radiation

[rt29781]

um - that means its almost perfectly stable - and emits almost nothing - like radon in the granite here in the south west (combatted by a plastic sheet....)

So what about Radioactive Iodine with 8 day half life and naturally concentrated in the Thyroid.  It is not helpful to tlell me that Thyroid problems are easily resolved by removing the Thyroid.  As an added benefit Iodine is a gas and circulates around the world freely meaning people, thousands of miles away get affected and are not monitored for health effects.  The French health authorities asked all doctors to look out for Thyroid issues after Fukushima.

[wookey]

Radioactive iodine doesn't have a half-life of hundreds of thousands of years. So isn't a very good counter-example to what guy said (whach was that things with very long half-lives have low radioactivity).

Radioactive iodine is near the other end of the scale with a half-life of 8 days. Thus is it highly radioactive, and as it is also biologically active it's bad stuff. The only plus point is that it stops being harmful relatively quickly because of the short half-life.

[dhaslam]

The low dose  of radioactive iodine given for thyroid treatment can still  trigger airport  sensors after 95 days so it is dangerous  for quite a while.

[spaces]

I do at times wonder about the amount of debate around what is quite well-documented - that radiation for the living cell is not a good thing, in large, medium or smaller doses. And that ingested radioactivity is a very bad thing indeed.

Those with a good working knowledge of the science tend to feel they have a fine understanding of the subject, those without tend to feel they know little - especially since ionizing radiation is invisible to the naked eye - and listen to the scientists. It is quite easy to sound authoritative with a decent grasp of atomic physics - people are even more impressed by someone who can engage in a chat about sub-atomic physics. Yet the brain power required to understand this is no more (many would say considerably less) than having a good working knowledge of, say, Ancient Greek.

People who really know their subject and aren't narrow in their thinking can see just how much we don't know. Just because something doesn't exist in science or can't be explained doesn't mean it isn't real, although there is a tendency to dismiss something as quackery or the like. The nuclear energy business is a great example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Within 60 years there have been countless small leaks as well as 3 catastrophic incidents. The difference with collapsed coal mines or dam constructions is that while workers (and others) may be killed there and then, the effects of radiation pass on down through the generations, creating children with mutagenic diseases - my main reason for opposing nuclear energy. What right have we to create misery and suffering for generations of children (and their parents) to come? To pollute our land and seas with radiation is pretty unforgiveable.

[dimengineer]

So what, precisely, is the difference between naturally occuring radiation and "man made". Nothing. So I'm afraid that you are ill informed.

Tim

[dimengineer]

The low dose  of radioactive iodine given for thyroid treatment can still  trigger airport  sensors after 95 days so it is dangerous  for quite a while.

Thats not quite the same as being dangerous. I'm intrigued about the link between the airport sensors and danger. Any information? What radiation level do they trigger at - I assume its gammas we are looking at.

[Countrypaul]

I'm intruiged why you only think there have been 3 major nuclear accidents - which one doesn't count? (Excuse speeling)
Calder Hall
3 mile island
Chernobyl
Fukishama

[spaces]

Forgot about Calder Hall... doubt I'd have done that had I lived through it. It's sealed until 2037 apparently. What a shame the Americans didn't tell us what they knew...

Reading the Sellafield wiki, what an unmitigated financial (as if that were all) disaster. And 200kg estimated of plutonium on the Irish seabed. There is the most farcical stuff quoted in this para:

  Detailed studies carried out by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) in 2003 reported no evidence of raised childhood cancer in general around nuclear power plants, but did report an excess of leukaemia (cancer of the blood or bone) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (blood cancer) near nuclear plants including Sellafield, AWE Burghfield and UKAEA Dounreay. COMARE's opinion is that "the excesses around Sellafield and Dounreay are unlikely to be due to chance, although there is not at present a convincing explanation for them".[70] In earlier reports COMARE had suggested that "..no single factor could account for the excess of leukaemia and NHL but that a mechanism involving infection may be a significant factor affecting the risk of leukaemia and NHL in young people in Seascale."

The former Soviets would have been proud of that sort of obfuscation.   

[Philip R]

A Gray is 1 watt per kilogramme of body tissue. 1 Sievert =1Gray X Quality factor.
Quality Factors.
Typically gamma is unity,
Beta a little bit more( fast electron),
Alpha particle ( (energetic helium ion) about 10 to 20.

North sea oil combustion products quite radioactive. Residents in S Pauls Bristol some 25 years ago identified with higher polonium 210 levels in tooth enamel due to proximity to M32. Not the power plants at Hinkley Point, Oldbury or Berkeley,or the former Commonwealth zinc smelter in Avonmouth.

Polonium 210 was emitted from the stack of Didcot A power station, certainly did in 1990, burning Australian Coal.

So before blaming Nuclear power or the Atmospheric Nuclear test programme, need to understand what the other sources are.

If you like the dentist or lots of flying longhaul, good way to pick up en external cosmic sourced radiation dose as well.

PhilipR

[Ivan]

I totally agree - coal-burning can release a LOT of radioactive products into the environment and on a continual basis. I'm sure I've read somewhere that coal-burning releases more radiation into the environment annually than nuclear power. BUT, when things go wrong, a nuclear power plant releases far more radiation than when a coal-burning plant goes wrong. Incidentally, do coal-burning plants ever have accidents?

Wookey, I-129 has a half-life of something like 15million years, and is produced in nuclear power stations. I assume it's produced in minuscule quantities and therefore not a significant contributor to radiation risk.

[Countrypaul]

A quick google gives: http://www.coalpowermag.com/transportation/79.html see the section on explosions

Paul

[Philip R]

Coal plants have accidents, just not so well publicised.

I have worked on Nuclear and conventional plants here in the UK and a large nuclear plant in PRC.

They safety culture on all the nuclear plants was petty good. Some of the UK coal plants were excellemt too, but others were not so good, down to lack of investment in the plant buildings and non generation assets. I would say that HP steam leaks are the most scary. No effect off site but pretty awful if you are trapped in a building / enclosed space where it is happening.

If one has an overactive thyroid, its is treated with the short half life iodine, produced in a nuclear reactor.

The method of radioactive iodine protection in event of a release is by means of flooding the body in iodine from say a potasium iodate table, thus preventing takeup of the radioactive variety.

PhilipR

[Philip R]

The old CEGB had the PF (pulverised Fuel) code of practice. The stuff mentioned in the US is not unique, but I would have expected them to have got it sorted by now. The technology and experience is well documented, just needs to be assimilated and implemented. It is all in "Modern Power Station Practice".

[pdf27]

Detailed studies carried out by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) in 2003 reported no evidence of raised childhood cancer in general around nuclear power plants, but did report an excess of leukaemia (cancer of the blood or bone) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (blood cancer) near nuclear plants including Sellafield, AWE Burghfield and UKAEA Dounreay. COMARE's opinion is that "the excesses around Sellafield and Dounreay are unlikely to be due to chance, although there is not at present a convincing explanation for them".[70] In earlier reports COMARE had suggested that "..no single factor could account for the excess of leukaemia and NHL but that a mechanism involving infection may be a significant factor affecting the risk of leukaemia and NHL in young people in Seascale."

The former Soviets would have been proud of that sort of obfuscation.   

The reason they believe infection may be the cause is that other similar clusters have been found at non-nuclear sites that have had a large influx of labour from outside (major construction projects, etc. - of which Sellafield is certainly an example. Viruses certainly do cause some cancers (notably Cervical cancer) so this is not implausible. As for the "obfuscation", that simply because nobody knows what the actual answer is - therefore they're giving their best guess, and making sure we know that it's a guess.