Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently May 23, 2018 10:02 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Jul 08, 2014 6:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
Just came across this excellent read on Chernobyl:

http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... 7.full.pdf

It has data on dose rates of the restricted area. Between 70 and 400 mSv in 70 years which is 1.1 to 5.7 mSv per year.

This is a typical background radiation level!!

Image

So by the Chernobyl evacuation and condemnation standard, pretty much all of Europe should be condemned and evacuated based on natural background radiation levels! All of Scandinavia is worse than the highest value of the restricted area around Chernobyl!

Pretty shocking.


Last edited by Cyril R on Jul 08, 2014 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 08, 2014 6:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Montreal
Thanks.
Unfortunately the link seems to be dead :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 08, 2014 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
jaro wrote:
Thanks.
Unfortunately the link seems to be dead :|


Fixed it, some weird URL messup from the firewall/threat gateway system we have here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 08, 2014 8:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 10:31 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the dose rate exponentially decrease over time? The figures given in the 70 year table are an accumulation of the effective doses over 70 years. This should mean there's a relatively high (probably dangerous) dose rate at the start of those 70 years. Comparing a dose rate at a given point to an average over a longer period doesn't really tell you much.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 08, 2014 9:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
Gilliam wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the dose rate exponentially decrease over time? The figures given in the 70 year table are an accumulation of the effective doses over 70 years. This should mean there's a relatively high (probably dangerous) dose rate at the start of those 70 years. Comparing a dose rate at a given point to an average over a longer period doesn't really tell you much.


Yes, of course. However:
1. LNT doesn't care about this at all.
2. this makes my simple calculation and argument conservative (for the argument of today's habitability) which is a good thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 08, 2014 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Newport Beach, CA
This blows my mind.

Is it possible that the methodology is somewhat flawed?

e.g. the dose rate over large areas is far from homogenous and there is a tendency for decay products to accumulate in certain areas, creating hotspots (trees, for example).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 08, 2014 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 15, 2011 7:58 pm
Posts: 186
What's the dose rate per year today in Chernobyl? I suppose that's the important question. I suppose I could also find out easily with google.

I do appreciate you taking their abuse of math and model and turning it right back on them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 09, 2014 1:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
Joshua Maurice wrote:
What's the dose rate per year today in Chernobyl? I suppose that's the important question. I suppose I could also find out easily with google.


Yes, a good addition. Though not that easy to find, surprisingly. Lots of Bq maps and lots of radiophobic sites to wade through.

This one looks decent:

http://chornobyl.in.ua/en/radiation-bac ... raine.html

Peak today appears to be 25 microR/h, that's 2.2 mSv/y. The red area. Since this only measures gamma radiation it accurately describes the cesium contamination dose rate. Well actually no, about half that peak dose appears to be natural, so likely we're talking about roughly a 1 mSv/year peak from Chernobyl contamination in the worst affected areas today.

2.2 mSv/year is below the average natural background radiation of the world, due primarily to ubiquitous radon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 10, 2014 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 20, 2010 12:52 pm
Posts: 187
Seems to have restricted viewing but if you can find a copy, recommended to all:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes ... sode/7190/

Wildlife of all types is flourishing in the 'restricted zone'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jul 12, 2014 4:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
Cthorm wrote:
This blows my mind.

Is it possible that the methodology is somewhat flawed?

e.g. the dose rate over large areas is far from homogenous and there is a tendency for decay products to accumulate in certain areas, creating hotspots (trees, for example).


If trees are the hotspot, the average dose would be much lower. People don't live in trees, been that way for a couple million years or so. So you only get a higher dose when you're talking a walk in the forest, the average dose would then be much lower. Still I doubt all this hotspot stuff, since trees in the area occur mostly in large agglomerations (forests) so you would definately see this on maps even with low resolution grid.

As you can see from the links, the radiation outside the immediate Chernobyl area seems to travel a lot. That's news for me. At one point there will be 0.1 mSv of "unnatural" gamma dose in an area, the next month it could be 1 mSv. This suggest the fission products are still confined to the top areas of the soil in the more lightly affected areas, but this travelling contamination is almost as bad as the immediate vicinity of the Chernobyl plant.

But the dose rates are always small. All of this land is perfectly habitable, otherwise you'd have to conclude that Switzerland, Finland and Sweden are not habitable.

Also the dose rate maps are consistent with the lifetime dose estimates from IAEA and other authorities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 13, 2014 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Some guy claims there is no credence to the less than 200 people died from Chernobyl radiation as he claims there is a cemetery in Belorus alone that has 2500 victims of Chernobyl. Any data to counter that claim ?

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 13, 2014 7:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
A lot of things were blamed on Chernobyl by those in the Ukraine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 14, 2014 1:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: NoOPWA
macpacheco wrote:
Some guy claims there is no credence to the less than 200 people died from Chernobyl radiation as he claims there is a cemetery in Belorus alone that has 2500 victims of Chernobyl. Any data to counter that claim ?
The way I heard it was that there is a cemetary for the liquidators that contains over 3000 graves so far. Of course, most of them died of stress or alcohol related issues, others of general statistical occurences (accidents and whatnot). They are just now, about 25 years later, beginning to see what MIGHT be an increase in cancer related deaths that might be attributable to Chernobyl.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 18, 2014 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5058
KitemanSA wrote:
macpacheco wrote:
Some guy claims there is no credence to the less than 200 people died from Chernobyl radiation as he claims there is a cemetery in Belorus alone that has 2500 victims of Chernobyl. Any data to counter that claim ?
The way I heard it was that there is a cemetary for the liquidators that contains over 3000 graves so far. Of course, most of them died of stress or alcohol related issues, others of general statistical occurences (accidents and whatnot). They are just now, about 25 years later, beginning to see what MIGHT be an increase in cancer related deaths that might be attributable to Chernobyl.


I don't see it. There were reportedly over 100,000 liquidators, if only 3,000 have died in 28 years that is below natural death rate even if they were all young. It is 3% death in 28 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 20, 2014 6:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: NoOPWA
Cyril R wrote:
I don't see it. There were reportedly over 100,000 liquidators, if only 3,000 have died in 28 years that is below natural death rate even if they were all young. It is 3% death in 28 years.
I didn't say the story was from yesterday. It is an old story. But the point is that liquidators have been dying at elevated levels of causes UNrelated to their exposure but related to their stress from people telling them they aregoing to die. Oh, and telling them that vodka cures radiation poisoning.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group