French institute suspects nuclear accident in Russia or Kazakhstan in September(reuters.com)
reuters.com
French institute suspects nuclear accident in Russia or Kazakhstan in September
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-nuclearpower-accident/french-institute-suspects-nuclear-accident-in-russia-or-kazakhstan-in-september-idUSKBN1D92LJ
73 comments
Article on the IRSN website (in French) with a map of likely release locations : http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Pages/201...
There's an English synopsis on their website, with the same map: http://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Pages/20171109_Detection...
Detected (and reported) in Slovenia on Oct 9 too: http://www.ursjv.gov.si/si/info/novica/article/12088/5981/
Gone now: http://www.ursjv.gov.si/si/info/novica/archive/2017/11/selec...
Sorry, both links in Slovene, but Google Translate can help.
Gone now: http://www.ursjv.gov.si/si/info/novica/archive/2017/11/selec...
Sorry, both links in Slovene, but Google Translate can help.
How can I detect nuclear fallout at home? It would be interesting to log levels daily and then compare to incidents like this. In particular I'd like to monitor the effect if/when North Korea does an atmospheric test.
You can build a cheap and heavily shielded ionization or Geiger system, or a more expensive spectrometry system. In this case, Ruthenium is a condensed solid, and would be ideally detected by an air particle sampling system that continuously concentrates air onto a filter, and measures emitted radiation with a detector capable of resolving very narrow peaks in the spectrum. I would pick up Knoll’s book on detector systems if you are really interested in building such a system.
I was at Trinity many years ago, and some peeps had a portable spectrometer that they used to measure the trace amounts of plutonium (or maybe its decay products) left in the sand and glass.
See this article as an example:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/cosmic/
It's easy to record something cheaply, but as other commenters already wrote, it's hard to recognize what causes the "average" counts in any time period. The author of the article measured the variations dependent of the time of day 17 years ago and it seems he wasn't able to explain them since. At the time he used a 486 machine and a Geiger counter connected to the serial port, today something like Raspberry Pi would be more convenient for the computer side and less power hungry.
He published what he recorded, so before doing anything, check his data to see an example of the results that you'd have in such a setup.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/cosmic/
It's easy to record something cheaply, but as other commenters already wrote, it's hard to recognize what causes the "average" counts in any time period. The author of the article measured the variations dependent of the time of day 17 years ago and it seems he wasn't able to explain them since. At the time he used a 486 machine and a Geiger counter connected to the serial port, today something like Raspberry Pi would be more convenient for the computer side and less power hungry.
He published what he recorded, so before doing anything, check his data to see an example of the results that you'd have in such a setup.
Digital camera sensors can actually be used to detect gamma particles. There's a legitimate app you can use on some android phones that can act as a relatively accurate cheap radiation detector. It requires you to tape over your camera lens with a piece of electrical tape and then to calibrate your phone in an area with only normal background radiation.
The app is https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rdklein.ra....
The app is https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rdklein.ra....
You can't reliably do it. This type of thinking has led many to invent conspiracy theories based on the natural background radiation that we and everyone on planet Earth are awash in. Background radiation also varies significantly unless you use very long averaging time frames.
Get a second hand (army surplus is a good source) Geiger counter with an instrumentation output. You may have to do some conversion if your current computer does not do RS232.
The problem is differentiation from background.
A release from NK or Russia, by the time it hits your Geiger counter, will likely be so low that it will be lost in the noise of background radiation. And local sources (such as radon gas) would mask anything but significant nearby events.
The reason why France identified the release is because their detectors can determine different radioisotopes.
It's a little like the difference between a photovoltaic cell and a camera. Your Geiger counter can tell when the "light's on" (presence of radiation) but it takes a different instrument to determine that it's Ruthenium 106.
A release from NK or Russia, by the time it hits your Geiger counter, will likely be so low that it will be lost in the noise of background radiation. And local sources (such as radon gas) would mask anything but significant nearby events.
The reason why France identified the release is because their detectors can determine different radioisotopes.
It's a little like the difference between a photovoltaic cell and a camera. Your Geiger counter can tell when the "light's on" (presence of radiation) but it takes a different instrument to determine that it's Ruthenium 106.
GGP spoke about general levels, not specific elements, and yes, you are 100% right, a Geiger counter is a pretty blunt instrument.
Even after Chernobyl and Fukushima, outside of the impacted area, there really wasn't any detectable increase in background.
You're much more likely to get an increase in background going into your basement (because of Radon daughters) than from an nuclear release halfway around the planet.
You're much more likely to get an increase in background going into your basement (because of Radon daughters) than from an nuclear release halfway around the planet.
I did some research on this. James Mahaffey who is a nuclear engineer talks about this a bit in his book 'Atomic Adventures.': "Professional-grade Geiger counters, such as the Eberline E-120, are available as surplus, but they are usually sold without the probe assemble, which is what wears out when in constant use in a nuclear power facility. The probe is the expensive part, and installation of a new one will require calibration."
In Japan they sell hand-held radiation detectors in electronics stores like Bic and Yodobashi (think Best Buy on steroids). They're in the little section with the first aid kits and earthquake alarms.
I know Yodobashi ships some items internationally, so it might be worth checking both of their web sites. They're just hanging on the wall in blister packs, so they appear to be cheap commodity items. Maybe $50 is my guess. I never looked at the tags.
I know Yodobashi ships some items internationally, so it might be worth checking both of their web sites. They're just hanging on the wall in blister packs, so they appear to be cheap commodity items. Maybe $50 is my guess. I never looked at the tags.
There are smartphone add-ons available that you can try.
For example the FTLAB FSG-001. This is a devices that outputs the result to your headphone jack.
For example the FTLAB FSG-001. This is a devices that outputs the result to your headphone jack.
The HN comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12191456) don't inspire much confidence regarding the error rate.
I wonder if the source of the accident is really aware of the accident?
Without knowing a lot of the details, is this something that could happen if a naive, or lazy, employee just decided to incinerate waste? Is this something that could happen if someone was goofing off? Is this something that could be undetected, due to lack of monitoring equipment, at the source?
Without knowing a lot of the details, is this something that could happen if a naive, or lazy, employee just decided to incinerate waste? Is this something that could happen if someone was goofing off? Is this something that could be undetected, due to lack of monitoring equipment, at the source?
USSR tried to keep Chernobyl blowing up a secret until caught and preassured by Sweden to admit there was an accident. I really don't expect Russia to act different today. Just look at the "we have nothing to do with it" handling when Crimea was invaded.
The Communist government even tried to hide the blow up from local population exposing a lot of people to extra risk when trivial measures could have minimized it.
In Minsk, Belarus my mother was warned by friends of friends that worked at a research reactor. They spent few hours trying to identify a leak at their facility as all Geiger counters showed a very high rise over the background level.
Then they were reluctantly told that it was an accident in Chernobyl. Then from the reading of the counters they realized how bad the accident must be and asked all people they knew to stay in doors and close all windows.
In Minsk, Belarus my mother was warned by friends of friends that worked at a research reactor. They spent few hours trying to identify a leak at their facility as all Geiger counters showed a very high rise over the background level.
Then they were reluctantly told that it was an accident in Chernobyl. Then from the reading of the counters they realized how bad the accident must be and asked all people they knew to stay in doors and close all windows.
On one hand, 100 TBq is less than a thousands of a gram of Ruthenium 106. On the other hand, anybody handling radioactive samples with terabecquerel activity will be very very aware that they are handling a lot of radioactivity. So my guess is, either an accident or an breach of safety protocols at a nuclear facility. Either way, the source is most likely aware that something did go wrong.
It's quite possible the source is aware but it's being hidden on sub-government or institutional level. Not uncommon in places with personal responsibility for public or corporate accidents.
I remember reading something similar about a year ago. Did anything come of those reports?
Last year was a release at a Norwegian research reactor. First of all, that was an impressive feat of analytical chemistry, that they could detect a fairly insignificant leak all over Europe.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Radioactive-release-for...
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Radioactive-release-for...
[deleted]
I think you're referring to the detection of radioactive iodine at trace levels in Europe back in January 2017? This made some headlines worldwide and was also covered on HN.
http://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Pages/20170213_Detection...
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13676570
As far as I know, that case was never solved, and media coverage died quickly.
http://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Pages/20170213_Detection...
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13676570
As far as I know, that case was never solved, and media coverage died quickly.
When I was working on my BS in Physics we measured Cesium-137 from nuclear accidents and weapons testing. We wanted to see if we could detect any change due to the release of material in Fukushima. We didn't see any change though because we were using a pretty insensitive gamma spectroscopy method and the increase was so small. I think they later found a small increase using a mass spectrometer.
It's amazing that you can still detect the results of the Chernobyl disaster on the opposite side of the world, decades later. That was one heck of a meltdown!
It's amazing that you can still detect the results of the Chernobyl disaster on the opposite side of the world, decades later. That was one heck of a meltdown!
It would be interesting to log levels daily and then compare to incidents
It would be sufficient for media to launch shitstorm again.
Why do they warn us 2 weeks after the fact ?
Should I up my iodine intake or it's useless against ruthenium ?
edit : according to this article it started sept 29 : https://phys.org/news/2017-10-spike-airborne-radioactivity-e...
Should I up my iodine intake or it's useless against ruthenium ?
edit : according to this article it started sept 29 : https://phys.org/news/2017-10-spike-airborne-radioactivity-e...
Taking iodine would be useless after two weeks. On the contrary, that would make future problems with your thyroid more probable, so don't do that. Iodine shouldn't be taken at all if you're more than ~45 years old (as a remedy for radiation problems) as the side effects would be statistically worse than a slowly developing cancer.
> Iodine shouldn't be taken at all if you're more than ~45 years old (as a remedy for radiation problems) as the side effects would be statistically worse than a slowly developing cancer.
What side effects do you mean? The only one I'm aware of is the Wolff–Chaikoff effect, but for most people that's only temporary as they adapt to the excess iodine.
Right now there's actually an issue with iodine deficiency in the US because of the trendy use of pink Himalayan salt, various sea salts, or Kosher salt that are all non-iodized.
What side effects do you mean? The only one I'm aware of is the Wolff–Chaikoff effect, but for most people that's only temporary as they adapt to the excess iodine.
Right now there's actually an issue with iodine deficiency in the US because of the trendy use of pink Himalayan salt, various sea salts, or Kosher salt that are all non-iodized.
> Right now there's actually an issue with iodine deficiency in the US because of the trendy use of pink Himalayan salt, various sea salts, or Kosher salt that are all non-iodized.
Citation please? I find this very hard to believe for a number of reasons.
1) Most salt intake in the US is through packaged and prepared foods, not table salt. 2) The American Thyroid Association disagrees with you - "In the United States, iodine status has remained generally adequate in the last 2 decades" 3) There are many commonly consumed foods in the US that contain iodine other than iodized table salt
[1]https://www.thyroid.org/iodine-deficiency/
Citation please? I find this very hard to believe for a number of reasons.
1) Most salt intake in the US is through packaged and prepared foods, not table salt. 2) The American Thyroid Association disagrees with you - "In the United States, iodine status has remained generally adequate in the last 2 decades" 3) There are many commonly consumed foods in the US that contain iodine other than iodized table salt
[1]https://www.thyroid.org/iodine-deficiency/
To answer my own question about iodine :
> KI (potassium iodide) cannot protect the body from radioactive elements other than radioactive iodine—if radioactive iodine is not present, taking KI is not protective and could cause harm.
Source : https://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/ki.asp
> KI (potassium iodide) cannot protect the body from radioactive elements other than radioactive iodine—if radioactive iodine is not present, taking KI is not protective and could cause harm.
Source : https://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/ki.asp
From TFA:
>The IRSN said that the concentrations of ruthenium 106 in the air that have been recorded in Europe were of no consequence for human health and the environment.
I presume that if it had been serious they (a) would have been able to detect it more quickly, since more serious means more of it, and (b) would have immediately announced it more widely rather than doing a full investigation first.
>The IRSN said that the concentrations of ruthenium 106 in the air that have been recorded in Europe were of no consequence for human health and the environment.
I presume that if it had been serious they (a) would have been able to detect it more quickly, since more serious means more of it, and (b) would have immediately announced it more widely rather than doing a full investigation first.
Yeah and they said the same thing for Chernobyl. My mother got cancer.
We've learned a lot since Chernobyl.
We are still far from knowing everything about danger from radioactive fallout, but there has been a lot of research since then.
We are still far from knowing everything about danger from radioactive fallout, but there has been a lot of research since then.
Chernobyl was bigger. A lot bigger. Locating that source was not a challenge.
My grandmother got cancer too. Heck, so did my other grandmother.
Of course, neither of them were ever anywhere near Chernobyl...
Of course, neither of them were ever anywhere near Chernobyl...
For people downvoting the parent, this is a "joke" in France (and based on his pseudo I guess he might be french). When the Chernobyl accident happened, french authorities told the population that the radioactive cloud haven't cross the french skies. But evidences quickly showed that it did over the France borders countries.
So we say here that it never happened because the cloud was blocked at the border.
It's now an historical reference of government lying to our face without second thoughts.
So we say here that it never happened because the cloud was blocked at the border.
It's now an historical reference of government lying to our face without second thoughts.
Ah, thanks for clarifying that.
If I may ask: aren't there mechanisms that prevent the French State from lying so blatantly to its citizenry? How was this ultimately found out?
If I may ask: aren't there mechanisms that prevent the French State from lying so blatantly to its citizenry? How was this ultimately found out?
When thyroid cancers started increasing in south east France, what was a rumor (imagine a cloud consciously avoiding France...) begins to be a proof that leaded to an investigation.
More infos (in English) here https://www.expatica.com/fr/news/country-news/France-hid-inf...
I'm afraid I don't know how it ended (I wasn't in France at that time)
Edit : it seems the case was dismissed (as it is often in France when government is implicated...) https://amp.rfi.fr/en/asia-pacific/20110907-french-court-dis...
More infos (in English) here https://www.expatica.com/fr/news/country-news/France-hid-inf...
I'm afraid I don't know how it ended (I wasn't in France at that time)
Edit : it seems the case was dismissed (as it is often in France when government is implicated...) https://amp.rfi.fr/en/asia-pacific/20110907-french-court-dis...
Unfortunately, the media and governments do a very poor job of outlining the whys of radiation, and leave it a very scary boogeyman for concerned citizens.
Iodine pills don't magically protect people from radiation. Taking them doesn't do anything to prevent nuclear decay from happening, doesn't grant people superpowers to stand in a radioactive environment, and doesn't let you lick fuel rods without consequence. In fact, taking them is to leverage the chemical benefits of diffusion.
Before I dive right into it, let me mention that a few forms of radioactive decay don't impact humans well. Alpha decays bounce off your clothing and skin, and can only travel a few cm in air. Beta decays bounce off your skin, or only make it so far into the already-dead skin cells, and don't travel very far in air either [0]. Gammas (sunlight) are a different matter, as are neutrons (from nuclear reactors). Hence, the sunscreen and the giant concrete containment units. This all changes if you inhale/ingest radioactive isotopes, and alphas suddenly become the most deadly (ask Alexander Litvinenko) and betas are up there too. Iodine 129 is a beta emitter, a pile of which will continue emitting radiation long after this generation of human beings are ash and dust. Eating this stuff is like eating glass.
Back to the iodine pills: You take this pill because $GOV says so, and it saturates your body (thyroid) with a stable isotope of iodine. It's like taking a half-empty biological sandbox, and filling the rest of it up with sand. The inner child that lives within us can continue playing safely as this iodine doesn't decay. It means no new iodine 129 will be able to be retained in your body, your body is already full of the stable stuff, so such a person will still ingest iodine 129, but won't retain it in their body for a long period of time.
However, failing to take an iodine pill beforehand will mean the sandbox is half-empty when a nuclear fission accident releases iodine 129. This means that sandbox will become (over time) quarter-sand and quarter-glass and still half empty, due to the laws of diffusion. No inner child wants to play in that box. And that means iodine 129 is sticking around inside the body, and in particular the thyroid (which is an organ more sensitive to radiation than others, for reasons I don't know since I'm an engineer not a doctor).
So, how does this stack up against ruthenium?
Your body doesn't use ruthenium in any significant way. It'll just pass it right back out. You can think of it as your body being permanently on the ruthenium pill. Yes, ruthenium 106 is a beta emitter exactly like iodine 129, but with a much shorter half-life of around a year. It decays to Rhodium 106, another beta emitter, which within a minute is already burned out into stable palladium 106. So on the whole, the human body is going to have an extremely tough time concentrating this stuff to dangerous levels inside of it.
So overall, your risk is not zero, but if you want to offset it I recommend not taking an airplane the next time you otherwise would, as flying up at cruising altitude in the atmosphere usually exposes you to more radiation than ruthenium 106 scattered around the earth ever will.
I highly recommend playing with [1] for nuclide information and decay chains.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efgy1bV2aQo
[1] https://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharthtml/VChartHTML.html
Iodine pills don't magically protect people from radiation. Taking them doesn't do anything to prevent nuclear decay from happening, doesn't grant people superpowers to stand in a radioactive environment, and doesn't let you lick fuel rods without consequence. In fact, taking them is to leverage the chemical benefits of diffusion.
Before I dive right into it, let me mention that a few forms of radioactive decay don't impact humans well. Alpha decays bounce off your clothing and skin, and can only travel a few cm in air. Beta decays bounce off your skin, or only make it so far into the already-dead skin cells, and don't travel very far in air either [0]. Gammas (sunlight) are a different matter, as are neutrons (from nuclear reactors). Hence, the sunscreen and the giant concrete containment units. This all changes if you inhale/ingest radioactive isotopes, and alphas suddenly become the most deadly (ask Alexander Litvinenko) and betas are up there too. Iodine 129 is a beta emitter, a pile of which will continue emitting radiation long after this generation of human beings are ash and dust. Eating this stuff is like eating glass.
Back to the iodine pills: You take this pill because $GOV says so, and it saturates your body (thyroid) with a stable isotope of iodine. It's like taking a half-empty biological sandbox, and filling the rest of it up with sand. The inner child that lives within us can continue playing safely as this iodine doesn't decay. It means no new iodine 129 will be able to be retained in your body, your body is already full of the stable stuff, so such a person will still ingest iodine 129, but won't retain it in their body for a long period of time.
However, failing to take an iodine pill beforehand will mean the sandbox is half-empty when a nuclear fission accident releases iodine 129. This means that sandbox will become (over time) quarter-sand and quarter-glass and still half empty, due to the laws of diffusion. No inner child wants to play in that box. And that means iodine 129 is sticking around inside the body, and in particular the thyroid (which is an organ more sensitive to radiation than others, for reasons I don't know since I'm an engineer not a doctor).
So, how does this stack up against ruthenium?
Your body doesn't use ruthenium in any significant way. It'll just pass it right back out. You can think of it as your body being permanently on the ruthenium pill. Yes, ruthenium 106 is a beta emitter exactly like iodine 129, but with a much shorter half-life of around a year. It decays to Rhodium 106, another beta emitter, which within a minute is already burned out into stable palladium 106. So on the whole, the human body is going to have an extremely tough time concentrating this stuff to dangerous levels inside of it.
So overall, your risk is not zero, but if you want to offset it I recommend not taking an airplane the next time you otherwise would, as flying up at cruising altitude in the atmosphere usually exposes you to more radiation than ruthenium 106 scattered around the earth ever will.
I highly recommend playing with [1] for nuclide information and decay chains.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efgy1bV2aQo
[1] https://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharthtml/VChartHTML.html
You got the basics right, but i have to nitpick that I-129 is just not biologically relevant. It's long (millions of years) half life means that it's sufficiently inactive that you could replace all your iodine with it and barely notice. Biologically relevant radioactive contaminants are the short-lived ones, as activity is inversely proportional to half-life. In the case of Iodine, the dangerous one is I-131, as it's short (8 days) half-life means it's very radioactive, and it has a high biological uptake from the environment.
I think that you may have gotten the basics wrong here. 1 Bq of I-129 is exactly same radioactivity as 1 Bq of I-131. Its definition is 1 decay per second. The half-life tells how long you have to wait for a given atom to decay, on average. It is not, as you imply, a biological risk factor.
Furthermore, the chemical process by which iodine is absorbed from the bloodstream by the thyroid is unable to discriminate between isotopes. So their biological relevance is actually identical.
If you want a quick and easy way to compare biological impact to the human body for a given isotope, check out the US Federal Guidance Reports 11 & 12. They have done all the heavy lifting and for a lot of the real nasties, you will actually find that the biological damage is chemical not radiological.
Interestingly, the limit for ingestion if I-129 intake is much lower (indicating a higher biological impact) than I-131 (by a factor of six), primarily BECAUSE it has a long half life. The half life is so long that the clearance rate is basically the biological half-life. Where as the I-131 is so short compared to the biological half-life so within a few months it is gone.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents...
Furthermore, the chemical process by which iodine is absorbed from the bloodstream by the thyroid is unable to discriminate between isotopes. So their biological relevance is actually identical.
If you want a quick and easy way to compare biological impact to the human body for a given isotope, check out the US Federal Guidance Reports 11 & 12. They have done all the heavy lifting and for a lot of the real nasties, you will actually find that the biological damage is chemical not radiological.
Interestingly, the limit for ingestion if I-129 intake is much lower (indicating a higher biological impact) than I-131 (by a factor of six), primarily BECAUSE it has a long half life. The half life is so long that the clearance rate is basically the biological half-life. Where as the I-131 is so short compared to the biological half-life so within a few months it is gone.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents...
1 Becquerel is by definition the same amount of decay events. However, the amount of an isotope that is needed for that one Bq is directly dependent on the half-life of that isotope. Exactly twice as many nuclei are needed to produce the same Bq amount when using an isotope that has twice the half-life.
The limit for ingestion for I-129 is 5 uCi. From the formula of radioactivity:
m/m0 × NA × ln(2)/t½ = A, the amount of I-129 that is needed for 5uCi is ~28mg, which is also ~= the amount of Iodine in a normal human body. That is, if an evil wizard suddenly converted every atom of iodine in your body to I-129, you would be right about at the epa limit.
The limit for ingestion for I-129 is 5 uCi. From the formula of radioactivity:
m/m0 × NA × ln(2)/t½ = A, the amount of I-129 that is needed for 5uCi is ~28mg, which is also ~= the amount of Iodine in a normal human body. That is, if an evil wizard suddenly converted every atom of iodine in your body to I-129, you would be right about at the epa limit.
1 Bq of I-129 is exactly same radioactivity as 1 Bq of I-131
In terms of decays per second, sure. Those decays are somewhat less harmful though -- I-131 has betas and gammas in the ~500 keV range, while I-129's emissions are in the ~35 keV range.
But more importantly, 1 mol of I-129 is far less harmful than 1 mol of I-131.
the limit for ingestion if I-129 intake is much lower (indicating a higher biological impact) than I-131
The annual limit for ingestion of I-129 is 0.2 MBq, compared to 1 MBq for I-131. But given their vastly different half-lives, the annual ingestion limit for I-129 is 30 mg, compared to 220 picograms for I-131.
In terms of decays per second, sure. Those decays are somewhat less harmful though -- I-131 has betas and gammas in the ~500 keV range, while I-129's emissions are in the ~35 keV range.
But more importantly, 1 mol of I-129 is far less harmful than 1 mol of I-131.
the limit for ingestion if I-129 intake is much lower (indicating a higher biological impact) than I-131
The annual limit for ingestion of I-129 is 0.2 MBq, compared to 1 MBq for I-131. But given their vastly different half-lives, the annual ingestion limit for I-129 is 30 mg, compared to 220 picograms for I-131.
I am not going to argue with you about this. I am a radiological scientist, not a someone that has read up on Wikipedia.
No one measures radioactivity in moles.
The FGR11 limit on I-129 is 5 uCi and I-131 is 30 uCi, I know it is not the latest and greatest, but the latest and greatest makes use of probabilistic risk models to quantify the increase in chances of getting cancer. this is less helpful in a discussion of personal danger rather than the collective danger.
No one measures radioactivity in moles.
The FGR11 limit on I-129 is 5 uCi and I-131 is 30 uCi, I know it is not the latest and greatest, but the latest and greatest makes use of probabilistic risk models to quantify the increase in chances of getting cancer. this is less helpful in a discussion of personal danger rather than the collective danger.
I take issue to the generalization that short half lives = more danger. That is just not true. Tc-99m is used in diagnostic medicine, it has a half-life of 6 hrs. It does not have more risk than Sr-90 that has a half-life of 29 years.
One mg of Sr-90 has an activity of ~140 uCi. One mg of Tc-99m has an activity of ~5Ci. You probably understand the differences in the implications of handling an amount of material that emits 140uCi compared to one that emits 5Ci.
In medical radiology, the amounts of radioactive isotopes are measured in Bq because the samples are so heavily diluted that it's the only thing you can sensibly measure. This easily hides the fact that when you are talking about roughly equal amounts, Tc-99m is roughly 29 years/6 hours ~=40000 times more dangerous than Sr-90. You just never use equal amounts, when you receive a sample of Tc-99m it's about 40000 times smaller than the Sr-90 sample.
In medical radiology, the amounts of radioactive isotopes are measured in Bq because the samples are so heavily diluted that it's the only thing you can sensibly measure. This easily hides the fact that when you are talking about roughly equal amounts, Tc-99m is roughly 29 years/6 hours ~=40000 times more dangerous than Sr-90. You just never use equal amounts, when you receive a sample of Tc-99m it's about 40000 times smaller than the Sr-90 sample.
> I take issue to the generalization that short half lives = more danger. That is just not true.
On this I have to concede that it's not strictly true because some decay events produce more/ more dangerous radiation than others, and much more importantly, the decay of some isotopes start a long decay chain where all the successor isotopes decay much faster than the original. However, both of those effects are relatively small constant multipliers next to the 9 order of magnitude difference between decay rate of an isotope with a half-life of 16 million years compared to an isotope with a half-life of 8 days.
On this I have to concede that it's not strictly true because some decay events produce more/ more dangerous radiation than others, and much more importantly, the decay of some isotopes start a long decay chain where all the successor isotopes decay much faster than the original. However, both of those effects are relatively small constant multipliers next to the 9 order of magnitude difference between decay rate of an isotope with a half-life of 16 million years compared to an isotope with a half-life of 8 days.
Because Tc-99m is used in extremely small quantities.
No one measures radioactivity in moles.
Of course not. But they measure amounts of Iodine in moles (or grams).
Of course not. But they measure amounts of Iodine in moles (or grams).
> No one measures radioactivity in moles.
No, but people measure the amount of radioactive materials in moles and kg.
No, but people measure the amount of radioactive materials in moles and kg.
Sunscreen protects against the ultraviolet radiation in sunlight which is just outside the range of visible light and distinct from Gamma radiation. Gamma rays are penetrating radiation that would only lose a fraction of the intensity after going through a few centimeters of lead.
I think he meant that the physical process is the same, although the energy/frequency differs, explaining the different interactions with sunscreen vs concrete.
Ionine pills are for I131, with a 8.9 day half life. It's basically gone in 3 months (1/2^10) but it's very radioactive until it decays. The rule of thumb is the shoter the half life, the worse the radiation. Of course, it also depends of the type of radiation. Some elements like Plutonim are also toxic, apart from being radioactive.
I am curious about this "Rule of thumb."
Where is this a rule of thumb. Its by no way supported by science, nor is it implemented in the regulation of radionuclides.
When it comes to biological uptakes, shorter half-life usually means less dose than longer half-life radionuclides. This is primarily because effective dose calculations integrate the absorbed dose over a persons life (well for the purpose of comparing radiotoxicity they do). So a long-live alpha or beta emitter will be far worse than a short lived gamma, even though the range and energy will likely be much higher for the short lived gamma emitter.
Where is this a rule of thumb. Its by no way supported by science, nor is it implemented in the regulation of radionuclides.
When it comes to biological uptakes, shorter half-life usually means less dose than longer half-life radionuclides. This is primarily because effective dose calculations integrate the absorbed dose over a persons life (well for the purpose of comparing radiotoxicity they do). So a long-live alpha or beta emitter will be far worse than a short lived gamma, even though the range and energy will likely be much higher for the short lived gamma emitter.
Radiation activity is inversely proportional to the half life of the isotope. Shorter half life = more activity = more radiation.
To drive the point home: https://xkcd.com/radiation/
Thank you for this detailed answer.
There are other sources from the beginning of October reporting the problem:
http://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Pages/20171004-Detection...
Must be a slow news day...
http://www.irsn.fr/EN/newsroom/News/Pages/20171004-Detection...
Must be a slow news day...
> Why do they warn us 2 weeks after the fact ?
Agreed, concealing these informations for so long is deeply troubling. I'm not againt the nuclear at all, but given the potential risks, the transparency ought to be maximal, and again and again we are observing a lot of opacity.
Agreed, concealing these informations for so long is deeply troubling. I'm not againt the nuclear at all, but given the potential risks, the transparency ought to be maximal, and again and again we are observing a lot of opacity.
It wasn't concealed at all, it hit the news in France in beginning of October. Maybe it wasn't picked up by foreign media then.
The news here is the results of the investigation, showing the probable origin of the contamination after weather analysis.
The news here is the results of the investigation, showing the probable origin of the contamination after weather analysis.
You're absolutely right, I stand corrected, they seem to have released some information as early as 10/4/17.
http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Pages/201...
http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Pages/201...
April?
No, for all those outside USA the date of the article is 4/10/17, ie 4 October 2017.
No, for all those outside USA the date of the article is 4/10/17, ie 4 October 2017.
That's still ambiguous. Safest to use ISO format 2017-10-04. Nobody will be confused and it's the national standard for some countries.
I never realised how obscure the US date format is [1]. Nobody should be using that on the internet except for specially local sites. It makes no sense to just about anybody. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country
I never realised how obscure the US date format is [1]. Nobody should be using that on the internet except for specially local sites. It makes no sense to just about anybody. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country
I use ISO format for whenever I'm working with computers.
If I have to write down the date on paper, I always use "10 NOV 2017." It's not terribly international, but it is unambiguous for many European languages.
I have also seen "10 XI 2017" (using the Roman numeral for the month) when dealing with NATO and European Union documents (especially meeting notices.) I think it's a little fiddly because it doesn't appear to be in great use, but it also works.
If I have to write down the date on paper, I always use "10 NOV 2017." It's not terribly international, but it is unambiguous for many European languages.
I have also seen "10 XI 2017" (using the Roman numeral for the month) when dealing with NATO and European Union documents (especially meeting notices.) I think it's a little fiddly because it doesn't appear to be in great use, but it also works.
At the last place I worked, I was responsible for the labels that tracked parts around the plant. I tried to talk them into using ISO format, as we had one plant in the US and one in Ireland and consistency was a requirement. They wouldn't go for it, the closest I could come was 2017-Nov-10.
On top of all their other advantages, ISO dates are sortable without requiring conversions - just sort them alphabetically. I try to evangelize them whenever I can.
Also how long would it takes to be sure before reporting this ? I'm not alarmed that such information takes a bit of time before being published (2 weeks being on the limit)