The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Radiation Exposure from Japan Nuclear Power Plants... What are they monitoring for? What's next? Are you prepared? Do you know how to use radiological monitors?
The worst case scenario for the nuclear reactors in Japan is for them to go critical. Do you understand the potential for this?
Unanswered question... If a nuclear reactor goes critical, does this change the outcome and potential impact on the rest of the world?
What's your take on this?
Are you purchasing iodine (potassium iodate) to be prepared in the event that iodine-131 is released from the reactors because of an escalating problem?
While we are not being given much information through the media, you may be able to make some determinations based on how and where they are monitoring people.
Key Point: Alpha, Beta and Gamma monitoring require different monitoring heads & techniques. If you are aware of these operational procedures, then you have a better chance of understanding what the hazards are.
Example: Where are these individuals being monitored and how close are the monitors being held to the surface of the skin?
Anyone want to make some comments on what you see in the above three photographs taken this week in Japan?
1. What are they monitoring for? (specifics e.g. alpha, beta, gamma radiation...)
2. What are the primary monitoring points that you should do on a person?
3. What is not being provided for these patient/victim(s)?
Not wanting to make this post into a training discussion on how to use radiological instrumentation, it seems appropriate to first ask some questions to see if there is an interest level in this topic before spending time posting something that will be ignored...
CBz
Additional Reading: http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/iodine-products-can-y...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
I've attached a brilliant graphic that shows in relative terms different radioactive doses.
http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/ - Attachments:
-
-
XKCD radiation.png, 88 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
MOX Fuel Load
MOX Fueled Reactor(s):
1. Why are we not hearing a word about Reactor #3 using the MOX fuel component?
2. If these rods go critical, what other things would be released besides cesium-137 and iodine-131?
Wind and Radioactive Plume Dispersion: The posted data regarding wind dispersion possibly being in hours verses days... If things go south on us in Japan, it stands to reason that some sort of radiation will occur. The question is whether a reactor, if it goes critical, will produce a toxic plume that would reach the continental USA and possibly continue traveling toward europe.
KI Pills verses Liquid Iodine Antiseptic: I've noted that all the producers of potassium iodide pills are sold out until this summer. Should things go critical, and understanding that there are no more pills available, would your medical staff and health physicists concur that simply painting the bottom of (1) one foot for a human being (regardless of age) is the generic dose for applying an iodine based antiseptic and allowing dermal absorption to do the rest. Your body can only absorb so much, evacuating any excess. I was told this when attending a Radiological Response training at the Mercury, Nevada test site (RERO Course) in the 1980's. Is this still a valid option when the oral dosage (pills) are not available?
Thanks again for working with me on answering questions that some people may be too shy to ask. I am not shy nor intimidated by anyone, not when it comes to protecting my family, friends and my community. Your honesty and candid sharing of information is appreciated by many, including myself...
CBz
-
-
Oneness I don't know why you are doing this, but you aren't helping. You are posting misinformation, fear, uncertainty and doubt, and I can't figure out why you are doing this. Maybe you have an ulterior motive? Maybe your heart is in the right place and you don't really understand the subject material.
I'm at work, so I don't have time to go line by line through your posts. The best I can do is post a couple of sources from actual nuclear scientists:
http://www.iaea.org/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/japan-nuclear-re...
http://mitnse.com/ (this is written by students, but is really easy to read)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-core
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew on
-
Interesting graph, Captain Busy.
I would like to add that 1Sv = 100 REM in case anyone else was curious as to what a Sv corresponded to.
-
Permalink Reply by Oneness on
-
No hidden motive, just helping by sharing my resources and what I know and what my opinion is on the matter, just like you.
Take from it what you will. All I know is, we are less than two weeks into this incident without it even being fixed yet, and people are already brushing this off like it's just a 'Chernobyl' or 'three mile island'. Hey we are all still here after those,so whats the big deal?.
Omm, There is no guarantee we will be that 'lucky'. sorry that is fearful, but we have fear for a reason, and that is so we know when to act accordingly. But fear can be harmfully paralyzing too, and that is when we do nothing, you know, the old 'deer in the headlights' syndrome ;)
Thanks for the articles, I'll check out the industry's damage control
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Vic, this is the Radiation Dose Chart.
I suggest that people click Vic's link to this chart and gain some relevant knowledge.
-
-
For starters, Chernobyl was MUCH bigger, yet in the end, (outside of plant and emergency workers) the death and cancer rates were vastly lower than had been predicted.
A landmark United Nations study published in September 2005 estimated that while 4,000 people theoretically could die from radiation-induced cancers, only 56 deaths could be attributed to radiation exposure from the accident. That total includes the 47 emergency workers mentioned above and nine people who died from thyroid cancer—most of whom were either children or adolescents at the time of the accident.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecur...
Subsequent studies in the Ukraine, Russia and Belarus were based on national registers of over one million people possibly affected by radiation. By 2000, about 4000 cases of thyroid cancer had been diagnosed in exposed children. However, the rapid increase in thyroid cancers detected suggests that some of it at least is an artefact of the screening process. Thyroid cancer is usually not fatal if diagnosed and treated early.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html
The collective radiation background dose for natural sources in Europe is about 500,000 man Sieverts per year. The total dose from Chernobyl is estimated at 80,000 man sieverts, or roughly 1/6 as much
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_compared_to_other_radioactiv...
Chernobly was a different type of reactor and LACKED a containment building. As a result the incurring explosion was uncontained. Moreover, graphite was used in the reactor which "acted like charcoal" and the resultant fireball extended high into the atmosphere (thermal column). The fire burned for almost 2 weeks, throwing radioactive/contaminated smoke high into the atmosphere and up to the jet stream, which then allowed for the global spread.
The hydrogen explosions at the Japanese site did eject radioactive material into the atmosphere but, so far as I can find, it came nowhere near the height of the chernobyl exposion nor has it reached the jet stream.
There have already been three hydrogen explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi plant – a gas buildup in the reactor buildings of Units 1, 2 and 3 destroyed the exterior walls. But unlike Chernobyl, the worst explosion believed possible at the Japanese plant would not push tens of thousands of feet into the atmosphere and would be a momentary event.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2692296/posts
The radioactive release is still considered to be primarily localized
and most likely, barring severe and turbulent thunderstorms will NOT reach/mix with the jet stream and most likely with precipitate out over the ocean in rain.
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/03/17/3
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml
I'm not sure if I'm seeing here (to some extent anyway) unsubstantiated fear-mongering or just people being either uber-cautious or uber-paranoid. But from what I'm reading, this event is and will ultimately be, a local (Japanese) issue. Yes, there may be an occasional spike in U.S. readings but until or unless (and it's deemed at this point highly unlikely) there is a massive explosion/uncontrollable fire at LEAST comparable to Chernobyl, radiation is NOT going to reach the jet stream and will likely wash out over the ocean.
This is just my take on it based on what I'm reading. Granted unforeseen circumstances could arise but present conditions suggest otherwise.
http://users.owt.com/smsrpm/Chernobyl/glbrad.html
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/03/17/3
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2692296/posts
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecur...
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html
http://www.alternet.org/world/150228/could_radiation_from_japan_rea...
-
-
"WHO admits that the radiation leaks from Fukushima are far worse than what the public has so far been told (http://www.speroforum.com/a/50605/W...)."
From the link you provided - http://www.speroforum.com/a/50605/W
"The World Health Organization said today that radiation in Japanese food -- caused by leaks from the earthquake- and tsunami-stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant -- is more serious than previously thought."
This is what I meant by fear-mongering on my previous post. Your statement strongly states that someone has been lying (or withholding information) regarding radiation release.
In the linked article did it state or suggest (even in the broadest possible terms), "WHO admits that the radiation leaks from Fukushima are far worse than what the public has so far been told"? It DID say only that it was "...more serious than previously thought."
Nothing in the statement from WHO in any way implied holding back information or misleading the public. What it DOES imply is that, upon further investigation(s) the extent was greater than previously thought. NOT a lie, a retraction and correction of facts.
You definitely put your own spin on this. What else is spinning?
-
-
Not at all, just a student of history. Here is a related example on holding back information and misleading the public:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR6idoL7rFo
-
-
Let me see if I understand what you were saying: You made a comment that clearly stated that WHO had been lying and included the link from which you were ostensibly quoting. Upon examination of the statement made by WHO at the link, I discovered that the ACTUAL statement made by WHO was NOTHING at all like what you claimed. By any stretch of the imagination.
Your defense of this is to include a link regarding Three Mile Island with the comment, "...holding back information and misleading the public." Yet...nothing you wrote (or have written) substantiates your claim that WHO lied or held back information. Clearly, when you hear hoof beats you immediately think zebra.
-
-
I'll check out the industry's damage control
Ya see, this is what I'm talking about. Why on earth would I want to hear from someone who does not know anything about physics or nuclear science, but instead posts a bunch of scary pictures and FUD. I would love for an anti-nuke physicist to put together an argument based on the facts and science. You aren't doing that, and your technical comments imply that you don't really understand the science either. I hate to bust balls, but you're killing me with this!
You want to talk about releasing nuclear materials into the environment (from Wiki): "A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235...) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium....It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants"
Note those numbers are per year!
Regarding this plant, I still the risk of a release of fissile material is highly unlikely (haven't read the news today, so that may have changed). To de-pressurise the containment vessels, they are releasing steam which contains enough hydrogen to be explosive (the LEL of hydrogen is something like 4%). The containment vessels remain intact (so far!) and (believe it or not) everything is going according to plan - the plan for when everything else fails and they can't get coolant into the reactors.
Containment vessels are incredibly over-built. Knowing a little bit about Japanese government project, I'll wager they contain twice as much steel and concrete as necessary. If this is the case, it should be fine and will resolve itself over the next few days as the reactor finally cools off. The radiation that they've reported (a critical distinction) is relatively minor so does not yet pose a threat.
If there is a manufacturing defect in the containment vessel, all bets are off. What we are seeing now is the residual decay of the by-products of uranium fission. these continue to break down for a few days after the uranium reaction has stopped (this happened as soon as the earthquake hit) and produce around 5% of the normal heat of the reactor. Water under pressure (which brings the boiling point well above 100C) is used to cool this. If the water turns to steam, it expands to about 1700x its original volume placing enormous amounts of strain on the containment vessel. If you can't keep it cool, venting this steam off reduces the pressure and helps insure the containment vessel won't fail. Basically it keeps a Three Mile Island from turning into a Chernobyl.
-
-
And one closer to home:
"(CBS) A scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency is charging that the agency lied when it claimed the air at ground zero was safe to breathe in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/08/earlyshow/main1985804.shtml
Clean-up workers feel effects of 9/11
"(bbc2006)Nearly seven out of 10 Ground Zero workers have suffered lung problems during or after their work at the site, according to a study of health effects related to the 11 September 2001 attacks. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5295158.stm
"Gil, a Colombian immigrant, worked 12- and 14-hour shifts for $60 a day, sweeping away heaps of dust by hand in apartments, offices, restaurants and schools, protected by nothing more than a thin paper mask.Six years later, she has asthma, chronic pain in her nose, ears, head and chest, and painfully itchy skin. She says she is unable to work more than one day a week, and is surviving largely on the generosity of friends.“It's a terrible situation,” Gil said. “Everyone I know who did this work is sick. Everyone I know has to take medicine.”but even as public attention has focused on the plight of sick firefighters and other first responders, little mention is made of the thousands of cleaning workers like Gil who also were injured and enfeebled by their work."
http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/newsoct07/Cleaners.html
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
