No Radiation Contamination, Chemical Leak From Flooded Installations: Thailand

[Soutpeel]

...Located on the third floor of the Institute, 8.70 metres above the ground, the nuclear reactor is surrounded by a one-metre thick concrete wall in a 240 cubic metre pool which could resist water pressure as great as one to two tonnes, Ms Sirinat said....

Was surprised that the reactor is on the 3rd floor and not the ground floor. Usually the weight of the shielding, water for cooling and meter-thick concrete walls means they're placed on the ground floor.

Pic of the reactor from TINT's website:

http://www.tint.or.th/en/trr1.html

Having worked in commerical nuclear, think they are being very irresponsible by allowing school children to be so close to a reactor pool and the normal "kit" you would wear in a containment area is not being worn either...

Also dont see any dosimetery either...ie TLD/QFD's or survey meters.....that pretty blue light is due to neutron radiation being inhibited by the water and emitting beta radiation.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Soutpeel

[katana]

UV is radiation, electromagnetic radiation....basic high school physic's....the term you should be referring to is ionising radiation, when referrring to "radioactivity"

And trying to conflate the dangers from nuclear power to something akin to a sunburn is stretching it a bit too.

Wonder if the 8.7m they quote in the OP is the height of the water in the pool rather than the height of the plant above ground level.

[Chopperboy]

Having worked in commerical nuclear, think they are being very irresponsible by allowing school children to be so close to a reactor pool and the normal "kit" you would wear in a containment area is not being worn either...

Also dont see any dosimetery either...ie TLD/QFD's or survey meters.....that pretty blue light is due to neutron radiation being inhibited by the water and emitting beta radiation.

Surprised me as well!

But then there are Japanese casual workers who were radiated, while working in close contact with reactor parts/ leaks with no protection. One of them report his teeth started falling out, while he was eating his dinner shortly after the incident.

The documentary is available on Youtube with English sub titles. The link is on the Fukushima thread.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Chopperboy

[rogerdee123]

When radar first appeared on the scene (WWII?) some of them American Air Force guys would supposedly stand in front of it to get a nice tan.

[Puschl]

...Located on the third floor of the Institute, 8.70 metres above the ground, the nuclear reactor is surrounded by a one-metre thick concrete wall in a 240 cubic metre pool which could resist water pressure as great as one to two tonnes, Ms Sirinat said....

Was surprised that the reactor is on the 3rd floor and not the ground floor. Usually the weight of the shielding, water for cooling and meter-thick concrete walls means they're placed on the ground floor.

In http://www.tint.or.t...lood-Safety.pdf (thai language) they talk about the well's mouth being at 8.7 metres above street level. So the well's foundation sits in the ground, which makes sense, not upstairs. If I understood Q2 correctly, the highest flood level in the building so far (all time?) has been 2-3 metres (hoping it literally means between 2 and 3, and not the idiomatic 'several') and the well's wall is designed to survive a flood level of 8 metres. Overall it seems there's nothing to worry about, provided they don't keep any radiation sources in drawers on the first floor.

On a side note I found the discussion whether the car makes one or two per hour quite interesting, but had no clue whether it was about inches, miles or wa.

Lastly, a good read on the Samut Prakan incident: http://www-pub.iaea....Pub1124_scr.pdf . Illustrates that 'sun burn' isn't too far off. The scenario was a strong, solid (non-volatile), exterior radiation source. Reminder to all business owners (or the like) that currently keep radiation sources (or the like) in parking lots (or the like): check the flooding situation in the area.

[Soutpeel]

UV is radiation, electromagnetic radiation....basic high school physic's....the term you should be referring to is ionising radiation, when referrring to "radioactivity"

And trying to conflate the dangers from nuclear power to something akin to a sunburn is stretching it a bit too.

Wonder if the 8.7m they quote in the OP is the height of the water in the pool rather than the height of the plant above ground level.

I wasnt trying to conflate the dangers of commerical nuclear power....I was pointing out that UV is radiation and the sun burn is in effect a "radiation" burn.

The sun is a nuclear reactor only difference between that and a commerical nuclear is that the sun is a fusion reactor as opposed to a fisson reactor.

the 8.7 m quoted could very well be the depth of the reactor pool a reactor pool does not need to be at ground level, the vast majority of PWR type plants the bottom of the fuel/reactor pool is typically 30-40 meters above ground level.

[Chopperboy]

The sun is a nuclear reactor only difference between that and a commerical nuclear is that the sun is a fusion reactor as opposed to a fisson reactor.

the 8.7 m quoted could very well be the depth of the reactor pool a reactor pool does not need to be at ground level, the vast majority of PWR type plants the bottom of the fuel/reactor pool is typically 30-40 meters above ground level.

One of the big disappointments of the nuclear industry is the failure to get a commercial fusion reactor working - even after decades of research. Producing power without the very dangerous by-products of the current nuclear industry is essential, if the nuclear industry intends to be anything other than sunset!

[katana]

...sun burn is in effect a "radiation" burn...

Again you seem to be trying trying to conflate benign sunshine with nuclear power. The sun works on the fusion of deuterium to helium at a nice safe distance from the Earth. Nuclear power stations work on fission. Also, there are no commercial fusion power stations, despite billions being spent on it.

...Having worked in commerical nuclear...

There's nothing safe about nuclear power, as the recent Fukushima disaster has shown, despite what you guys who work in the industry and are responsible for it tell us.

We were promised clean, safe, efficient energy, too cheap to meter...

Yeah..right...

Edited November 5, 2011 by katana

[Payboy]

they are being very irresponsible by allowing school children to be so close to a reactor pool and the normal "kit" you would wear in a containment area is not being worn either

Assuming all that sunblock and whitening cream is totally ineffective of course.

[Soutpeel]

...sun burn is in effect a "radiation" burn...

Again you seem to be trying trying to conflate benign sunshine with nuclear power. The sun works on the fusion of deuterium to helium at a nice safe distance from the Earth. Nuclear power stations work on fission. Also, there are no commercial fusion power stations, despite billions being spent on it.

...Having worked in commerical nuclear...

There's nothing safe about nuclear power, as the recent Fukushima disaster has shown, despite what you guys who work in the industry and are responsible for it tell us.

We were promised clean, safe, efficient energy, too cheap to meter...

Yeah..right...

Using your rational, flying in commerical aircraft or driving a car on the road aint safe either...

Edited November 5, 2011 by Soutpeel

[Guest]

...People tend to think that radiation is mystical and dangerous because we can not see it. Still every moment of our lives we get radiation from all kind of sources. From the space, from the ground, heck even from the wlan stations in our homes as well as inside our bodies.

Background radiation from rocks, cosmic rays etc is not comparable to when you ingest a radioactive particle and it comes into intimate contact with human cells in the body. The latter is far more dangerous and likely to lead to cancer.

The nuclear industry often likes to confuse the former with the latter in an attempt of downplay the dangers of what they do.

Yes those are different. I was writing to a person who is afraid of contamination from Japan to Thailand.

We have basically three different kind of ionizing radiations. Alpha, Beta and Gamma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

Alpha, which is an helium nucleus can travel about 10cm in the air before it's absorbed to the particles in the air.

Beta, electron, can go further, but even a sheet of an paper will stop it.

Gamma, photon, can go trough a lot. But then again the effect is far less.

Alpha and Beta are not an issue unless someone swallows the radiation source or have an direct contact to the skin. Skin contact would cause effects only to the skin.

Not too far in the past, there is a living proof what alpha radiation source could cause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

However this did not make other people sick, even if Livinenko was an pretty active walking radiation source.

Even if the alpha radiation can be dangerous, many of us are willing to take an alpha radiation source into our homes. In some countries it's even mandatory to have one. These sources are called smoke detectors which contains a small amount of americium.

Summa summarum. The stress caused due lack of valid knowledge is worse for the human health, than radiation from the nuclear power plants, even if some of those would melt down every now and then.

[GentlemanJim]

...sun burn is in effect a "radiation" burn...

Again you seem to be trying trying to conflate benign sunshine with nuclear power. The sun works on the fusion of deuterium to helium at a nice safe distance from the Earth. Nuclear power stations work on fission. Also, there are no commercial fusion power stations, despite billions being spent on it.

There's nothing safe about nuclear power, as the recent Fukushima disaster has shown, despite what you guys who work in the industry and are responsible for it tell us.

We were promised clean, safe, efficient energy, too cheap to meter...

Yeah..right...

Using your rational, flying in commerical aircraft or driving a car on the road aint safe either...

Well to be honest no, they are not safe, both activities are inherently unsafe, that is why people are killed on the roads and in aircraft crashes each year. The issue is simply the probability of an accident happening. The other issue is that no matter how good you are at driving or flying, you are always reliant on the infinite number of variables of other people on the roads or the air etc etc.

Ollinki

Alpha, which is an helium nucleus can travel about 10cm in the air before it's absorbed to the particles in the air. Beta, electron, can go further, but even a sheet of an paper will stop it.

Gamma, photon, can go trough a lot. But then again the effect is far less.

Just to be accurate here, it is Alpha particles are stopped by short duration in free air OR a sheet of paper. Beta radiation is stopped by thin Aluminium plate/sheeting. Your statement on Gamma particles 'going through a lot , but then again the effect is far less' , is misleading. Gamma radiation is the most damaging of all the 3 particle types you mention and is by far the most destructive to human cell tissue.

[Tywais]

Gamma, photon, can go trough a lot. But then again the effect is far less.

I'm not sure if you are saying that Gamma has less effect with which I will disagree. Gamma and xray are both electromagnetic ionization radiation, as opposed to Alpha & Beta which are particle sources). I've been working in nuclear physics for over 30 years and currently manage & operate a high energy linear accelerator. The machine generates both high levels of xray and less of gamma but the gamma is our greatest concern due to its higher energy and thus ability to pass through greater distances in matter. Our shielding walls have to accommodate for this. As the gamma is at such high energy in the spectrum it can actually activate (make radioactive) some of the materials in our research cave, such as the copper cavities.

Also, the Alpha particle has the least penetration power and it's the one that can be stopped by a piece of paper. When I was in high school I actually was able to order an alpha source as I needed it to demonstrate a bubble chamber I built.

Gamma rays can ionize atoms in tissue directly or cause what are known as "secondary ionizations." Ionizations are caused when energy is transferred from gamma rays to atomic particles such as electrons (which are essentially the same as beta particles). These energized particles then interact with tissue to form ions through secondary ionizations. Because gamma rays are photons and thus interact less frequently with matter than alpha and beta particles, they are more penetrating and the damage they cause can occur much farther into tissue (that is, farther from the source of radiation).

Because of the gamma ray's penetrating power and ability to travel great distances, it is considered the primary hazard to the general population during most radiological emergencies. In fact, when the term "radiation sickness" is used to describe the effects of large exposures in short time periods, the most severe damage almost certainly results from gamma radiation.

US EPA

[Guest]

I'm not sure if you are saying that Gamma has less effect with which I will disagree. Gamma and xray are both electromagnetic ionization radiation, as opposed to Alpha & Beta which are particle sources). I've been working in nuclear physics for over 30 years and currently manage & operate a high energy linear accelerator. The machine generates both high levels of xray and less of gamma but the gamma is our greatest concern due to its higher energy and thus ability to pass through greater distances in matter. Our shielding walls have to accommodate for this. As the gamma is at such high energy in the spectrum it can actually activate (make radioactive) some of the materials in our research cave, such as the copper cavities.

Also, the Alpha particle has the least penetration power and it's the one that can be stopped by a piece of paper. When I was in high school I actually was able to order an alpha source as I needed it to demonstrate a bubble chamber I built.

Gamma rays can ionize atoms in tissue directly or cause what are known as "secondary ionizations." Ionizations are caused when energy is transferred from gamma rays to atomic particles such as electrons (which are essentially the same as beta particles). These energized particles then interact with tissue to form ions through secondary ionizations. Because gamma rays are photons and thus interact less frequently with matter than alpha and beta particles, they are more penetrating and the damage they cause can occur much farther into tissue (that is, farther from the source of radiation).

Because of the gamma ray's penetrating power and ability to travel great distances, it is considered the primary hazard to the general population during most radiological emergencies. In fact, when the term "radiation sickness" is used to describe the effects of large exposures in short time periods, the most severe damage almost certainly results from gamma radiation.

US EPA

I start to be out of my comfort zone, as it has been a long time since my studies, but I'll give a try to answer

First I made an mistake between alpha and beta (paper vs. aluminium sheet).

The US EPA quote referred to the fact that most of the radiation sicknesses comes from gamma radiation and that's the primary concern for any radioactive incident. That's true as people can not so easily protect from the gamma radiation compared to alpha and beta.

But still. When comparing the different kind of radiations, alpha radiation is an big particle which will have a big effect to the human cells.

http://en.wikipedia..../Alpha_particle

Ingested alpha emitter radioisotopes (such as transuranics oractinides) are an average of about 20 times more dangerous, and in some experiments up to 1000 times more dangerous, than an equivalent activity of beta emitting or gamma emitting radioisotopes.

The secondary ionization of gamma rays I need to study and understand further.

[GentlemanJim]

But still. When comparing the different kind of radiations, alpha radiation is an big particle which will have a big effect to the human cells.

Only when ingested, Vs Beta and Gamma when non ingested. Try swallowing something emitting gamma radiation and see how long you last

[Guest]

But still. When comparing the different kind of radiations, alpha radiation is an big particle which will have a big effect to the human cells.

Only when ingested, Vs Beta and Gamma when non ingested. Try swallowing something emitting gamma radiation and see how long you last

I try to loose weight with my newly created beer diet and that would likely to be too heavy food for my stomach

[Tywais]

Only when ingested, Vs Beta and Gamma when non ingested. Try swallowing something emitting gamma radiation and see how long you last

Just a side note. Gamma emitters are often implanted or ingested for radiation treatment of certain cancers. Beta emitters also are used internally and are safer from an external point of view as they normally will not pass outside the body and affect others.

In cases where their tumors are close to accessible body cavities, oncology patients may undergo a procedure called brachytherapy, or "implant" therapy. Implant therapy is effective in some cases of uterine, prostate and lung cancer. In implant therapy, a sealed source of radioactive material, usually a gamma emitter, is placed in a body cavity close to the tumor and left in place for a prescribed period of time. During the time the implant is in place, bystanders are exposed to gamma rays and must take precautions.

For some treatments, you may be hopitalized in a lead-lined room to minimize radiation exposure to others. Visitors may not be permitted during this time. The implant is in place for 72 hours or less and then removed. Once the treatment is completed and the implant is removed, you are no longer radioactive and do not expose others to radiation.

For other treatments, the implants may be left in place permanently. Usually the radiation levels are so low that no special precautions are needed following discharge. As time passes, the radiation levels continuously decrease over a period of days to weeks until they can no longer be detected. Your Radiation Oncologist, Medical Physicist or Radiation Safety Technologist will advise you of any precautions specific to your treatment.

Duke Uni radiation safety division

[Chopperboy]

Just a side note. Gamma emitters are often implanted or ingested for radiation treatment of certain cancers. Beta emitters also are used internally and are safer from an external point of view as they normally will not pass outside the body and affect others.

In cases where their tumors are close to accessible body cavities, oncology patients may undergo a procedure called brachytherapy, or "implant" therapy. Implant therapy is effective in some cases of uterine, prostate and lung cancer. In implant therapy, a sealed source of radioactive material, usually a gamma emitter[/b], is placed in a body cavity close to the tumor and left in place for a prescribed period of time.

So the medical profession uses radioactive materials, so they must be safe then?

The medical establishment is the 3rd biggest killer in the US.

A quarter of a million Americans died or had their life span severely limited by 4 recent drugs: Vioxx Avandia Trasylol Bextra

In 2009 Pfizer paid $2.3Bn in criminal damages for acting "with the intent to defraud or mislead." regarding Bextra.

Last month Dr Richard j. Ablin, who developed the prostate PSA test, called it "a public health disaster" as it was withdrawn "because the test does not save lives over all and often leads to more tests and treatments that needlessly cause pain, impotence and incontinence in many."

[Tywais]

So the medical profession uses radioactive materials, so they must be safe then?

Exactly where did I suggest that. I was simply supplying reference & background information following on previous posts and the dangers from medical implantation to outsiders. No reason to get testy with me.

[Chopperboy]

Understood, though clearly medical radiation therapy is more dangerous to the patient than a bystander.

"From 1986 through 2005, one million men received surgery, radiation therapy or both who would not have been treated without a PSA test." "Among them 5,000 died soon after surgery and 10,000 to 70,000 suffered serious complications." "and 200,000 to 300,000 suffered impotence, incontinence or both."