Radioactive Tokyo tapwater HARMS BABIES ... if drunk for a year The Japanese government has announced that radioactive iodine from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant has been found in tapwater, and that infants should not drink it. However there is little reason for concern once the facts are understood. Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare says that tests have …
1) How near is that
2) Does anyone need to be that near?
3) Are these workers unprotected?
4) How long are they hanging around before being cycled?
5) Do these "millisquivert" (sic!) come from gamma, beta, neutrons?
Meanwhile, babies are dying 50 kilometers away.
While I agree that the operators and firefighters show great moral fortitude, I seriously doubt that "it's essentially certain that many of them will suffer serious consequences". In an emergency, regulations permit exposure levels of up to 100mSv, in life-threatening circumstances this can be increased to 250mSv. A small number of those at the plant have received doses greater than 100mSv and been taken to hospital as a precaution, but there have been no reports of anyone exceeding 250mSv.
You would need doses 10x these levels to cause serious illness, although there is (on plausible assumptions) an increased lifetime risk of contracting cancer of 1-2%. For comparison, a commercial airline pilot will receive an additional 2,500mSv over an entire career.
Bu the workers at Fukushima are not sunbathing in their swimming togs between the reactors you know, they have appropriate protective gear and equipment and as soon as any reading spikes they evacuate. Those readings are per hour readings, so if the level spikes too high, and they evacuate their exposure - as limited by their equipment, is further limited by precautionary evacuation. Honestly, some people apparently think that a spot reading means that you receive that does in an instant. They are rates per hour (as you so helpfully quote), not immediate dosages.
Lots of people seem to be avoiding the question. I'll answer it - yes, I would. The reasons for this are:
1. The risk of the child dying of dehydration is a certainty if I don't give it appropriate fluid intake, and if water is all I've got, I'll do it.
2. The actual risk of *any* harm to the child is very, very, very small over an entire lifetime.
3. If I still have a baby alive in the affected area after all the other things that have happened, radiation is so far down my list of priorities that it does not even register on the "Who gives a toss" meter.
But then, I'm intelligent, educated, and can spot an actual, real risk.
One does have to wonder though...... why does the author even care?
This is supposed to be a largely tech related site.
Yet the author has over the last week quite literally gone out of their way to spurt and endless tirade of "Nuclear Is Safe" articles.
Tell us once and move on, tell us twice if you really must.
Tell us continuously day after day after day - and we start to wonder whether you have some sort of agenda?
If you really must endlessly rant on about the pro's of nuclear and how we must all worship the tech - setup a blog and point those people who are interested in it's direction.
But please STOP dragging this site into it.
Those of us mere mortals who don't know a lot about nuclear but don't trust it - are not going to change our minds simply because you tell us to.
He has already proven that he has no clue about military aviation or anyof the other topics he wrote, and these were at least vaguely connected to his former career (IIRC he said he was a RN diver). So it seems being a diver makes one qualified to write about combat aircraft, and obviously it also makes him a nuclear specialist. So I guess all those that go to university to obtain appropriate degrees are clueless morons then.
Aside from Page being clueless about the topics in his articles, he also clearly has an agenda. That may be fine for an amateur, but that is not what I would expect from a professional journalist. Certainly everyone has a view on a topic, but there is some minimum level of balance and objectivity that a journalist should present. Page's articles are not polarizing, they are just plain crap, written to feed expedient optimistically readers desperately looking for confirmation that, no matter what happens, everything will be allright. I'm not sure a hack writer with zero demonstrated competencies or expertise in any of the topics he writes about is a good source of information.
I don't know what is more embarassing, Page's articles or that El Reg provides a forum for this crap. Which is a shame as most of the articles from the other authors are quite good.
So better use bottled water then hey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-366212/Could-babies-poisoned-bottled-water.html
When contracting on a nuclear site a few years back, I can remember one of the people in charge of the water purification plant telling me that a certain popular brand of bottled water was too active to be poured down the non-active drain systems there.
I am certainly pro-nuclear, but I find these articles lacking in information which could be used to assure people that rwactors are safe.
Any chance of a less biased cost/risk/need comparison of energy sources and one which doesn't pretend that Chernobly was of no consequence to anyone?
Mr Page,
I quite understand your stance on no hype and straight facts reporting of this incident, but it is really unreasonable to expect your drinking water not to come with an added bonus of Iodine 131?
You make it sound a bit like the burglar who shat in the householders pot of mince and forced him to have to throw half of it away.
...Quote - "Tokyo water works is 'new ground zero'". Now, I don't know the whole story but that is a load of sensationalist nonsense I would bet! It seems to be a popcorn moment watching all these media outlets do the OMG NUCLEAR FEAR THING. Ongoing good luck wishes to all the Japanese as well...
The article clearly states that 'mandatory' testing of sheep before certain activities (such as transport to auction and slaughter) is being lifted from a small number of remaining farms. The article does not state how many sheep over the years have failed that testing for radioactivity. Whilst a major inconvenience to a decreasing number of farmers, it's not the big deal you make out.
there are no longer any farms under restriuction in Northern Ireland or Scotland.
On the last radiological survey of the remaining 9 farms in Cumbria still under restriction, of 5600 sheep surveyed, just 3 were marginally over the 1000Bq/KG limit. All were at a level that a weeks grazing at lower level would have had them under the limit.
In the equivalent survey for Wales, no sheep over the limit were identified.
Perhaps, unsurprisingly, the MAFF civil servants responsible for the monitoring recommended that the surveys and controls be continued......
C4 news did a good job on this basically because they cut to the science editor rather than left it with Jon Snow. He explained that the Japanese standard of 100 becquerels for 1 year olds was much stricter than the UK standard of 500 becquerels for both adults and infants. He also said it was based on 14 litres consumption, but rather runined it by not saying over what period. I wouldn't like to meet the baby that could drink 14 litres of water a day when he/she grew up.
"Most of what was in the plant when it shut down Friday before last has now turned into inoffensive Xenon"
Xenon may be (mostly) chemically inert but if you believe it to be inoffensive, just inhale some (especially from a nuclear plant). I dare you.
Apart from being a well-known asphyxiant it has around 20 unstable radio-isotopes and its compounds (yes, it can form compounds) are all highly corrosive oxidants,
I care not whether it be radio-Iodine or Xenon, I don't consider exposure to either to be necessary, beneficial or conducive to good health.
1) Please explain how you would manage to be asphyxiated by Xenon created from the decay of Iodine 131. Fetishists might be interested.
2) Iodine 131 decays to Xenon 131 which is fully stable, so it don't matter whether it comes from a nuke plant or not.
3) Corrosive oxidants of Xenon my ass. What, like fluoride compounds? It won't be the Xe that gets you in that kind of gas.
4) Xenon in enormous amounts is an anaesthetic. You might want to try some.
Now go back to watching America's Funniest Home Videos or something.
I-131 decays to Xe-131, which is a stable isotope of Xenon.
However, Xe-131 can be transformed into an unstable isotope via neutron capture, so yes if it was still in a working reactor you would get radioactive Xenon. But out in the general environment where the iodine is decaying this simply isn't the case.
Plus with the amount of Xenon being produced, and the fact it is generally unreactive (Xenon Oxides are very unstable) means it will be in very diffuse amounts and unlikely to suffocate anyone
I know all about the decay chain of Iodine into Xenon -- I wasn't actually suggesting that concentrations of Xenon or its radio-isotopes were likely to build up.
Also the quantities present in florescent or incandescent lighting is truly minute -- and the gas is *very* low pressure anyhow.
No, I'm countering the claim by Lewis that Xenon is "inoffensive". It simply isn't. Inhaling Helium (or any inert gas) isn't a particularly good idea either. Just because its a noble gas doesn't make it harmless (Radon is also an noble gas but its far from harmless).
There are many erstwhile safe substances constantly being synthesised in perfectly working reactors all the time but when reactors do malfunction (and fuel rods catch fire) there are even more unpleasant possibilities to contend with -- many of these compounds having an avid affinity to organic metabolic processes.
What has happened in Japan is NOT a minor event and it certainly isn't a CONTAINED one. You and Lewis here, like me, know nothing -- not a damned thing -- about the interior state of these reactors -- AND THAT'S THE POINT. No one ever will.
Meanwhile, questionable "safe" doses of radiation in the environment are being touted around by Lewis in articles like his which defend the current status quo of the industry while we know a lot of it is woefully out of date and is based on dodgy statistical evidence in the first place. Some of it was frankly based on nothing more substantial than notional anecdote!
This was not a minor incident and IT ISN'T OVER, either. Lets not forget that. Pardon the pun but the fallout from this will go on for years and will cost more than just money to clean up.
illogical, irrelevant and absurd. Rant all you want about radioactivity, assuming you have some knowledge of it, but you know fossil power station emit million of tonnes of carbon dioxide - that's not only an asphyxiant but actually toxic at sufficient concentrations (~10%)
Now I know it's ridiculous to worry about carbon dioxide poisoning except in extreme circumstances but it's FAR more likely than Xenon having any effects
And, say, 200 Bequerel worth of Iodine-131 per litre of water (to be generous) would certainly turn into roomfulls of xenon, ready to burst out and asphyxiate you.
I can't make out if you would be more sensitive than the average person to xenon asphyxiation, or rather less, because your brain, being inoperative already, wouldn't be bothered by oxygen deprivation.
have a habit of reacting quickly to form other compounds. However you're talking about the amount of iodine 131 converting to xenon as if it was a concentrated gas that could asphyxiate people when that is not, and never has been the case, unless you're happening to be breathing the vented steam from the reactors of course - which I highly doubt. Once that material has diluted a couple of billion or so times and decayed, it does indeed cease to be a danger.
Think things through instead of going for the easy hyperbolic. Hyperbole is no substitute for thought.
Iodine-131 decays to Xenon-131 by beta decay.
Xe-131 is stable (i.e NON-radioactive) and the only hazard if concentrated is anesthesia or asphyxiation. At the truly minute amounts present in the water this is impossible.
What the hell the compounds of Xenon have to do with this ?
Any gas that isn't oxygen is an asphyxiant if it's not mixed with sufficient oxygen
Have opinions, but don't try and BS with 'facts' that aren't and science you clearly don't understand
Often those that spout how safe nuclear is would never allow a plant to be built within 5 miles of their house. Lewis is pretty rabid and may but its easy to say don't worry when your kids are 7000 miles away. Bet if it was in the town over half the smug people on here might behave different.
I used to live in a village with the Hartlepool nuke plant *and* Tioxide (one of the largest Cyanide plants in the UK) nearby. I'm fully behind the "Nuke is safe" movement and would like to see more built and coal plants torn down.
Worrying about nuke power going tits up is like a person being worried about the safety of air travel when they happily use the most dangerous form of transit without a care in the world (cars, btw).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
