4 ms·

1. There was an explosion (edit: two explosions) that began the incident which destroyed the reactor and ejected matter a significant distance. 2. Chernobyl, I

1. There was an explosion (edit: two explosions) that began the incident which destroyed the reactor and ejected matter a significant distance. 2. Chernobyl, IIRC, isn't really so dangerous to visit but you should avoid eating or drinking anything in the exclusion zone. Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 will poison you from the inside out. The latter ends up bio-accumulating in bone.

godelski 7y ago
IIRC the uptake rate of Cs-137 is about 10%. Meaning you only store about 10% of what you ingest. Also, we are SUPER safe when it comes to radiation. No chances. No ifs ands or buts. When it comes to dosage, rad workers already have several safety factors from what we can detect an increase risk of cancer, as it should be.
- saulrh 7y ago
  The sensitivity of our tools for detecting radiation never ceases to amaze me. In some ways it's a problem because most people don't understand just how good we are at detecting radiation. Like, not only can we find it in old bits of wood, we can find it so well that we can tell you whether that old bit of wood stopped gathering radioactive carbon from the atmosphere in 10,000 BCE or 10,300 BCE. We can measure how much radiation you get from the sun precisely enough to tell whether you're living on the first story or the second story of your apartment building. But we still get people freaking out about any headline with the word radiation in it. It's crazy.
  - godelski 7y ago
    I think part of it is that a lot of people just don't know the history or the uses of radiation. For example the history we wanted to find when other nations were testing weapons. We didn't have satellites (or many) so we had to detect from beyond borders. But radiation doesn't travel very far. Solution? REALLY REALLY sensitive detectors. Most people also don't know uses for radiation outside cancer therapy. I'd bet you most people don't understand that a PET, CAT, or CT scan is radiation. Let alone that we irradiate food to make it safer. I doubt people know how regulated anything dealing with radiation is, or how many factors of safety are added.
goatlover 7y ago
Wouldn’t that also apply to all the wildlife in the area? Are there no animals inside the exclusion zone? I get that cancer rates and birth defects would go up, but that’s a bit different from being poisoned, the implication a lack of survivability.
- justnoise 7y ago
  The exclusion zone is actually resembles a wildlife refuge these days. From reports of the numbers of animals present it seems like human populations are much worse for wildlife than low levels of ionizing radiation and other contaminants from the disaster.
  - blake1 7y ago
    The animals’ populations have rebounded, especially those, like wolves and foxes, who’s habitats are least compatible with humans. Still, mean lifetimes, fertility rates and mean body mass are down, while illness are up. This also applies to some plant species. In no way was Chernobyl a strictly good event for wildlife, just that removing humans took away a very strongly negative factor.
- AaronFriel 7y ago
  The radionuclides I described won't kill you quickly, but over a period of decades, and, well, it's more of a stochastic death as opposed to a definite one. It may be that shorter lifespan wildlife just aren't as significantly affected, but I've no idea to be honest.

godelski 7y ago

IIRC the uptake rate of Cs-137 is about 10%. Meaning you only store about 10% of what you ingest. Also, we are SUPER safe when it comes to radiation. No chances. No ifs ands or buts. When it comes to dosage, rad workers already have several safety factors from what we can detect an increase risk of cancer, as it should be.

saulrh 7y ago
The sensitivity of our tools for detecting radiation never ceases to amaze me. In some ways it's a problem because most people don't understand just how good we are at detecting radiation. Like, not only can we find it in old bits of wood, we can find it so well that we can tell you whether that old bit of wood stopped gathering radioactive carbon from the atmosphere in 10,000 BCE or 10,300 BCE. We can measure how much radiation you get from the sun precisely enough to tell whether you're living on the first story or the second story of your apartment building. But we still get people freaking out about any headline with the word radiation in it. It's crazy.
- godelski 7y ago
  I think part of it is that a lot of people just don't know the history or the uses of radiation. For example the history we wanted to find when other nations were testing weapons. We didn't have satellites (or many) so we had to detect from beyond borders. But radiation doesn't travel very far. Solution? REALLY REALLY sensitive detectors. Most people also don't know uses for radiation outside cancer therapy. I'd bet you most people don't understand that a PET, CAT, or CT scan is radiation. Let alone that we irradiate food to make it safer. I doubt people know how regulated anything dealing with radiation is, or how many factors of safety are added.

goatlover 7y ago

Wouldn’t that also apply to all the wildlife in the area? Are there no animals inside the exclusion zone? I get that cancer rates and birth defects would go up, but that’s a bit different from being poisoned, the implication a lack of survivability.

justnoise 7y ago
The exclusion zone is actually resembles a wildlife refuge these days. From reports of the numbers of animals present it seems like human populations are much worse for wildlife than low levels of ionizing radiation and other contaminants from the disaster.
- blake1 7y ago
  The animals’ populations have rebounded, especially those, like wolves and foxes, who’s habitats are least compatible with humans. Still, mean lifetimes, fertility rates and mean body mass are down, while illness are up. This also applies to some plant species. In no way was Chernobyl a strictly good event for wildlife, just that removing humans took away a very strongly negative factor.
AaronFriel 7y ago
The radionuclides I described won't kill you quickly, but over a period of decades, and, well, it's more of a stochastic death as opposed to a definite one. It may be that shorter lifespan wildlife just aren't as significantly affected, but I've no idea to be honest.