3 ms·
Possibly, but I wouldn't think "least radioactive environments in a nuclear reactor" is a low bar. I don't know, though.
by stavros 1y ago
Possibly, 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.