Okay, radiation expert needed. Is 100,000 becquerels bad?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I honestly don't know radiation well enough to know if this would be just a bad 'you'll be sick from that' kind of thing or if it's a 'Been nice to know ya there, bud!' kind of thing? Perhaps someone can explain this better who knows the conversions and human effect of the numbers a bit better. Regardless though? It sounds pretty bad and I sure wouldn't want to go swimming in THIS pool to find out?


Radioactive cesium levels exceeding 100,000 becquerels per kilogram were measured in mud accumulated at the bottom of swimming pools at two high schools in and around Fukushima city. Mud in the pool of a third high school in Minami-Soma, which is closer to the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, showed at least 8,000 becquerels per kilogram. Under a special measures law, the central government must remove mud and other substances with radioactivity levels of more than 8,000 becquerels caused by the meltdowns at the plant. The three high schools have not discharged the water from their swimming pools since the nuclear crisis started on March 11, 2011.


Well, now I was quick to notice the highlighted portion of the above text (my emphasis added) and figured it might mean only a few had any issues or problems so ...no big deal? Then I noticed this other piece to the report and it gave me pause...


However, 63 of the 70 public high schools in Fukushima Prefecture that have swimming pools have already released the water, often into rivers and irrigation canals, according to the Fukushima prefectural board of education. The central and local governments will likely have to conduct surveys to check whether mud released from school pools has polluted rivers and canals beyond government safety levels.
(Source: RSOE Disaster Index)

Someone who knows about these things, tell me they didn't just create a whole new series of problems for themselves by dumping all the other pools before bothering to carefully test anything? Is 100k measurement per kilogram as bad as it sounds?




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Im not an expert, but i can use google lol


1 adult human (100 Bq/kg) 7000 Bq

The air in many 100 sq metre European homes (radon) up to 30 000 Bq

1 household smoke detector (with americium) 30 000 Bq

It doesnt seem bad given those figures, 3 smoke detectors in your home would give off the same reading.

I think the figure has to be in the many millions to be a problem

1 kg uranium 25 million Bq



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 

Yeah... I can use Google too.. kinda like I know salt water isn't potable. Thanks for the input, though.

Anyone work in the fields involving radiation related health and measurements who can weigh in? I'm really curious on this as it's specifically addressing schools here?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
100,000 Bqs. Is 100,000 disintegrations per second. Natural levels for the human body are around 6,000 Bqs for your whole body, due to natural radio-isotopes in the environment such as K40 or C14. The levels of most people has risen over the years due to man made isotopes being released. Low level nuclear waste ranges from around 100-500 Bq/kg. So yeah that stuff is pretty hot and you would't want to get this on or inside you. I wouldn't really want to even stand near it for to long. Hope that helps.
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I wasn't being rude, i was just pointing out "experts" on a conspiracy site aren't necessarily experts and may over hype the numbers. I find google is more accurate most of the time as you can find real facts and figures there.

I found the info here

www.world-nuclear.org...

100,000bq may be life ending amounts according to some members, but as i pointed out...its not lol
Its higher than normal but certainly nothing to worry about according to that site i linked.


1 kg low level radioactive waste 1 million Bq
As opposed to our nuclear experts figure of 100-500 Bq/kg.


edit on 26-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
If you are coughing up blood,your hair is falling out,then yes you will die very soon.

Worry more about the kids and grandkids exposed to low levels of radiation.Then expect cancer rates increasing .

Oh,and stay away from fish from the ocean..
edit on 26-4-2013 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


www.world-nuclear.org...

100,000bq may be life ending amounts according to some members, but as i pointed out...its not lol
Its higher than normal but certainly nothing to worry about according to that site i linked.


1 kg low level radioactive waste 1 million Bq.
edit on 26-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)


A becquerel isnt a does rate though. You would need to find out what the surface does is, and what isotopes are present. Also Low level radioactive waste is any radioactive waste that doesn't fit into any other category and I believe they amout they start at is 100bqs/kg. So in America this would have to be sent to a radioactive waste dump to be disposed of.
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


You could compare it to this thread:

April 25th 2013: Tritium leaked from 4 of 7 reservoirs, “1,100,000,000Bq/m3 from reservoir No.1″

I didn't see you posting in the thread. It's about the water storage leaks at Fukushima. In this case we have 10 thousand times the level you are talking about in the mud at the swimming pools.



Here is an article I just found about what they will do with debris at 100,000 becquerels.

Fukushima will start burning radioactive waste — 100,000 Bq/kg to be incinerated — 1 billion pounds of debris in exclusion zone -Mainichi


If more than 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium are found per kilogram of debris, the debris will be transferred to a medium-term storage facility to be built by the state. But if burnable debris contains 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium or less, it may be disposed of at a temporary incinerator to be built within the prefecture, according to the officials.


Anything less than 100,000 becquerels per kg will be burned, and anything above goes into storage for now..
edit on 4/26/2013 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I wasn't being rude,


As opposed to our nuclear experts figure of 100-500 Bq/kg.
edit on 26-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)


But yea, if you think someone who thinks the moon has an atmosphere is right, and an expert, over a website about nuclear radiation and life be my guest lol
edit on 26-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)


Now your being rude, I never stated I was an expert. And if your referring to my thread about the picture I took of the moon with my telescope. I simply stated it was a cool picture and do to certain optical effects of has a blue halo and is what the moon WOULD look like IF it had an atmosphere. Never said I thought it did. But thanks for the attack on my character, luckly I could care less about what you have to say about me or my intellect. I was just trying to help answer the question the OP had.
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I'm not sure how relevant this is and even here it seems well read people disagree about the actual threat this poses. In a holding pool at the Nuclear Plant itself, I guess it's par for the course? Perhaps far far less than what they deal with at the Daichi site proper ...in a town area with a population or where they intend to resettle people? Well.. Yikes?


One begins to wonder if anything actually is unsafe at all. With the rush to repopulate the areas near the plant, some residents are asking if safety is being pushed aside in a rush to have a rebirth. But many of the people in Fukushima have little choice but to remain nearby. The government refuses to evacuate them or offer enough compensation to leave. There is no need to review the book like instruction manual Tepco asked residents to fill out for compensation; not surprisingly, few have been able to understand it. Simply put, the government claims the areas outside the 20 km zone are not hazardous enough to warrant evacuation. Not everyone toes the government’s line.
Analysis of the status for the local Fukushima population

In all fairness, this appears to be a blog I quoted there, albeit a very well put together and researched one ...which is why I share that at all. Namely though, it is specific and with references noted for the fact people live there now and .. err.. school swimming pools? With this mud sitting at the bottom and radioactive at that level, wouldn't that make the pool material (Concrete or tile) radioactive in it's own right?

I'm bending over backward not to just make assumptions here and say things I don't know factual basis for because real human beings live there now, or very close to these test sites. I know ATS members here live in Japan, if not near this as well ...so doom porn isn't my intent at all. Just an honest 'say huh?' about this being discovered and after over 60 schools already dumped and cleaned their own pools?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 





Anyone work in the fields involving radiation related health and measurements who can weigh in?


Mugged off by OP after my initial post.

I was pointing out as you just did, you arent an expert, yet my posts are ignored and not taken into account.
It wasnt an attack, it was an observation. I assumed you were a nuclear physicist, or worked in the nuclear field, hence i looked at your profile, came across the thread talking about a blue haze which might be an atmosphere on the moon and posted it as a way of showing you were probably not an expert....as i stated in another post, people claim to be experts, but just use google like the rest of us lol.

I have now removed it as it may have been a bit harsh


Maybe you are right, we are still waiting for an expert to chime in. Must be late, hard day at the nuclear lab, doubt any of our hundreds of nuclear experts are online to be honest.




edit on 26-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
Im not an expert, but i can use google lol


1 adult human (100 Bq/kg) 7000 Bq

The air in many 100 sq metre European homes (radon) up to 30 000 Bq

1 household smoke detector (with americium) 30 000 Bq

It doesnt seem bad given those figures, 3 smoke detectors in your home would give off the same reading.

I think the figure has to be in the many millions to be a problem

1 kg uranium 25 million Bq


As stated before Bqs is a rate of disintegrations. NOT a does rate. So the amount of Bqs isn't a direct correlation to health effects. Here's an example. The Americium241 in your smoke detector alpha decays wich can be block with moderate shielding. That's why their is a aluminum or steel plate covering the chamber the Am241 is in. So even though you have a high rate of disintergrations the absorbed does is very small. Also its a different issue when radioactive substances are absorbed by the body. With internal contaminants even with very minute does rates the cells in the direct vicinity of the contaminants get very high doeses. You stick to Google ill stick to my research.
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
Im not an expert, but i can use google lol


1 adult human (100 Bq/kg) 7000 Bq

The air in many 100 sq metre European homes (radon) up to 30 000 Bq

1 household smoke detector (with americium) 30 000 Bq

It doesnt seem bad given those figures, 3 smoke detectors in your home would give off the same reading.

I think the figure has to be in the many millions to be a problem

1 kg uranium 25 million Bq


As stated before Bqs is a rate of disintegrations. NOT a does rate. So the amount of Bqs isn't a direct correlation to health effects. Here's an example. The Americium241 in your smoke detector alpha decays wich can be block with moderate shielding. That's why their is a aluminum or steel plate covering the chamber the Am241 is in. So even though you have a high rate of disintergrations the absorbed does is very small. Also its a different issue when radioactive substances are absorbed by the body. With internal contaminants even with very minute does rates the cells in the direct vicinity of the contaminants get very high doeses. You stick to Google ill stick to my research.
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for clarifying. In the nuclear world, there are a lot of different measurements and units involved.

Is there any conversion formula for Bqs to say Rads? Or any other dosage conversion from Bq to radiation dose? Or is this not possible, or another variable is needed?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 


Its ok i see what you are saying now....thanks, im adding you to my nuclear expert list so if i have any questions il contact you first


Seriously though, i do understand your point, dose rate is different. Its late here, i should really not post when its this late as i find it particularly hard to research the right thing, and end up looking somewhat rude and arrogant.

Enjoy the weekend



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 






came across the thread talking about a blue haze which might be an atmosphere on the moon and posted it as a way of showing you were probably not an expert....as i stated in another post, people claim to be experts, but just use google like the rest of us lol.


That's not what the thread stated at all maby you should actualy go back and read what I wrote. That's why just using Google as a research tool isn't the best thing. It trains you to take the first snipit of information as correct and its taken at face value. People just want answers, they don't care if they are right or not. So how about you carefully read that post back over and then maybe you will understand the intended meaning of it.







edit on 26-4-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It is a measure of decay . mr/hr is the concern , also uuCi is a contamination count which is the real worry . Anything over 100mr/hr is a high radiation reading or area . Anything over 450uuCi is not good either . So I see a lot of people have replied . And the only one I see that holds any truth is the person telling you this is a decay rate . So unless you have some Rad levels in exposure or contamination levels your question has been answered . My background is a contamination worker for the navy . Radiation scares lots of people , but its because they know nothing about it , not saying its a good energy source at all but its not going away anytime soon . Good luck in your quest to find all the answers you seek .



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Philippines

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
Im not an expert, but i can use google lol


1 adult human (100 Bq/kg) 7000 Bq

The air in many 100 sq metre European homes (radon) up to 30 000 Bq

1 household smoke detector (with americium) 30 000 Bq

It doesnt seem bad given those figures, 3 smoke detectors in your home would give off the same reading.

I think the figure has to be in the many millions to be a problem

1 kg uranium 25 million Bq


As stated before Bqs is a rate of disintegrations. NOT a does rate. So the amount of Bqs isn't a direct correlation to health effects. Here's an example. The Americium241 in your smoke detector alpha decays wich can be block with moderate shielding. That's why their is a aluminum or steel plate covering the chamber the Am241 is in. So even though you have a high rate of disintergrations the absorbed does is very small. Also its a different issue when radioactive substances are absorbed by the body. With internal contaminants even with very minute does rates the cells in the direct vicinity of the contaminants get very high doeses. You stick to Google ill stick to my research.
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)


Thanks for clarifying. In the nuclear world, there are a lot of different measurements and units involved.

Is there any conversion formula for Bqs to say Rads? Or any other dosage conversion from Bq to radiation dose? Or is this not possible, or another variable is needed?


Let me start by stating I am not a nuclear engineer but I might be able to handle this one
It's possible if you know the isotopic composition and geometric structure(surface area/volume) of the material. If you know that you can find out the energy values of the decay particles and then you can figure out the surface does rate. It's really unreliable to do it this way because in most real world senirios your going to have a wide range of isotopes in your sample and its very
difficult to find out the ratios. A does rate (seivert/gray) is just a measurement of energy applied to a given mass.
1seviert=1J/1kg. Their are also diffrent kinds of does rates (absorbed/full body/effective/equivalent/committed) but they all are based off of energy/mass. Each isotope decays at diffrent energy levels and that's why you would need to know the composition of the material to convert Bqs to a does rate. Hope that makes sense to you and is helpful.
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-4-2013 by BriGuyTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Since others have explained about the decay rate.. here is about the best referance I can provide to maybe help put it in perspective..

The evacuation level at Chernobyl was 37,000 becquerels per meter of soil .of C-137 if I remember correctly
meat was off limits if it tested higher than 1,000 becquerels per/Kg then I think they raised it to 8,000...then did away with the limits.

There are many areas that japan considers safe that would still be off limits in Chernobyl 27 years later
edit on 26-4-2013 by okiecowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The problem with a Becquerel, is that it only tells you the amount of atoms decaying per second.

It does not tell you the Type of radiation, or the energy level of the radiation.

For example:

Potassium-40 (Found in bananas and the human body) gives off beta radiation (Electron Ejection) at an energy level of 1.33 MegaelectronVolts

Meanwhile, Tritium gives off beta radiation (Again, electron Ejection) at an energy level of only 0.018590 MegaelectronVolts

So, when calculating your radiation dose, you need various equations to help estimate how much of a threat the radiation is to you.

These calculations are:

1. Becquerel (The amount of decays per second from the source, this measurement includes the Half-Life (how quickly it decays) and the amount of material)

2. Quality (The energy level of the radiation, Higher energy levels pose more of a threat than lower levels; and certain types of radiation are intrinsically more dangerous) For example, Beta radiation is typically less hazardous than Gamma Radiation.

3. Exposure (How many of these decays are actually impacting upon your tissues, which is a function of your distance from the source of radiation, the size of the silhouette you present to the radiation (area), and how much attenuation the materials in between you and the source represent (how much radiation is soaked up by the air, water, concrete, lead, etcetera)

The international unit for Radiation Dose Received is the Seivert, in which One sievert is equal to one joule of radiation energy impinging upon one kilogram of tissue.


So, let's say that you have a chunk of Tritium that is undergoing 3,000,000 Becquerel. (decays per second)

And this tritium is at the bottom of a swimming pool (the deep end) approximately 4 meters underwater.

You are standing on the side of the pool, over the deep end, and you want to see what your Effective Dose is (Sieverts)

So, we have a point source of Tritium emitting 3,000,000 Becquerel in all directions.

The decay energy of tritium is 18.590 KeV (18,590 electron volts), and an electron volt is equivalent to 1.60217657 × 10^-19 joules (0.000000000000000000160217657 joules)

So, this means that the total energy released by the Point source of tritium is:

(18,590 electron volts) * (3,000,000 Becquerel) * (0.000000000000000000160217657 joules per electron volts)

Equals: 8.93533873 × 10^-9 (0.00000000893533873 Joules) emitted per second from our point source of radiation.

Now, this is what is EMITTED... to see how much of that HITS you, we need to use the Inverse Square Law:

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, if we are to assume that our point source is a sphere with a radius of one centimetre, and a surface area of 12.5663706 square centimetres (and the total energy output of the radiation source is evenly distributed around the surface of the sphere) then all we have to do is increase the radius of our hypothetical sphere to the distance that you are standing away from the source of radiation.

In this case, we would go from a radius of 1 centimetre, to a radius of 400 centimetres, which increases our surface area from 12.5663706 centimetres to 2,010,619.3 square centimetres.

Now, the ratio of 12.5663706 to 2,010,619.3 is 160,000:1... which means that the energy output passing through a single square centimetre AT THE SOURCE, is going to be reduced 160,000 times by the time it reaches YOU, standing on the edge of the pool.

Next, we need to calculate the attenuation of the radiation from the water in-between you and the source.

Water has a Half Value Thickness of 5.823 centimetres (I am rounding the radiation energy WAY up) which means that it takes 5.823 centimetres of water to reduce the total radiation passing through it by HALF.

And since there are 400 centimetres of water between you and the source, this equals approximately 68 total "Halvings" of the radiation energy level (Joules) which equates to 1/4624 the original energy level by the time it reaches you at the surface of the pool.

So, now we need to calculate how many Square Centimetres our silhouette takes up. Since you are facing the Source of radiation feet first, this means that you are presenting a silhouette of approximately one third of a meter by one third of a meter.... or... about 1,089 square centimetres.


So, to finish the calculation:

0.00000000893533873 joules at source (reduced by 160,000 (angular)) gives us 5.58458671 × 10^-14 joules per square centimetre at your distance.

5.58458671 × 10^-14 joules attenuated through 400 centimetres of water gives us 1/4624th the energy which is 1.20773934 × 10^-17 joules

And since your silhouette is about 1,089 square centimetres, you receive 1.31522814 × 10^-14 joules

Given an average body weight of 60kg, that makes your effective dose:

0.0000000000000131522814 joules divided by 65 kilograms



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Equals:

2.02342791 × 10^-16 (0.000000000000000202342791) Sieverts

Or, about 2 hundred atto Sieverts.
edit on 26-4-2013 by ErtaiNaGia because: *IN. TO. SCIENCE.*





new topics
 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join