3 ms·

Nuclear engineer here. In school in Ann Arbor we ran a radiation detector overnight in the lab and were able to identify several nuclides in the air leftover fr

Nuclear engineer here. In school in Ann Arbor we ran a radiation detector overnight in the lab and were able to identify several nuclides in the air leftover from weapons tests. Fun times. Of course the dose rate from these nuclides was many orders of magnitude less than natural background so it was more a curiosity than a concern. Radiation detectors can detect single atoms decaying and attribute them to specific nuclides. Good old quantum energy levels of the nucleus. If I could have one media wish this year, it would be that whenever someone says something is 'radioactive', everyone else asks what the dose rate is compared to natural background before talking about hazards.

roenxi 5y ago
Speaking as a cheerfully untrained armchair observer, we might also expect the nuclear fallout to be detectable for at least the next 50,000 years [0] on the basis that detection equipment is really sensitive. Sensitive to the point where we can detect sunny days happening several millennia ago. This looks like silly news. They may as well just have run with "US did nuclear tests in the 1960s" or "radioactive cesium has a half life" and left it at that unless there is something to report on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
theptip 5y ago
This is the general point that most of the press and general public fail to appreciate when thinking about radiation risk. Similarly after Fukushima, there were terrified articles about how radiation could be detected in fish across the Pacific. But as you say, at what level? Certainly orders of magnitude lower than your baseline exposure. We just have very accurate detectors!
- acidburnNSA 5y ago
  Indeed, none of those articles said: "oh yeah and at these dose rates, you'd have to eat 330,000 kg of albacore to double your natural dose, and more than 10x more than that before you got a dose that has been shown to cause harm. Fewer clicks and shares I guess. https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2015-04-25-fish-from-fukushima.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2015-04-25-fish-from-fukushim...

roenxi 5y ago

Speaking as a cheerfully untrained armchair observer, we might also expect the nuclear fallout to be detectable for at least the next 50,000 years [0] on the basis that detection equipment is really sensitive. Sensitive to the point where we can detect sunny days happening several millennia ago. This looks like silly news. They may as well just have run with "US did nuclear tests in the 1960s" or "radioactive cesium has a half life" and left it at that unless there is something to report on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

theptip 5y ago

This is the general point that most of the press and general public fail to appreciate when thinking about radiation risk. Similarly after Fukushima, there were terrified articles about how radiation could be detected in fish across the Pacific. But as you say, at what level? Certainly orders of magnitude lower than your baseline exposure. We just have very accurate detectors!

acidburnNSA 5y ago
Indeed, none of those articles said: "oh yeah and at these dose rates, you'd have to eat 330,000 kg of albacore to double your natural dose, and more than 10x more than that before you got a dose that has been shown to cause harm. Fewer clicks and shares I guess. https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2015-04-25-fish-from-fukushima.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2015-04-25-fish-from-fukushim...