.


Another strategy is to draw tap water and keep it in a jug for eight days. That's the half-life of iodine-131, so in that time, half of the radioactivity would be gone — and the water would be within the 100-becquerel safety standard. Meanwhile, parents could use bottled water if available, or just use tap water in the knowledge that short-term use isn't likely to cause any harm.
[my emphasis]

It seems that the Radioactive Water: Now is the time to PANIC headlines may be a little overdone.