8 ms·
My understanding is that reactor and waste pools are some of the least radioactive environments as they are constantly monitored for leakage.
by afiori 1y ago
My understanding is that reactor and waste pools are some of the least radioactive environments as they are constantly monitored for leakage.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- stavros 1y agoPossibly, but I wouldn't think "least radioactive environments in a nuclear reactor" is a low bar. I don't know, though.
- lexicality 1y agoI remember hearing somewhere that the biggest risk from swimming in a live reactor's coolant pool would be lead poisoning caused by the DoE guards and their lack of a sense of humour
- vntok 1y agoHere: https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ > But just to be sure, I got in touch with a friend of mine who works at a research reactor, and asked him what he thought would happen to you if you tried to swim in their radiation containment pool. “In our reactor?” He thought about it for a moment. “You’d die pretty quickly, before reaching the water, from gunshot wounds.”
- adastra22 1y agoNo you misread. One of the least radioactive areas, full stop. It is less radioactive than your house.
- stavros 1y agoOh really? Huh, very interesting, thanks.
- adastra22 1y agoIt’s basically due to background radiation and the containment shield. The base radiation level within the nuclear plant complex is less than outside due to shielding, and water is VERY good at soaking up radiation. With safety margins considered, the top of the containment pool will have less radiation than the cosmic rays being blocked by the containment shield.
- trhway 1y agoMy experience so far has been that when people say "full stop", it usually makes a lot of sense to fact-check further what they said. In this case the notice says his hair is 300 counts per minute after decontamination. The typical background is under 100.
- Razengan 1y ago[flagged]
- iterance 1y agoYour fact checking was not successful: there is no typical background expressed in counts. Background count rates vary globally by significant amounts, but importantly, they vary by device. Some devices may get a measly 10-20 counts per minute in a background, next to another device that could get 500. It also matters what kind of radiation the device is configured to detect. At any rate 300 is widely recognizable as not an alarming value for a typical contamination detector in a typical configuration, but the report is likely slightly deficient because it does not specify how the measurement was taken. However, even if we accept 100 as the background CPM value, 300 on 100 does not represent significant contamination in a typical environment (but does imply some occurred).
- trhway 1y ago>but importantly, they vary by device. Of course it varies for "civilian" devices from EBay. They put that count into NRC report. It means that it has pretty specific calibrated meaning for that regulated environment. >However, even if we accept 100 as the background CPM value, 300 on 100 does not represent significant contamination in a typical environment (but does imply some occurred). report mentions 300 clearly as something above normal, whatever normal is there. And that is after decontamination. Clearly the source of contamination - the pool - is much higher than 300.
- lazide 1y agoCPM has no calibrated amount by itself.
- Razengan 1y agoReminds me of the "your keyboard is dirtier than your asshole" and similar 'myths' that no one would bother to verify. I mean I would rather lick a keyboard than a butthole (with exceptions of course)
- mjd 1y agoI wouldn't lick my own keyboard, but licking my own asshole sounds interesting
- skeaker 1y agoExcept in this case it's very easy to check; just drop a dosimeter in and compare it to readings from outside. And they do check, frequently, because if the water was somehow contaminated then they would have a very big problem on their hands.
- jkhdigital 1y agoYou’re right, you don’t know! When I worked on a nuclear aircraft carrier, I learned that the people working down in the reactor spaces got significantly less radiation exposure than the people working on the flight deck. My ship was ported in Japan when the Fukushima disaster happened, and we had to abruptly go out to sea because we couldn’t let the (minimal) fallout contaminate the reactor spaces and make it impossible to monitor the reactor itself properly.
- perihelions 1y ago> "...we had to abruptly go out to sea because we couldn’t let the (minimal) fallout contaminate the reactor spaces and make it impossible to monitor the reactor itself properly." There are numerous anecdotes from the USS Reagan that contradict that prosaic interpretation (of the reason it was abruptly moved), https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/seven-years-on-sailors-exposed-to-fukushima-radiation-seek-their-day-in-court/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/seven-years-on-sai... ("7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima Radiation Seek Their Day in Court" (2018)) E.g., "He was issued iodine tablets—which are used to block radioactive iodine, a common byproduct of uranium fission, from being absorbed by the thyroid gland—and fitted for an NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) suit. He was also told not to drink water from the ship’s desalination system. [...] Torres, the senior petty officer, recounted, “One of the scariest things I’ve heard in my career was when the commanding officer came over the loudspeaker, and she said, ‘We’ve detected high levels of radiation in the drinking water; I’m securing all the water.’” That included making showers off limits."
- jkhdigital 1y agoI believe sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan were deployed to the disaster area to help, but that was not my ship.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ch4s3 1y agoIt’s an incredibly high bar. Most places in a reactor are required by law to have lower radiation levels than you’d be exposed to standing outside in Denver.
- Dylan16807 1y agoIt sure shouldn't be a low bar! People have to work there all day.
- Applejinx 1y agoIt's because water blocks radioactivity. It's like the opposite of the Fallout games and their radioactive water: you would have to swim right down to the radioactive material and wrap yourself around it at which point you'd basically melt.
- thijson 1y agoI was reading accounts from the survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. One of the survivors was blown out of the house and was stuck neck deep into water. Couldn't get free, so had to wait for rescue. They didn't get much of any radiation sickness afterwards.
- dtgriscom 1y agoWater blocks alpha, beta and gamma rays, but the water itself can carry radioactive elements, which I'd guess was the source of this (relatively minor) contamination.
- jaakl 1y agoReactor h2o itself does not carry radiation, but any extra molecules in tend to do it, thats the reason why the water is as clean you can get, over-distilled. This by itself means that it is not potable (btw for disposal to environment it gets re-salinated), so they told the story of professor drinking it must be an urban myth. It is bad even for skin expose (swimming in it), but hopefully that worker got just a few seconds expose and is well. Source: training trip in a nuclear center.
- layer8 1y agoTFA says: “The individual was decontaminated by radiation protection personnel but had 300 counts per minute detected in their hair. At 1632 EDT they were sent off site to seek medical attention.” Apparently they do have concerns.
- sandworm101 1y ago300 counts per minute is nothing, almost indistinguishable from standing in a grocery store.
- sponaugle 1y agoNot only that, but CPM (Counts per min) is measurement device specific. Using a very sensitive pancake probe will generate much higher CPM than a geiger tube from the same source. You have to look at calibrated units (usV/hr for example). Of course uSv has it own problems given the exposure model.. but better than CPM!
- michaelmrose 1y agoCPM isn't a actual measure without the service in question being specified.
- arcticbull 1y ago300 counts per minute is significantly less than you’d get from a banana. Wish they’d use uSv though.
- refulgentis 1y ago[flagged]
- kortilla 1y agoHis comment is gray because it’s still pearl clutching over facts the commenter doesn’t even understand. The worker was not sent for radiation because 300/min is background radiation levels you get from everyday things.
- Waterluvian 1y agoThere was a video about this I saw recently. Indeed, the person said the most dangerous risk is drowning.
- sunrunner 1y agoI thought the main risk was from being shot by the guards before you made it to the pool?
- Waterluvian 1y agoThe main risk is getting into a car accident as you outrun the cops down the freeway on your way to the reactor.
- LgWoodenBadger 1y agoI don’t know why you’re being downvoted. See https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ “But just to be sure, I got in touch with a friend of mine who works at a research reactor, and asked him what he thought would happen to you if you tried to swim in their radiation containment pool. “In our reactor?” He thought about it for a moment. “You’d die pretty quickly, before reaching the water, from gunshot wounds.”
- ninju 1y agoSo death by acute lead poisoning :-)
- goodpoint 1y ago...only in the US.
- IAmBroom 1y agoNot from what I heard from a boss who visited a European nuclear plant. The site contains the most dangerous poison on Earth, that is also a key component in the most feared weapon on Earth. Do you suppose in the UK they just put up signs saying "Sir or madam, kindly do not steal our plutonium"?
- MeteorMarc 1y agoAlso, it is fully demineralised water to avoid neutron capture.
- AndrewStephens 1y agoWell it’s not demineralised anymore since someone fell into it. I wonder if they have to replace the water now.
- SpaceNoodled 1y agoNah, just take out the minerals
- djtriptych 1y agoI'm pretty sure the engineer at the nuclear plant I visited in elementary school drank a glass of water out of that pool to demonstrate how safe it was. I hope I'm misremembering that but it's a pretty strong memory that totally locked in for me that that water is not necessarily dangerous.
- ErroneousBosh 1y agoSerious question, as daft as it might sound - do they have to chlorinate the water to stop stuff growing in it? I'd expect it'd be about "swimming pool" warm so just great for all sorts of manky algae growing.
- rcruzeiro 1y agoThe water is borated and heavily purified. You don’t want stuff growing inside, but at the same time you don’t want to have chlorinated water slowly corroding the metal components.
- ErroneousBosh 1y agoI also read in the XKCD thing that it might be up to about 50° so it's probably a bit uncomfortable for most algae type things. I bet there's some good chance of getting wacky extremophiles though!
- luckman212 1y agoWould you mind sharing a link to "the xkcd thing" if you have it? edit: sorry for being lazy, I scrolled a bit more and found it.
- johnisgood 1y agohttps://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/