Slashdot Mirror


Radiation Absorbing Mineral Found In the Arctic

An anonymous reader writes "A mineral has recently been found that exhibits the astounding property of being able to remove radiation from water-based solutions. 'After coming into contact with the mineral, radioactive water becomes completely safe. Had this mineral been available to physicists after the Chernobyl or Three Mile Island disasters, the consequences might have been very different, as both accidents resulted in contamination from radioactive water.' Also, the article notes that although only grams of the material have been found, tons of it are needed; they are confident they could artificially reproduce it."

70 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Had this mineral been available to physicists after the Chernobyl or Three Mile Island disasters, the consequences might have been very different,


    I thought radiation levels around 3 Mile Island never got more than twice background? Aernt there are plenty of normal places around the word (i.e. not uranium mines/dumps) where the levels are naturally higher?
    1. Re:correct me if I'm wrong by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes but showing the DANGER of nuclear energy through sensational media coverage is mandatory!

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    2. Re:correct me if I'm wrong by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are plenty of places where water is naturally full of alligators, it doesn't mean it's okay or desirable to introduce crocs in places where there aren't any.

      Is that another bad analogy I see? Oh yes... Ok, lets put it into perspective then. Based on the radiation dose people were exposed to from three mile island it was estimated that you could expect 0.5 cases of cancer as a result. I.e, there was a 50% chance that one person might develop cancer due to the radiation at some part during his/her life. Now, start comparing it to risks we accept every day. The risk of getting cancer from the Sun's UV rays. The risk of getting killed when you cross the road. The risk from fossil fuel emissions. The risk of drowning in a hydroelectric dam. The risk you will choke on a peanut... etc. Basically, if you don't think the risk from accidents like TMI is acceptable, you'd better not eat any solid food tonight, because there is a chance you will choke on it. Oh, and I wouldn't ever take a shower if I were you, you might slip and hit your head against the tub.
    3. Re:correct me if I'm wrong by no_pets · · Score: 2, Funny

      The best part about this comment is the fact that the STP nuclear plant in south Texas is well-known for its gator-infested cooling pool. It's imperative that more of this mineral be found to prevent these gators from mutating.
      --
      "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
    4. Re:correct me if I'm wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      This would have changed the situation at TMI significantly. Instead of 0 deaths due to radiation, you would have only a thousandth the deaths, maybe even only a millionth. Let me grab my calculator...resulting in 0 deaths.

    5. Re:correct me if I'm wrong by 2names · · Score: 2, Funny

      I for one welcome our new radioactive, reptilian overlords.

      *ducks*

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    6. Re:correct me if I'm wrong by DaleGlass · · Score: 2

      And there are places where the trees are full of squirrels, and that doesn't mean that introducing squirrels somewhere else is going to mean you'll get nibbled to death by them.


      Unless they're russian squirrels.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4489792.stm
    7. Re:correct me if I'm wrong by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Aernt there are plenty of normal places around the word (i.e. not uranium mines/dumps) where the levels are naturally higher?"
      Background is an average. So the answer is yes. Including many basements, cities located high in the moutians, airliners... You don't even need to be near a uranium mine or dump to get twice background.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:correct me if I'm wrong by R2.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow - flash back to 1974. Dad was working on the Crystal River project, and one day he brought us out there to feed the gator in the cooling water canal. Marshmallows, if I remember correctly.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    9. Re:correct me if I'm wrong by p0tat03 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, and I wouldn't ever take a shower if I were you,

      I'm on Slashdot, that advice is irrelevant.

    10. Re:correct me if I'm wrong by davester666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quick, start mining the arctic for this material. And if you happen to come across oil, it's a bonus!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. Filtered water by Gogogoch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, this sounds like a mineral based water filter. It removes the radioactive isotopes from water, not the radiation itself. So anything that can remove these typically heavy ions will work. I'm surprised this is new.

    1. Re:Filtered water by TigerNut · · Score: 2

      Heavy water, at least the deuterium-based kind, isn't radioactive.

      --

      Less is more.

    2. Re:Filtered water by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, yes. But this is the new slashdot. It never lets science get in the way of a good marketing line.

      Go ahead, mark me down, I don't mind losing my karma. Slashdot isn't worth much these day.

    3. Re:Filtered water by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, no. It sounds like another Russian ploy to convince the world that it owns the Arctic Circle. Ten new minerals a year are found there! Go Russia!

      Everyone knows that the Arctic is useful only for its oil fields, but that doesn't mean you can't pretend to be interested in the Arctic for other reasons--like world-saving minerals only your scientists can find.

      I'm a cynic.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  3. Fooled again. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once again a Slashdot editor is fooled by pseudo-science.

  4. Space Travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    WOW!! Could they use this mineral on spacecraft to absorb radiation in space to make it safe for long-distance space travelers??? That is just what we need!

    1. Re:Space Travel by dstiggy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly it's Trellium D! Man why didn't I think of that before... Now wait was that radiation or did it absorb spacial anomalies? Damn Star Trek!

  5. Bullshit by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My bullshit detector is going off. Yours should be too.

    --
    No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    1. Re:Bullshit by lahi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed. It's way out on the taurokoprometric scale. If only they could find a bullshit-absorbing mineral.

      -Lasse

    2. Re:Bullshit by JonTurner · · Score: 5, Funny

      >>If only they could find a bullshit-absorbing mineral.

      Slashdotium 404. A rare, low-energy isotope of unobtanium. A naturally occurring byproduct of cheetos, Jolt and bad upbringing, frequently found in mother's basements and video arcades it is of no known use.

    3. Re:Bullshit by Jaseoldboss · · Score: 3, Insightful
      How wrong you are, the new mineral called Kraptonite absorbs gamma rays ten million times more effectively than the same thickness of Lead.


      Had this mineral been available to physicists after the Chernobyl or Three Mile Island disasters, the consequences might have been very different, as both accidents resulted in contamination from radioactive water.

      Ah yes, a sprinkling of radiation absorbing mineral would have completeley prevented a 30GW steam explosion wouldn't it?
      By they way, I'm not cynical of the Russian scientists as there is every possibility of them having discovered a new filtration compound. Rather the idiotic reporting of it as some new 'radiation antidote'.
    4. Re:Bullshit by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably. Actually it may be either bad science or bad journalism.

      AFAIK the annoyance no 1 contaminant in nuclear waste is radiactive Rutenium. Whatever you do it always ends up in both your "pure" fraction and your "waste" in significant quantities and has a spectrum of isotopes which while not very long lived, have a halftime long enough just to be a major annoyance. So if someone in the arctic has discovered something that absorbs it in quantity and tried to explain his discovery to a Russian journalist over one of those standard "beyond the arctic circle" cocktails known as "Vupej, poliarnikom budesh" the resulting article on the morning after would have been something like this.

      So it may be not the bullshit detector going off the scale. It may be the alcohol one when applied to an illiterate journalist.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Bullshit by cmdr_beeftaco · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think Slashdotium 404 is an isotope of Virginium.

  6. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I followed the article. Seems to contain no substantial information whatever. Who writes this shit?
    Anyone know more about this story (assuming there is more to know)?

  7. Eco-friendly nukes by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can see it now... the President holds a conference praising the development of eco-friendly nukes that wipe out entire populations of men, women, and children, but that leave the surviving ecosystem safe from continued exposure. Red is the new Green!

  8. Is the ATLANTUS OUTPOST near buy by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Funny

    and are there any ZPM's left?

  9. In Russia... by krgallagher · · Score: 3, Funny
    As I read the article, I could not help but hear a Russian accent in my head. Especially on sentences like "Every year ten new minerals are discovered in the Arctic Circle, and one third of all worldwide mineral discoveries are on the Kolsky Peninsula." It has a distinctly cold war era sound to it. So...

    In Russia radiation absorbs minerals from you!

    --

    Insert Generic Sig Here:

  10. Three Mile Island disaster? by Matt+Edd · · Score: 5, Informative
    Not to say that it wasn't a bad thing but calling it a disaster seems like FUD to me. From wikipedia...

    The scientific community is largely agreed on the effects of the Three Mile Island accident. The consensus is that no member of the public was injured by the accident. "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year.
    1. Re:Three Mile Island disaster? by iabervon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The NRC was justifiably worried that it was pure luck that nothing really bad happened. It's not right to call it a disaster, but neither would it be reasonable to write it off entirely. If the same thing were to happen often, there would be an actual disaster before long, and the NRC is supposed to prevent disasters, not just identify them after the fact.

  11. 27-4 sounds like by click2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

    a russian convenience store.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  12. What is the "Kolsky Research Institute"? by johndiii · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google returns only three hits for "Kolsky Research Institute" - all connected with this story.

    As nice as it would be to believe that this is true, it sounds like pseudoscience to me. Absorbing any radioactive substance from water just does not sound plausible, given that absorption would be a micro-level physical process, or a chemical one, acting on a nuclear-level phenomenon.

    --
    Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
    1. Re:What is the "Kolsky Research Institute"? by budgenator · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its called a zeolites and they have been used in water softeners and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants for decade.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  13. so. . . by jppatton1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Soviet Russia. . .um. . . crap. I got nothing. Sorry. I'm new here.

  14. Light on details by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article is very light on details. To remove "radiactivity" from water, you really need to remove radiactive substances from the water. So this mineral is what, like a filter that removes any and all molecular impurities from water, leaving only H2O molecules?

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  15. Bollocks by Aardpig · · Score: 2, Informative

    You cannot 'remove' radiation from water; the reason water might be radioactive is that it contains contaminants that themselves are radioactive. But ordinary water - containing just 1H and 16O - is completely stable.

    This highlights a common misconception about radioactive contamination. Things that are initially inert only become radioactive either by contamination or by transmutation; they are not 'infected' by radioactivity.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  16. science??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I need more detail to believe this. Radioactivity (in radioactive materials) is caused by the decay of unstable atoms into smaller ones, with a release of energy and high speed particles (aka radiation). Radiation isn't a chemical that you can just remove. Lots of things can absorb radiation, but the radioactive material just produces more. To quickly remove the radioactivity you would have to (1) remove the unstable isotopes, or (2) break them down into more stable forms, or (3) change something so that they do not break down using science fiction techniques. Since 3 is probably impossible for humans today, and 2 would cause a sudden large release of energy, the most probable way to do it is (1).

    Unless they are talking about a chemical that precipitates the specific elements or isotopes that are responsible for the radioactivity (in which case why is this a new discovery?), I would suspect a hoax, or at least a gross mischaracterization of the discovery.

  17. I know the mineral - it's LEAD! by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know the mineral - it's LEAD! Yes, just grind it up into a fine powder and sprinkle it into your radioactive brew: even the glowing-est cup of water will be safe to drink again.

  18. Learn every day; life is too complicated for games by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    "They've found a new mineral which absorbs radiation... It can absorb radioactivity from liquid nuclear waste."

    The article linked in the Slashdot story does not say that radioactive minerals are being absorbed, a chemical impossibility. It says radiation is absorbed, which is impossible in physics, in the way that that the article states.

    I know that this will probably be moderated down by those who use games to avoid dealing with reality. However, it seems useful to say that life is too complicated to play games; it is necessary to learn everything you can every day.

    Slashdot editors have, according to them, spent a lot of time playing games, and they are often fooled by junk pretending to be science. I'm guessing that there is a connection between their game playing and their ignorance of the real world.

  19. Please use common definitions by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Usually, calling something a "disaster" implies that someone or something was negatively effected. The Three Mile Island "disaster" resulted in no impact to anyone or anything aside from causing electricity bills to rise.

          Brett

  20. Re:Where does it go? by andrewd18 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nah, you see...there's another mineral out there too. It is capable of absorbing radiation from this material. See? Problem solved! Silly boy!
    I believe they call it VOOM.
  21. Serious business down in the lab... by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jim: Hey Earl, we got that new mineral, what are we ganna do with it?

    Earl: How bout we put some in that cup of radioactive water?

    Jim: Wow, how about that! It's not radioactive anymore! *starts to hand earl the water*

    Earl: Ha ha, nice try Jim, I've fallen for that one before!

    --
    sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
  22. Too good to be true? by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Informative
    If it sounds too good to be true - it probably is.

    Of course - there is always the possibility that radioactive isotopes can be filtered out from water, but each isotope has a different chemical signature so it's not easy to find a wonder-material that catches all. And that without contaminating the water with other chemicals that may be poisonous instead.

    For radiation shielding Lead and Barium sulfate are two common materials. Depleted uranium isn't that bad when it comes to shielding, but it's harder to get. Then there is also the question of if it's Alpha, Beta or Gamma radiation. Each is shielded in a different way, but the absorption shield may generate secondary radiation when absorbing the primary radiation.

    Neutrons are a special case since they have a tendency to penetrate most materials relatively easy and magnetic fields can't be used to deflect them either...

    Cosmic radiation is actually a mix of various types of radiation, Helium nuclei, protons, electrons etc., all with high energy so the counter-measures have to cope with a mix of radiation.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  23. Re:The applications are obvious by mdmkolbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The mineral absorbs "radioactive substances", not the radiation itself.

    While radiation poisoning can occur due to exposure to radiation and transmutation of the isotopes in the exposed substance, that particular effect is relatively minor.

    The larger concern is that in the process of running a neuclear power plant, tiny flakes of the radioactive power rod detach and mix with flakes from other parts in the machinery thus forming a radioative dust. Since dust is so easily transfered, if I touch the dust and then I touch a book and then you touch the book, you may get a small amount of this radioactive dust on you. I didn't really make the book radioactive as much as I put dust that was radioactive on it. (Radiation suits don't actaully protect from direct radiation, they just make sure you don't track radioactive dust through the rest of the station.)

    My guess is that this mineral is just filtering out heavy radioactive metals (i.e. taking the radioactive part of the dust out of the dust).

  24. And the mineral is.... carbon! by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since the article is a bit short on detauils, we can reverse-engineer to get the info... Let's see ... absorbs things.... Aha ! Charcoal! Activated carbon!! But darn, you might recall since WWI the technology has been around to char things like peach pits until they're pure carbon, for use in gas masks. Only about 90 years too late to patent this.

  25. Exactly by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It removes the radioactive isotopes from water, not the radiation itself.

    Yeah, and what kind of radioactive material? Strontium and Cesium? Beta emitters? How about I-131? Or is it just heavy nucleotides? What about radioisotopes that happen to be toxic besides being radioactive?

    I'll be happy to run the dosimetry for anyone who wants to experiment but you won't catch me drinking any radiation snake oil the Russians cook up...that doesn't start with a vat of potato peelings anyway.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  26. Sigh. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This element has been discovered countless times before. It's common name is "Bullshitium" and it's used in turning lead to gold, eating up radiation, and can be used in pollution-less power plants.

    There is only one way to "absorb" radiation, and everything does it already. Step outside and you're absorbing radiation.

    Now, if there are radioactive particulates suspended in your water, you can filter those out with any sufficiently fine-grained filter. This is the most common form of radioactive water pollution.

    Following that you have Tritium Oxide (HTO), which is a water-like substance made with H-3 isotopes (T). It's basically impossible to separate HTO from H20. It reacts no differently than plain old H or H-2(D), it just happens to have a few extra neutrons, and be a beta emmitter.

    The tendency to emit radiation is completely irrelevant in terms of chemical reactions (unless you're using it as a catalyst); if your radioactive isotope is slutty with its electrons, then you can maybe dump something reactive into the solution for it to bind itself to, but in this case that's not going to happen...If it was easy to break H2 (or HT in this case) off of O, we'd all be driving Hydrogen cars.

    So in short, either you can filter it out, or there is crap that you can do about it, because emmitting radiation isn't a property that can be used to bind anything...That's like saying you've found a mineral that will bind to a lightbulb.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  27. Re:Learn every day; life is too complicated for ga by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yep. Thanks for point that out. Pure water is VERY HARD to make radioactive. You would need to bombard it with enough neutrons to breed a large amount of tritium. If you did that you sure wouldn't want to get ride of that water since it would be worth a lot of money.

    Water can become contaminated with readioive material. There are lots of ways to filter out the contamination but they tend to be expensive because it isn;t just a few gallons of water water you have to deal with but a lake, aquifer, or river.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  28. There is another, heavier, water. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Informative

    D2O, isn't radioactive, but HTO (Tritium Oxide) is a beta emitter. Tritium is H-3 (Deuterium is H-2); hydrogen with 2 extra neutrons. Half life of about 12 years. It's used to boost the yield on nukes, so it does get made a bit.

    Oxygen has 2 isotopes, but I don't think either of them are radioactive, or otherwise very interesting.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:There is another, heavier, water. by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Informative

      oxygen has 3 stable isotopes, 16, 17 & 18. There's 14 unstable ones 12-15 and 19-27, but their half-life goes from 2 hours down to very minute fractions of a second, they won't hang around long.

  29. Small Typo in Article by DieByWire · · Score: 5, Funny

    After coming into contact with the mineral, radioactive water becomes completely safe.

    It was supposed to say, 'Ten half-lives after coming into contact with the mineral, radioactive water becomes completely safe.'

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  30. You insensitive clod! by Poingggg · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I wouldn't ever take a shower if I were you, you might slip and hit your head against the tub...

    I just died that way!

    --
    What person will donate an airborne act of love?
    1. Re:You insensitive clod! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just died that way! You know you're a geek when the first thing you do after dying is post on Slashdot to tell everyone about it.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:You insensitive clod! by tsa · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, you had to hit the sink, after falling off the toilet.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:You insensitive clod! by mindwhip · · Score: 2, Funny

      Depends on your karma.

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
  31. Indirect disaster by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The undamaged plant next to it was shut down as a precaution. The power the two plants generated was replaced by burning coal. Using the Office of Technology Assessment figures for premature deaths from coal burning, the accident itself killed 50 people every year from air pollution and coal mining, another 50 per year from the shutdown of the other reactor.

    Coal has gotten cleaner over time, so you can't just multiply by the number of years since the accident, but it's still many hundreds of people dead.

    1. Re:Indirect disaster by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, but that's a self-created disaster/criminal stupidity that had virtually nothing to do with the reality of the original incident.

            Brett

  32. Re:You're not wrong, you're an idiot! by ZombieWomble · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The problem is there isn't really good evidence that such radiation is dangerous at all. These figures like the "0.5 cases of cancer" all assume the Linear No Threshold model - that is, that any amount of radiation is bad, and extrapolate a straight line from the last "good" data to (0,0). This has never been conclusively proven, given the extremely low cancer rates that would be expected at such low exposure limits. And the naive "it can cause DNA damage, it must be bad!" line of reasoning also doesn't hold, because there is evidence that radioresistance can develop, at least on the level of individual cells.

    There are places on earth where background is one hundred times the global average, and people aren't dropping like flies there. A tiny rise in background is a fairly minor issue - significantly smaller than pretty much any accident which could happen in any other business - but because it's from "radiation", it's endlessly repeated as proof of how dangerous these power plants are.

  33. No way to selectively absorb radioactive minerals. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is no filter that selectively absorbs radioactive minerals, because radioactivity is a nuclear phenomenon, and filters are chemically active.

  34. Re:correct me if the story changed by epine · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The actual radiation release from TMI was not earth shattering, regardless of Spin at Eleven. However, they released a report following the accident which claimed the accident had a relatively modest risk profile. This "nothing to see here" Kemeny report was published well before the Idaho National Lab finished dismantling the reactor core. What they found at the bottom was shocking. Let's just say the radioactive blob was well on its way to China.

    http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi03.htm

    7:45 a.m. By now there are at least 20, perhaps as many as 60, operators, supervisors, and other persons in the control room. Although none is yet ready to believe that the core had been uncovered, radiation levels in the power plant buildings are so high that Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations require the declaration of a general emergency. While state and federal officials are being informed of elevated radiation levels, unbeknown to all, a molten mass of metal and fuel--some twenty tons in all--is spilling into the bottom of the reactor vessel. The bottom of the reactor vessel is steel, five inches (13 cm) thick. But even that thickness of steel would not be expected to hold up for more than a few hours against such heat.

    Note that the information presented here comes *after* they discovered the true magnitude of the molten blob years later. It took INEEL a good while to chisel out twenty tons of highly radioactive material with a remote-controlled jackhammer.

    From the rather tame Kemeny report

    e. There is no indication that any core material made contact with the steel pressure vessel at a temperature above the melting point of steel (2,800F).

    Well, they later discovered that twenty tons of material well above that temperature was puddling in that vicinity at an alarming rate: perhaps no longer than episode in the series 24.

    The story of TMI is not what was actually released, but how clueless they all were for a long time afterward about how close it came to dumping a Chernobyl-unit of molten goo into the Pennsylvania water table.

    Concerning Chernobyl:

    All remaining dosimeters had limits of 0.001 R/s and therefore read "off scale". Thus, the reactor crew could ascertain only that the radiation levels were somewhere above 0.001 R/s (3.6 R/h), while the true levels were 5,600 times higher in some areas.

    Because of the fallacious low readings, the reactor crew chief Alexander Akimov assumed that the reactor was intact. The evidence of pieces of graphite and reactor fuel lying around the building was ignored, and the readings of another dosimeter brought in by 4:30 a.m. were dismissed under the assumption that the new dosimeter must have been defective. Akimov stayed with his crew in the reactor building until morning, trying to pump water into the reactor. None of them wore any protective gear. Most of them, including Akimov, died from radiation exposure within three weeks.

    I suspect he took one look at that reading and thought to himself, "if that reading is correct, my goose is cooked". The Soviet Union never established much of a track record in encouraging the self-preservation of men poured into the breech. Typically, your reward for survival was being shot.

    Back in America, the debate centers around 0.5 cancers in the aftermath, rather than the one or two hour window between what actually happened and the China syndrome. I wonder if they made an explicit political calculation: let's rush through publication of the Kemeny report before we learn anything more frightening we'd be obligated to disclose. Under the Bush administration, those obligations have mostly been terminated. They could probably write the accident report today for a future accident that hasn't even happened yet.

  35. Wait a second there, buster! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our new radioactive, reptilian overlords.

    Good so far.

    *ducks*

    But that's pushing it. Ducks are birds, and birds are the last remnant dinosaurs, and dinosaurs and reptiles are related, but that doesn't mean ducks are reptiles.

  36. Re:You're not wrong, you're an idiot! by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow...that makes perfect sense. Cause there can't be any types of radiation that won't kill you instantly. That would be absurd!

    I sincerely hope you were kidding...

    --
    There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
  37. Re:You're not wrong, you're an idiot! by gumbi+west · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If anyone cares, the above poster disagrees with the National Academies of Science.

  38. Re:You're not wrong, you're an idiot! by gumbi+west · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh get off trying to misunderstand him. The point is that if you can see ionizing radiation, your probably in for it. The exception would be Cherenkov radiation--which might not kill you if the setup is right.

  39. Re:correct me if the story changed by Smurf · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I hope you are aware of two things:
    • As a semi-anonymous Slashdot user you have almost as much credibility as anyone else. You can claim that YOU designed TMI, but unless you provide a link or a citation to a reputable source you might as well say that the FSM told you.
    • ...


    And at this point I get the joke, feel like a retard, but nevertheless hit the Submit button. Cheers!
  40. Re:You're not wrong, you're an idiot! by ZombieWomble · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The official position is that the LNT model is the "most reasonable", given current what good epidemiological studies are available - but the article cited by wikipedia goes to some length to point out the lack of good evidence there is for very low levels of dose. It notes that the correlation is only reasonable down to ~50mSv, which is still 25 times the mean background, for example.

    Consider the graph they show for the different low-dose models:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/vol100/issue24/images/ large/pq2235592003.jpeg

    The data points they're extrapolating to are a country mile from where the interesting biology may be going on, as demonstrated by the vast variety of curves which produce reasonable fits to the data.

    I've came into medical physics from a different field, and some of the methods they consider acceptable trouble me a bit, at times. I wouldn't disagree that a linear extrapolation is a reasonable guideline, but that is for a rather broad definition of reasonable, and I would certainly say it's got a long way to go before its proven by the standards of most branches of science.

  41. Re:You're not wrong, you're an idiot! by Synchis · · Score: 4, Funny

    "(Score:0, Insightful)"...

    Only on Slashdot...

    --
    Thomas A. Knight
    Author of The Time Weaver
  42. Re:You're not wrong, you're an idiot! by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I should have made it clearer. That's what my theory for the general publics perception of things: "It's not as dangerous if you can see it". To further this, if you can't see it it is more dangerous and should be feared more. If you can't see it or feel it it is something to fear to the point if irrationality.

    My point about "your dead already" is that people have this big stigma about radiation because it is, in most cases, completely invisible and otherwise undetectable with your unassisted senses. If you can feel it or see it, you have likely already exceeded a fatal exposure and are, for lack of a better way of putting it, fucked.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  43. Re:correct me if the story changed by Mspangler · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually I saw the report and the pictures of TMI while an undergrad at the U of Idaho. The bottom of the reactor was full of scrap iron (Ok fancy scrap alloys if you want to be picky.) The melted fuel was not at the bottom: It was higher in the reactor vessel.

    The point everyone forgot is that heat rises. And the second point is that unlike water and ice, molten metal is less dense than the unmelted metal. Once the water boiled out, the fission stopped, and the decay heat wasn't enough to chew through all the non-fuel containing structure, which was sagging to the bottom of the fuel zone. So remains of the reactor stayed in the vessel.

    Now, in Chernobyl, the graphite did not boil off, the reactor kept going well after it started to come apart, and, well, the heat still went up, carrying the reactor with it. That "Elephant's foot" was a portion of the melt that did go down, but in the end it stopped while still inside the building.

    SL-1 went prompt-critical, blew it's control rods UP into the roof, and did not melt down either. Windscale also went up, not down.

    Meltdowns probably do need to be designed against, but they look much less likely to occur than originally thought.

  44. Zeolites can do this by Diamonddavej · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Zeolite minerals are already used to remove radiation from waste water produced by the nuclear reprocessing industry. Zeolites are natural molecular sieves, their cage like atomic structure efficiently traps specific chemical elements e.g. plutonium, americurium, iodine etc. So this is not a false claim, just exaggerated, there are lots of minerals with this property. I suppose this is someone looking for grant money...its that time of year again.