4 ms·

Without going into too many specifics, for a period during my career I was involved with an organization whose responsibility it is to track nuclear materials a

Without going into too many specifics, for a period during my career I was involved with an organization whose responsibility it is to track nuclear materials and keep them under safe surveillance—in fact my job had the words 'surveillance engineer' in its title. I say that only bring to your attention how difficult this would be in practice. Putting safety aside for a moment, in most countries the regulatory restrictions are enormous because they are signatories to the NPT—Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which tightly bind them to how they use and handle nuclear materials. This involves, use, tracking, short and long-term disposal thereof not to mention how to keep radioactive materials away from bad actors/those who've ill intent. With safety, there are so many issues involved that I can hardly even mention them here. Just as an illustration, the once lack of regulations covering the manufacture and use of luminous radium paint turned out to be a disaster. I've thought about this a great deal, whenever the batteries in my flashlight die I wish I had some nuclear powered ones and evey time I'm brought back to reality when I think how difficult it would be to implement in practice.

saulrh 2y ago
I meant precisely what I said. Tracking NiCads to the standards of the NPT would presumably be impossible. If your standard is "keep it out of the food supply", though, I guarantee that there's a little bit of NiCad in that hot dog in your fridge, and there'd be much less NiCad in your hot dog if they tripped a radiation detector before they hit the incinerator or the landfill.
- XorNot 2y ago
  I've always said that I'm more afraid of heavy metal contamination then nuclear material contamination. There are no hand held devices which will tell you if the soil you're vaguely near has heavy metals in it, nor how much.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    There are no hand held devices which will tell you if the soil you're vaguely near has heavy metals in it, nor how much. Well, technically, there are, but now you're back in the ionizing-radiation business: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdfHVcU8U7U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdfHVcU8U7U
  - im3w1l 2y ago
    I've been thinking for a while that there are so many possible sources of poisons it's very hard to monitor them all. But there is only one of me. So logically I should check if I have elevated levels of poisons. Then, and only then does it make sense to start monitoring my surroundings to trace where it came from.
- hilbert42 2y ago
  Whether it's warranted or not is immaterial given the current situation with regulations and there seems little chance of that changing. Personally, I've a healthy respect for radiation/nuclear materials but I'm not afraid to work with them so long as I know what I'm dealing with—and that's the key point. It'd be a bit pretentious to describe situations where I've been exposed to radiation levels above background except to say they were deemed occupationally safe. That said, I've always avoided such situations when and wherever possible. Let's put my view into perspective: here's NileRed (a YouTube channel I like and watch often) making uranium glass in his home lab: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGw6fXprV9U https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGw6fXprV9U. Note: I'd never do this despite the low level radiation because of the potential for breathing in uranium dust, albeit a small risk. That said, I nevertheless own several old wine glasses made from uranium glass which I keep not to use for drinking but as a demonstration of how uranium glass fluoresces under UV light. It's very difficult to put information about radiation into proper perspective or in ways that the lay public can properly understand and appreciate, thus the need for tight regulations. Then, as I mentioned, there are the bad actors and of course a small collection of damn fools who are a danger not only to themselves but also to others. No doubt, you're right about cadmium and traces of it in food. That comparison isn't lost on me either. It just so happens at another time I ran a business maintaining handheld portable cassette recorders of the type used in exhibitions, etc. and they used rechargeable NiCd batteries that needed replacement. It was not unusual for me to have to dispose of upwards of 500 old, often leaking batteries. Being concerned about Cd contamination and disposing of it in an environmentally-friendly manner was just part of the job. Contamination from heavy metals is a very real problem and it's not only Cd but also Pb, Tl, Hg, As and orhers. Moreover, assessing the actual risk can be very difficult and depends very much on circumstances. Like its more notorious mate mercury, cadmium is a poisonous heavy metal, nevertheless that hasn't stopped it from being used in industry for plating etc. (passivated cadmium plating makes a very nice surface). Thus, in the recent past cadmium has been deemed safe enough for these purposes in the same way mercury was considered safe enough for tooth amalgam/fillings. That said, just add a couple of CH3 methyl groups to Cd and we get one of the most diabolical poisons available—dimethylcadmium (same goes for Hg—dimethylmercury). Fortunately, these diabolical compounds aren't that common so we must take that into account when assessing the dangers of these heavy metals. Heavy metals are everywhere in the environment both from natural sources and from pollution, so when assessing the risks several factors predominate, concentration and their potential for forming compounds that are far more toxic than are the base metals. Also, these compounds are often soluble which adds to their danger. BTW, it's often been said that one cubic meter of soil from the average backyard has enough naturally occurring arsenic to kill someone—or at least sufficient to make them very sick. I've never seen assays to prove that one way or other but assuming it's true it puts the risks from heavy metals into perspective.
jessriedel 2y ago
> With safety, there are so many issues involved that I can hardly even mention them here. Just as an illustration, the once lack of regulations covering the manufacture and use of luminous radium paint turned out to be a disaster. I think it's telling that the big health disaster everyone remembers happened like a hundred years ago and occurred not just before regulation, but before the danger was even understood. There are negligible annual deaths in the US from either acute radiation exposure or nuclear-material-related chronic radiation exposure.
- defrost 2y ago
  Three US workers died in 1961 when the SL-1 reactor went prompt critical and the core explosively vaporized. All up there are at least seven or eight fatalities in US reactor | research facilities in that general time frame, Los Alamos National Laboratory, et al. The Columbus radiotherapy accident 1974-76 led to 10 deaths and 88 "immediate severe complications" There was another in Houston in 1980 with 9 deaths and additional complications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_radiotherapy_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_radiotherapy_accident REAC/TS Radiation Accident Registry: : https://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00325.pdf https://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00325.pdf
  - jessriedel 2y ago
    Thanks but I think this proves my point? A handful of deaths each decade, in an industry with hundreds of thousands of workers. Like, being killed by a falling I beam or in a car accident while commuting to work are vastly more likely.
    - defrost 2y ago
      I agree with your point; there are negligible annual deaths in the US from meteorite strikes. I've had a career mapping environmental radiation across entire countries; background uranium, potassium, and thorium and residual traces from testing, mining and accidents. Deaths are rare in the US, a bit more common elsewhere, that's a fact. I can't say that's an argument for relaxing standards or being less safety conscious in reactor design, building codes, or medical and industrial procedures. The Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) of the United States demonstrated pretty well what can happen if you shirk safety and that was just manufacturing pesticides. There's always that one meteorite. Mind you, there's a steady supply of radioactive waste from rare earth processing that gets offshored and swept under the carpet .. it's okay to have an addiction to fancy electronic gadgets, less so to be ignorant of by products and the harm caused in other peoples backyards.

saulrh 2y ago

I meant precisely what I said. Tracking NiCads to the standards of the NPT would presumably be impossible. If your standard is "keep it out of the food supply", though, I guarantee that there's a little bit of NiCad in that hot dog in your fridge, and there'd be much less NiCad in your hot dog if they tripped a radiation detector before they hit the incinerator or the landfill.

XorNot 2y ago
I've always said that I'm more afraid of heavy metal contamination then nuclear material contamination. There are no hand held devices which will tell you if the soil you're vaguely near has heavy metals in it, nor how much.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  There are no hand held devices which will tell you if the soil you're vaguely near has heavy metals in it, nor how much. Well, technically, there are, but now you're back in the ionizing-radiation business: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdfHVcU8U7U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdfHVcU8U7U
- im3w1l 2y ago
  I've been thinking for a while that there are so many possible sources of poisons it's very hard to monitor them all. But there is only one of me. So logically I should check if I have elevated levels of poisons. Then, and only then does it make sense to start monitoring my surroundings to trace where it came from.
hilbert42 2y ago
Whether it's warranted or not is immaterial given the current situation with regulations and there seems little chance of that changing. Personally, I've a healthy respect for radiation/nuclear materials but I'm not afraid to work with them so long as I know what I'm dealing with—and that's the key point. It'd be a bit pretentious to describe situations where I've been exposed to radiation levels above background except to say they were deemed occupationally safe. That said, I've always avoided such situations when and wherever possible. Let's put my view into perspective: here's NileRed (a YouTube channel I like and watch often) making uranium glass in his home lab: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGw6fXprV9U https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGw6fXprV9U. Note: I'd never do this despite the low level radiation because of the potential for breathing in uranium dust, albeit a small risk. That said, I nevertheless own several old wine glasses made from uranium glass which I keep not to use for drinking but as a demonstration of how uranium glass fluoresces under UV light. It's very difficult to put information about radiation into proper perspective or in ways that the lay public can properly understand and appreciate, thus the need for tight regulations. Then, as I mentioned, there are the bad actors and of course a small collection of damn fools who are a danger not only to themselves but also to others. No doubt, you're right about cadmium and traces of it in food. That comparison isn't lost on me either. It just so happens at another time I ran a business maintaining handheld portable cassette recorders of the type used in exhibitions, etc. and they used rechargeable NiCd batteries that needed replacement. It was not unusual for me to have to dispose of upwards of 500 old, often leaking batteries. Being concerned about Cd contamination and disposing of it in an environmentally-friendly manner was just part of the job. Contamination from heavy metals is a very real problem and it's not only Cd but also Pb, Tl, Hg, As and orhers. Moreover, assessing the actual risk can be very difficult and depends very much on circumstances. Like its more notorious mate mercury, cadmium is a poisonous heavy metal, nevertheless that hasn't stopped it from being used in industry for plating etc. (passivated cadmium plating makes a very nice surface). Thus, in the recent past cadmium has been deemed safe enough for these purposes in the same way mercury was considered safe enough for tooth amalgam/fillings. That said, just add a couple of CH3 methyl groups to Cd and we get one of the most diabolical poisons available—dimethylcadmium (same goes for Hg—dimethylmercury). Fortunately, these diabolical compounds aren't that common so we must take that into account when assessing the dangers of these heavy metals. Heavy metals are everywhere in the environment both from natural sources and from pollution, so when assessing the risks several factors predominate, concentration and their potential for forming compounds that are far more toxic than are the base metals. Also, these compounds are often soluble which adds to their danger. BTW, it's often been said that one cubic meter of soil from the average backyard has enough naturally occurring arsenic to kill someone—or at least sufficient to make them very sick. I've never seen assays to prove that one way or other but assuming it's true it puts the risks from heavy metals into perspective.

jessriedel 2y ago

> With safety, there are so many issues involved that I can hardly even mention them here. Just as an illustration, the once lack of regulations covering the manufacture and use of luminous radium paint turned out to be a disaster. I think it's telling that the big health disaster everyone remembers happened like a hundred years ago and occurred not just before regulation, but before the danger was even understood. There are negligible annual deaths in the US from either acute radiation exposure or nuclear-material-related chronic radiation exposure.

defrost 2y ago
Three US workers died in 1961 when the SL-1 reactor went prompt critical and the core explosively vaporized. All up there are at least seven or eight fatalities in US reactor | research facilities in that general time frame, Los Alamos National Laboratory, et al. The Columbus radiotherapy accident 1974-76 led to 10 deaths and 88 "immediate severe complications" There was another in Houston in 1980 with 9 deaths and additional complications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_radiotherapy_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_radiotherapy_accident REAC/TS Radiation Accident Registry: : https://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00325.pdf https://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00325.pdf
- jessriedel 2y ago
  Thanks but I think this proves my point? A handful of deaths each decade, in an industry with hundreds of thousands of workers. Like, being killed by a falling I beam or in a car accident while commuting to work are vastly more likely.
  - defrost 2y ago
    I agree with your point; there are negligible annual deaths in the US from meteorite strikes. I've had a career mapping environmental radiation across entire countries; background uranium, potassium, and thorium and residual traces from testing, mining and accidents. Deaths are rare in the US, a bit more common elsewhere, that's a fact. I can't say that's an argument for relaxing standards or being less safety conscious in reactor design, building codes, or medical and industrial procedures. The Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) of the United States demonstrated pretty well what can happen if you shirk safety and that was just manufacturing pesticides. There's always that one meteorite. Mind you, there's a steady supply of radioactive waste from rare earth processing that gets offshored and swept under the carpet .. it's okay to have an addiction to fancy electronic gadgets, less so to be ignorant of by products and the harm caused in other peoples backyards.