Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Please notice the global dispersion simulation, and add that to their report that Caesium-137 from Chernobyl is still measurable in today's former atmosphere. And this is the French source which denied there was any radiation from Chernobyl in France then. Wait, not true, it was the government which denied. But was the institute then feeding the real info to the gov?

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Mon Mar 28th, 2011 at 04:44:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
their report that Caesium-137 from Chernobyl is still measurable in today's former atmosphere

Do you have a link for that?

I find it hard to believe that measurable amounts of Caesium would remain suspended in the atmosphere after 25 years.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 28th, 2011 at 05:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Radiation sensors are extremely sensitive, which usually spooks people who have the usual: "radiation? aarrrrgh runforthehills!!!!111one" mentality.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon Mar 28th, 2011 at 06:48:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From the IRSN paper above:


This simulation was applied to caesium-137, used as a tracer in the radioactive plume during this
period. From the first day on (12 March) this simulation has been continuously carried out every
other hour and the results of this simulation are given in becquerels of caesium-137 per cubic metre
of air (Bq/m3). In addition the results are compared to the values measured in the vicinity of the
Chernobyl plant, just after the accident that occurred on 26 April 1986. The values exceeded
100,000 Bq/m and they were around 100 to 1000 Bq/m3 in countries seriously affected by the
radioactive plume (Ukraine and Belarus) in France, the values measured in the east were around 1
to 10 Bq/m3 (on 1 May 1986). A very low level of radioactive caesium-137 still remains in the air,
around 0.000001 Bq/m3.

Starvid, given the professional debates over the effects of low-level radiation, and the strong possibility that there remains much to learn, all in a climate of hiding data historically, it would be less arrogant of your position if you wouldn't deride people who may have differing views than you on the subject. I found your "run for the hills" comment full of hubris, given the circumstance, or perhaps damn insensitive.

Regarding the 0.000001 Bq/m3 still flying around, yes of course it's miniscule, but it's completely spread out around the entire globe, to a layer how high? Every single cubic meter, everywhere.

One thing is certain, it may take another 50 years before there's a real understanding of biological effects of radiation. did one ever consider that there are different effects from naturally occurring background than from what's cumulatively produced in a nuclear disaster. Could the disaster effects possibly differ from the carefully controlled medical versions?

Aside: it's the hubris that really gets me from so many participants in the nuclear debate. I really get irked when people cite that the technology has evolved so, that accidents which happen to archaic technology would never happen with the new technology.

Given that the exact same words were used when those plants were built.

You can criticize beliefs based upon false science, but you can't criticize fear of the unknown, especially when the history of the entire industry is one of deception.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 02:47:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
However in the case of caesium, the radiation is less energetic than the K-40 background (both are made up of beta and gamma), and one microbequerel is well within the natural background variability. So there are excellent reasons to believe that any effect is orders of magnitude less than the noise in the background.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 03:13:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course, but the caesium isn't alone. What's K-40?

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 04:19:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Naturally occurring radioactive Potassium-40.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 04:40:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Potassium-40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Potassium-40 is the largest source of natural radioactivity in animals and people. An adult human body contains about 160 grams of potassium, of which a small fraction is potassium-40. From the isotope abundance and half-life it can be calculated that this produces about 300,000 disintegrations per minute continuously throughout the life of the body.

That's 5,000 Bq of K-40.

By comparison,

As Jake says, both the bata and the gamma decays of Caesium 137 are less energetic than those of Potassium 40. And we're talking about 5 billion times more decays from K-40 in a human body than from Cs-137 in a cubic metre of air.

So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 04:49:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dear Crazy Horse, I wasn't reffering in any way to you. You certainly know what radiation means and just happen to disagree over the dangers of low-level radiation. I was reffering to the people who don't know what radiation is, think all radiation is lethal, and don't even understand that rocks, bananas or even themselves are radioactive. I did not mean to insult you in any way.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 02:14:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Accepted (though i wish i knew more)... but the hubris about the state of current knowledge of radiation is out of place. It's an science in its infancy, especially with regard to long-term effects. Much of the data we have comes from weapon effects, which may or may not have complete relevance.

The dialogue (between pro and anti) goes nowhere without respect.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Tue Mar 29th, 2011 at 07:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: