Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 12:11:35

"Plutonium-239 emits alpha particles to become uranium-235. As an alpha emitter, plutonium-239 is not particularly dangerous as an external radiation source, but if it is ingested or breathed in as dust it is very dangerous and carcinogenic. It has been estimated that a pound (454 grams) of plutonium inhaled as plutonium oxide dust could give cancer to two million people.[6] However, ingested plutonium is by far less dangerous as only a tiny fraction is absorbed in gastrointestinal tract.[7][8] 800 mg would be unlikely to cause a major health risk as far as radiation is concerned.[6] As a heavy metal, plutonium is also toxic. See also Plutonium#Precautions."


I work with metal occasionally. I can't imagine inhaling metal dust, especially that of the heaviest metal there is. Metal dust falls down and stays down. Otherwise it is pretty harmless except as a heavy metal . . . along with many others such as chromium which is already everywhere.
"Fortune is of a sluggish growth, but ruin is rapid."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27484
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 12:59:01

GHung wrote:
Tanada wrote:.....

Also a perfect stranger Can buy a winning lotto ticket and mail it to me so I can be a Lotto Winner. But the odds are very low and I am not going to base my life decisions on such low probability events. Your bones and liver are already saturated with naturally radioactive materials with a far higher emission rate than Plutonium 239. You don't have to love that fact, but it is a scientifically verified fact and wishing it away won't change it a single iota from being true.


"Your bones and liver are already saturated with naturally radioactive materials", that, as naturally-occurring materials, our bodies have adapted to dealing with over eons of evolution. As the article states, plutonium is a non-naturally-occurring element that has been in our environment for just a few generations. The same is true of many substances we've developed in our recent history. I neither claim these substances are damaging or relatively benign, but refuse to flippantly dismiss them as well, especially the ones which remain in our environment for millennia. But maybe you think things like the Superfund, spending billions to sequester these substances, and the many other things we do to try and protect future generations from the consequences of growth, are silly, reactionary responses. Either way, the lawyers love it.

I expect that, as is often the case, the consequences will be cumulative. Just another factor in our 'death by a thousand cuts' path.


That turns out not to be the case. The source of the particles or radiant energy is irrelevant, only the effects matter. It can be plutonium, carbon 14, potassium 40 or plain old sunshine, what matters is dose type, energy level and rate.

As for the theory of a thousand cuts look at it this way. If every day someone makes a 2 inch cut somewhere on your body that is skin deep you will live a very long time and slowly accumulate a great many tiny scars. On the other hand if someone makes 1000 two inch long cuts in your skin over a period of five hours you are most likely going to die before they finish the last cut. In the same way a low radiation rate source, like Plutonium, doses you a tiny bit over a long time, Iodine 131 on the other hand with its 8 day half-life hits you over and over again with tiny doses in very rapid fashion like your five hour session with the torturer.

In addition to that your cut a day has more than enough time to heal itself the same way the low dose constant radiation that is natural to your body heals.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14964
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby GHung » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 13:22:34

That process of healing, over and over again, increases the rate of cell division, which eventually increases the risks of abnormal cell division; AKA: cancer. This is why it has been determined important to monitor patients and radiology technicians' lifetime exposures. But if you want to get a CT scan every week, be my guest.

Yes, there are natural sources of radiation we are exposed to every day. That's why we have the rates of skin cancer we see. The skin healing itself, over and over again, year after year. Do you think ingesting tiny "suns" that may give your internals a little "sunburn", year after year, for the rest of your life, is any different? Radiation, in many forms, kills cells. Thats why we use it to try and kill cancer cells.

The body has limits to how many times normal cells can divide and provide more normal cells as replacements. You can call that 'healing', at least until abnormal cells are being produced.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2468
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 14:30:15

Nobody is disputing the statistical incidence of cancer and it's relation to radiation exposure. In fact, the death toll from the only fatal radiation exposures from commercial energy production (Chernobyl) was increased from the original figure of 31 (2 from explosion and 29 from fatal radiation exposure) to something on the close order of 50. The additional 19 fatalities represent an estimate of the fatalities that have and will occur from cancer, out of the more than 100 emergency responders that received treatment for radiation exposure syndrome, and displayed symptoms in the days following the reactor pile explosion. Note that fully half of those exposed to fatal and beyond fatal doses of radiation are alive today, although some have been treated for cancer.

Now the argument gets slightly technical. Of those at or near the Chernobyl graphite pile that received doses of radiation that are distinctly non-fatal, there possibly will be some additional fatalities, which can only be statistically evaluated in retrospect. Proponents of the original LNT (Linear No Threshold) model of radiation exposure would peg this number of fatalities at around 4000 (other figures exist). The actual measurements of additional cancers show that the rate of cancer is so similar in the low dose group that it is arguable whether this group differs in any way from the populace at large outside of Chernobyl. These findings in fact lend support to a new model of radiation exposure called "radiation hormesis". This model states that (as with chemical carcinogens) that there is a threshold for radiation exposure below which no harm is done, as the body repairs itself as fast as the damage occurs. The results from Chernobyl seem to confirm the radiation hormesis model, and the exposures from both Three Mile Island and Fukushima do as well, although those last two accidents are not as useful as Chernobyl because no actual fatalities happened.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5404
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby diemos » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 16:47:29

Sorry Tanada, I may be blasé about the Cs-137 contamination in food but fuel fleas scare the shit out of me. The radiation dose is concentrated in a very small area around the particle of fuel and can easily kill nearby cells through direct radiation dose as well as delivering significant dose to cells just a little farther away. They're nothing to take lightly.
User avatar
diemos
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 20:25:21

diemos wrote:Sorry Tanada, I may be blasé about the Cs-137 contamination in food but fuel fleas scare the shit out of me. The radiation dose is concentrated in a very small area around the particle of fuel and can easily kill nearby cells through direct radiation dose as well as delivering significant dose to cells just a little farther away. They're nothing to take lightly.


Except that the only large contamination plume so far was Chernobyl, and nobody died of inhaled/injested particles, because even those brave firefighters who tried to extinguish a burning graphite pile reactor with water hoses had respirators. This type of reactor - without any pretense of a containment structure - was obsolete before the Russians built them, and the current generation BWR and PWR reactors don't fail anything like a graphite pile.

Nuclear fallout from bombs has Cesium and Strontium and Iodine radioactives but once again, this bears no relation to a reactor. Try to seperate bomb fallout effects from reactor accidents in your thinking.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5404
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby vox_mundi » Wed 03 Oct 2018, 11:04:54

Trump's EPA Moving to Loosen Radiation Limits

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is quietly moving to weaken U.S. radiation regulations, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight.

The government's current, decades-old guidance says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk. And critics say the proposed change could lead to higher levels of exposure for workers at nuclear installations and oil and gas drilling sites, medical workers doing X-rays and CT scans, people living next to Superfund sites and any members of the public who one day might find themselves exposed to a radiation release.


EPA 'Expert': A Little Bit of Radiation Is Good for You - Like a Little Bit of Sunshine

Image
What's a little fallout, huh? Have a nice day!

The Environmental Protection Agency has recruited controversial scientists to argue that just a little bit of radiation may actually be good for public health, in an attempt to relax standards on radiation levels that the administration considers burdensome.

The Associated Press reports that at a congressional hearing Wednesday to discuss the proposed rollback of standards, the EPA’s lead witness will be University of Massachusetts toxicologist Edward Calabrese, who believes that increased exposure to small amounts of radiation “would have a positive effect on human health as well as save billions and billions and billions of dollars.”
100 mSv is 100 x more public exposure than the 1 mSv recommended internationally by the ICRP and 400 x more than the 0.25 mSv recommended by the US EPA.

Calabrese argues that radiation can act as a stressor, which will activate the body’s repair mechanisms. But other scientists have refuted the EPA’s argument, noting that Calabrese’s reasoning has been “generally dismissed by the great bulk of scientists.”

The proposal has also concerned advocates for worker safety, who fear that relaxing standards will jeopardize the health of nuclear-plant workers, X-ray technicians, and anyone else unlucky enough to come into contact with radiation. “There’s no reason not to protect people as much as possible,” said the wife of a man who works at a nuclear-weapons plant.

Funded by the Cato Institute & DoD

Edward Calabrese - Cato Institute Profile
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 03 Oct 2018, 11:28:59

If we're going to switch from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy, nuclear power is an option we need to consider.

There will be trade-offs.

Yes, people are afraid of nuclear power.

But people should also be afraid of the effects of global warming.

This last summer saw an explosion of forest fire activity across the US west, and unhealthy, dangerous air was present for weeks in major cities across the west. Millions of people were exposed to PM2.5 particles, and we know this will cut years off people's lives.

The forest fires are going to get worse as global warming gets worse, and the health impacts on unhealthy air tens of millions of people are going to worse as well.

We should've switched to carbon-free power decades ago, IMHO.

If it takes nukes to do it, then we should use nukes.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21592
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby GHung » Wed 03 Oct 2018, 11:52:55

If it takes nukes to do it, then we should use nukes.

Cheers!


But we are. Two shiny new nukes are under construction at Plant Vogtle in Georgia.

The units have suffered several delays and cost overruns. The certified construction & capital costs incurred by Georgia Power for these two new units were originally $4.418 billion which escalated to an estimated $8.77 billion ($12.17 billion including financing costs) according to the Seventeenth Semi-annual Vogtle Construction Monitoring Report in 2017.[9][10][11] This last report blames the latest increase of costs on the contractor not completing work as scheduled. Another complicating factor in the construction process is the bankruptcy of Westinghouse in 2017.[12] In 2018 costs were estimated to be about $25 billion.[2] Upon completion of Units 3 and 4, Vogtle will become the largest nuclear power station in the United States and the largest power plant of any fuel type nationwide by annual net generation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_El ... ting_Plant


Now expected to approach $30 billion. But who cares about 3-4 times original cost projections, delays, bankruptcies, and a few extra years when you can have "carbon-free" power that's too cheap to meter....

... Oh, wait.... At some point you have to stop saying what should be and just say WTF?!
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2468
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 03 Oct 2018, 12:37:18

vox_mundi wrote:Trump's EPA Moving to Loosen Radiation Limits

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is quietly moving to weaken U.S. radiation regulations, turning to scientific outliers who argue that a bit of radiation damage is actually good for you — like a little bit of sunlight.

The government's current, decades-old guidance says that any exposure to harmful radiation is a cancer risk. And critics say the proposed change could lead to higher levels of exposure for workers at nuclear installations and oil and gas drilling sites, medical workers doing X-rays and CT scans, people living next to Superfund sites and any members of the public who one day might find themselves exposed to a radiation release.


About FREAKING time! The current regulations are based on a theory that has been shown repeatedly to be scientifically invalid.
If you accept the science behind anthropogenic climate change you should also accept the science, done with actual measurements of actual test cases, that show the current government regulations are insanely conservative. Millions of people on earth at this moment are living perfectly healthy normal lives in areas with a natural background radiation level well over that set by the government based on false science sponsored by big oil companies back in the 1950's to stunt nuclear power as competition.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14964
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Radiation / Radioactive Thread Pt. 2

Unread postby Cog » Wed 03 Oct 2018, 12:48:23

I spent a year working on the SLAPS superfund site around lambert field airport. This was a radiological site. Contamination of the soil from processing uranium ore to make the bomb. You know where the soil was shipped to that was dug up to remediate the site? To Utah where the natural soil background radiation was higher than what was dug up in Missouri.

Don't get me wrong every contractor on site made a ton of money on this multi-year project but no one was safer at the end of it.
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10873
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Previous

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests