There is no safe minimum dose once it is in your body, slowly disintegrating, radiating into your organs and cells.
There is also no safe minimum exposure to sunlight, no safe minimum amount of air to breath, no safe minimal exposure to germs, no safe minimal ingestion of food. Nothing you do is safe.
There is no safe level of ignorance either.
But, if your definition of safe is something that is unlikely to cause any harm or ill effect, then small radioactive doses, internal or external, are quite safe, particularly in comparison to many things that we do in everyday life that we consider safe.
You are incorrect. Small doses are highly toxic because the meabolism transports them to sites around the body where they continue to emit radiation and gestate cancer. Oppenheimer's own research found pu-239 to be fatal at 1-10 micrograms, toxic as an inhalant or when ingested. So your statement contradicts even the 50 year old science.
As for energetic levels, and depending on the radio-isotope analogue, if they are beyond a certain level they are cancerous, if they are below a certain level they are mutagenic to the DNA and cause transgenic disease. So, no, there is NO safe level of exposure just whether you or your progeny experiences the consequences.
As for your "comparison to many things that we do in everyday life that we consider safe", any risk of exposure is measured against the severity of consequences. An argument like that presupposes that you have control over your exposure to the risk, which you don't have with radio-isotope exposure in the foodchain. The difference with Fukushima is that the risk is being increased e.v.e.r.y.d.a.y and no-one has any control over that exposure anymore.
This leads to the fundamental point missed in this argument. WHOI, with a small budget detected C137 of the coast of the US with just 50 samples from the pacific ocean. No government funding, one boat and a small group of dedicated scientists. Should we just assume that the rest of the ocean is hunky dory and "just the bits they were checking" happened to have radioceasium in it?
That's a rapid decay rate when compared to other radio-isotopes, sr-90 is a 600 year half life which is quite rapid when compared to pu-239, who's halflife is 25,000 years. The issue here is not the radio-isotopes decay rate compared to a human lifespan, it's the decay rate compared to other radio-isotopes.
Think about the amount of radiation you'd face holding half a kilogram of Cesium-137. Now, think about if its half life were 8 days instead of 30 years. You'd face 30 years of radiation in 8 days.
The energetic levels of a radio-isotope's alpha, beta and gamma emissions differ. Your scenario would just mean you are holding a different radio-isotope. What it wouldn't take into account is the toxicity of it or the radio-isotopes that have a longer decay rate.
Furthermore you are looking at n years * 20 iterations (where n is the half-life) of daughter products, meaning a "short-lived" radio-isotope, like C137 will take 600 years to become benign, 12000 years for sr-90 and half a billion years for pu-239. So, yeah, 30 years is a short half-life.
All of which is effectively forever for human beings.
caesium 137 bioaccumulates.
Concentrates its way up the food chain.
There is no safe minimum dose once it is in your body, slowly disintegrating, radiating into your organs and cells.
Cesium accumulates in your body because it's chemically similar to potassium, which your body needs for nerves to function (among other things). So it can accumulate no more than potassium does.
Statement of fact.
Potassium has a naturally occurring radioactive isoltope, K-40, which like Cesium undergoes both beta and gamma decay. The amount of K-40 in the typical human body contributes 4000-5000 becquerel to your natural radiation dose.
Loosely related association.
So your contention that there is "no safe minimum dose once it is in your body" is clearly wrong. Everyone who has ever lived has been exposed to a relative "huge" amount of radiation from K-40 throughout their entire lives, and our species is still here.
Strawman argument.
Your comment describes the process all micro-nutrient analogues undergo as a radioisotope, exactly what mrflash818 stated. Your reply is a strawman because you attempt to say that C137 as an emitter is no more dangerous than potassium which is clearly false. C137's relatively short half life means it is highly energetic and when it is ingested at a sufficient dose in a human will trigger thyroid cancer.
I am trying to understand why this perfectly reasonable informative comment, with a link provided, that accurately describes *exactly* what caesium 137 does when ingested has been modded down to -1.
Seasickness sacked several seamen who set sail in search of cesium in the sea. The say the seasickness ceased after stopping to seize the cesium sea samples they were seeking. So the cesium samples were safely secured by the sailors, sans-seasickness.
I automate every task I find mundane. Boring tasks means I am not thinking and if I am not thinking that means I am not learning. If I am not learning I am stagnating. Automating stuff *is* hard work because it forces you to learn. Learning other peoples automations means I don't have to solve those problems.
Automating stuff means I am more effective and I have more time to write/. comments and this is good because sometimes solving hard problems means I should just chill for a while, while the automation does the work. Automation doesn't make me less capable, but it does mean that I have 3 times the output of anyone else around me, making me more relaxed and generally easier going while people wonder how I do it.
Automation makes me smart lazy and achieving that is hard work.
Seriously, I wish these police services would just stop whining and get on with their jobs. Frankly this is just another excuse to be lazy, they have plenty of powers under the law to demand warrants to uncover who people are. It is insulting for police to take this attitude that they don't have enough powers or are somehow impeded in performing their duties. I have a simple message:
I remember when Mitnick was held in jail for 5 years by the FBI without a charge and that they were so scared of the guy they refused him a phone call because they believed he would be able to call in a nuclear bomb strike.
I read his book, "The Art of Deception" - an excellent read, yet despite all his recommendations we see all of the holes still present for the modern intelligencia to take advantage of. Kevin was to be the poster boy for 21st Century human rights abuse and the FBI didn't care how many bumper stickers people bought.
It might be my responsibility (well, 1/300+Mth etc) but it's their "job". They're actually getting paid for it. They get to put it on their resume.
Friend, it doesn't matter. It is 100% your responsibility. They get to put who they represent on their resume. You voted for them (or not) that makes you their boss (technically) which means it is 100% your responsibility to make sure they represent your interests.
These days, there's no excuse for not having access to a dictionary. If you can get to slashdot, you can get to reference.com. HTH, HAND.
I am uncertain what you are referring to? hope this helps, have a nice day or hope this helps - look at what Justice Hand achieved.
If no one has raised objections to proposed laws, how can you expect the politicians to?
Right, and if you don't tow your own vehicle out of the ditch, how do you expect the tow truck guy to do it? If you don't cook your own meal, how do you expect the chef to do it?
Sure, but their metric is to create and pass bills. The quality of them is a matter of perspective. Another part of their job is to listen to people who complain about it and respond. If lobby groups outweigh your interests, tuff titties buddy, you should have done something!
Oh, right, it's their fucking job.
No it isn't, it's YOUR job. Ever heard the saying "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"? That cost is yours to bare so please don't wrap you apathy in vitriol and point it at me. Your personal freedom is your personal responsibility and duty.
Case Study #31027 of government twisting and misusing laws intended for one thing, to attack a completely different class of crime.
This "creativity" is nothing to be proud of.
If you don't like the wording of a proposed bill you can write to your congresscritter regarding your concerns about the wording of a law and have them change it before it is passed. I've done this in the past to some major acts of law and had a good response. Once it is law the authorities can press charges under that law.
If no one has raised objections to proposed laws, how can you expect the politicians to?
But nothing you are saying there contradicts what I was saying. That getting some spiked fuel into the onsite generator and cutting the grid tie would cause the reactor to melt down.
You said a few things and deliberate sabotage, indeed anything, that exposes a BDI introduces the possibility of a meltdown. Add more exposures and you increase the possibility.
From what I understand the reactors do not meltdown the second the pumps are offline.
What you need to understand is a meltdown is not the only threat to a reactor. Fukushima exploded first and then melted down. The second the pumps are offline the reactor starts producing hydrogen.
In fact that even with the system offline and now pumping occurring the convection currents alone will keep the reactor in a safe zone for quite some time. More than enough time to bring new pumps / generators or power supply to site.
No, it will not keep it in a 'safe zone' for long enough to install a new generator. It may give you enough time to restart or repair an existing one at best.
What happened at Fukashima was unfortunate.
What happened at Fukushima was criminal negligence and should be treated as such.
But the situation was made bad first by a large earthquake and second by a highly damaging tsumani.
Even the earthquake and tsunami should not have been a threat to the reactor. The situation was made bad first by the operators assumption that the plant was safe which created the mindset that they didn't need to protect the generators or raise the seawall - all of this is covered in the report.
The situation was made worse by the quake and tsunami.
The argument that you can cause a nuclear meltdown of an otherwise perfectly happy plant, in the middle of a highly developed country, just by taking out the generator and grid tie is I think a bit far fetched. You would have either the grid tie fixed, or a new generator in place well within safety margins.
It's not what I am talking about but educating anyone on how to do such a thing, as I said, would be irresponsible. I'm glad the information is not online.
Also as I understand is BWR-3s, BWR-4s and BWR-5s were 2nd generation systems. Fukushima had 1 three, 4 fours and a 5 with mk II containment.
Thanks for pointing that detail out. It is indeed a Gen II, GE Mark I reactor design.
There are 81 BWR plants in operation around the world. Of a total of 434 plants. Of those 81 over half are Gen 3 or later designs which do not have the same failure method as the Gen 2 Fukushima design.
Fukashima was a Gen 1 derived from a GE design. Two reactors were GE, one Hitachi and another was Toshiba(iirc).
That does not however change the fact that the Tsunami and earth quake destroyed the emergency response capability.
But not of the USS Ronald Reagan, who was stationed to respond to and monitor the incident. The sailors of which are now suffering because of their exposure to the fallout. A frustratingly unnecessarily sacrifice considering the dogmatic pride of TEPCO and the Japanese government was what allowed this completely avoidable disaster to unfold.
Remove those issues and taking out the generator and outside power will not cause the plant to meltdown because the plant isn't operating inside a bubble.
You may not be aware that your statement contradicts the guidelines for operating the reactors under these conditions. Specifically 'S' and 'B' class facilities (Reactor core and primary cooling loop are 2 major S class facilities) have to be *constantly* powered because if they are not the reactor, especially one in a SCRAMed condition, will melt down due to the residual operating heat in the core of the reactor.
Don't forget these plants also have battery backup. This covers an extended period of time for a replacement generator to be brought to site.
I really think you should consider the infrastructure concerns related to what is needed to cool a 600Mw reactor core. That is why the USS Reagan was stationed where it was.
I think you should read the official report as some of the misconceptions you have about what was actually possible are answered there.
Or perhaps there was this MASSIVE fucking Tsunami that killed 10,000+ people and a massive earthquake.
I think you might have forgotten about having a massive amount of sea water pouring into the facility. Roads into and out of the area destroyed. Emergency services essentially crippled.
None of which affect a reactor installation operated properly with suitable systems to mitigate basis design issues. Everything you have pointed out was covered by the official report into the disaster and the findings were that it was a "Man Made" disaster.
You take out the generators and the grid tie and even IF that could melt down the facility (note it would be unlikely as you would have to have the same era and plant design as Fukushima) there would be 100 generators and people on site within hours in any other circumstance outside of a massive earthquake and a killer Tsunami.
No, it has nothing to do with the generation of reactor, but the type of basis design issues and unfortunately generators don't counter the NRC scenarios for intentional sabotage.
A couple well placed hand grenades can take out most Tier-4 data centers. You need a bit more than that for a (nuclear) power plant, but a 2kg payload can do some real damage.
That said, the time to repair is minimal for anything I can think of, although you might be able to degrade the long-term service life.
Actually, no, you can provoke a meltdown.
NRC convened a panel of Industry makers and operators of Nuclear power plants to make recommendations to protect plants against sabotage. It is possible however I think it would be irresponsible to discus how. And before you start looking, the report is not on the net anymore either.
What is your point, and how it relates to binary logs?
If your point is that on power failure, or hard disk failure the buffers are lost, then it's not limited to systemd.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no safe minimum dose once it is in your body, slowly disintegrating, radiating into your organs and cells.
There is also no safe minimum exposure to sunlight, no safe minimum amount of air to breath, no safe minimal exposure to germs, no safe minimal ingestion of food. Nothing you do is safe.
There is no safe level of ignorance either.
But, if your definition of safe is something that is unlikely to cause any harm or ill effect, then small radioactive doses, internal or external, are quite safe, particularly in comparison to many things that we do in everyday life that we consider safe.
You are incorrect. Small doses are highly toxic because the meabolism transports them to sites around the body where they continue to emit radiation and gestate cancer. Oppenheimer's own research found pu-239 to be fatal at 1-10 micrograms, toxic as an inhalant or when ingested. So your statement contradicts even the 50 year old science.
As for energetic levels, and depending on the radio-isotope analogue, if they are beyond a certain level they are cancerous, if they are below a certain level they are mutagenic to the DNA and cause transgenic disease. So, no, there is NO safe level of exposure just whether you or your progeny experiences the consequences.
As for your "comparison to many things that we do in everyday life that we consider safe", any risk of exposure is measured against the severity of consequences. An argument like that presupposes that you have control over your exposure to the risk, which you don't have with radio-isotope exposure in the foodchain. The difference with Fukushima is that the risk is being increased e.v.e.r.y.d.a.y and no-one has any control over that exposure anymore.
This leads to the fundamental point missed in this argument. WHOI, with a small budget detected C137 of the coast of the US with just 50 samples from the pacific ocean. No government funding, one boat and a small group of dedicated scientists. Should we just assume that the rest of the ocean is hunky dory and "just the bits they were checking" happened to have radioceasium in it?
That is why there is no safe level of ignorance.
Lots of stuff takes longer than that to diminish, and lots of that stuff is present in quantities that actually matter.
For example pu-239 whose halflife is 25,000 years and is fatal to humans in the 1-10 microgram range.
Slow radioactive decay is low radiation.
That's a rapid decay rate when compared to other radio-isotopes, sr-90 is a 600 year half life which is quite rapid when compared to pu-239, who's halflife is 25,000 years. The issue here is not the radio-isotopes decay rate compared to a human lifespan, it's the decay rate compared to other radio-isotopes.
Think about the amount of radiation you'd face holding half a kilogram of Cesium-137. Now, think about if its half life were 8 days instead of 30 years. You'd face 30 years of radiation in 8 days.
The energetic levels of a radio-isotope's alpha, beta and gamma emissions differ. Your scenario would just mean you are holding a different radio-isotope. What it wouldn't take into account is the toxicity of it or the radio-isotopes that have a longer decay rate.
Furthermore you are looking at n years * 20 iterations (where n is the half-life) of daughter products, meaning a "short-lived" radio-isotope, like C137 will take 600 years to become benign, 12000 years for sr-90 and half a billion years for pu-239. So, yeah, 30 years is a short half-life.
All of which is effectively forever for human beings.
Cesium accumulates in your body because it's chemically similar to potassium, which your body needs for nerves to function (among other things). So it can accumulate no more than potassium does.
Statement of fact.
Potassium has a naturally occurring radioactive isoltope, K-40, which like Cesium undergoes both beta and gamma decay. The amount of K-40 in the typical human body contributes 4000-5000 becquerel to your natural radiation dose.
Loosely related association.
So your contention that there is "no safe minimum dose once it is in your body" is clearly wrong. Everyone who has ever lived has been exposed to a relative "huge" amount of radiation from K-40 throughout their entire lives, and our species is still here.
Strawman argument.
Your comment describes the process all micro-nutrient analogues undergo as a radioisotope, exactly what mrflash818 stated. Your reply is a strawman because you attempt to say that C137 as an emitter is no more dangerous than potassium which is clearly false. C137's relatively short half life means it is highly energetic and when it is ingested at a sufficient dose in a human will trigger thyroid cancer.
caesium 137 bioaccumulates.
Concentrates its way up the food chain.
There is no safe minimum dose once it is in your body, slowly disintegrating, radiating into your organs and cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
This should be modded UP to informative.
I am trying to understand why this perfectly reasonable informative comment, with a link provided, that accurately describes *exactly* what caesium 137 does when ingested has been modded down to -1.
This is a perfect example of mod trolls at work.
What ninnie moderated this DOWN?
Come on, it's a QUOTE from Star Wars for heaven's sake, and if you think about it in context this is FUNNY.
Boring conversation anyway.
Seasickness sacked several seamen who set sail in search of cesium in the sea. The say the seasickness ceased after stopping to seize the cesium sea samples they were seeking. So the cesium samples were safely secured by the sailors, sans-seasickness.
Was that Seaman Stain?
Automating stuff means I am more effective and I have more time to write /. comments and this is good because sometimes solving hard problems means I should just chill for a while, while the automation does the work. Automation doesn't make me less capable, but it does mean that I have 3 times the output of anyone else around me, making me more relaxed and generally easier going while people wonder how I do it.
Automation makes me smart lazy and achieving that is hard work.
Seriously, I wish these police services would just stop whining and get on with their jobs. Frankly this is just another excuse to be lazy, they have plenty of powers under the law to demand warrants to uncover who people are. It is insulting for police to take this attitude that they don't have enough powers or are somehow impeded in performing their duties. I have a simple message:
Get back to work.
I remember when Mitnick was held in jail for 5 years by the FBI without a charge and that they were so scared of the guy they refused him a phone call because they believed he would be able to call in a nuclear bomb strike.
I read his book, "The Art of Deception" - an excellent read, yet despite all his recommendations we see all of the holes still present for the modern intelligencia to take advantage of. Kevin was to be the poster boy for 21st Century human rights abuse and the FBI didn't care how many bumper stickers people bought.
No it isn't, it's YOUR job.
It might be my responsibility (well, 1/300+Mth etc) but it's their "job". They're actually getting paid for it. They get to put it on their resume.
Friend, it doesn't matter. It is 100% your responsibility. They get to put who they represent on their resume. You voted for them (or not) that makes you their boss (technically) which means it is 100% your responsibility to make sure they represent your interests.
These days, there's no excuse for not having access to a dictionary. If you can get to slashdot, you can get to reference.com. HTH, HAND.
I am uncertain what you are referring to? hope this helps, have a nice day or hope this helps - look at what Justice Hand achieved.
If no one has raised objections to proposed laws, how can you expect the politicians to?
Right, and if you don't tow your own vehicle out of the ditch, how do you expect the tow truck guy to do it? If you don't cook your own meal, how do you expect the chef to do it?
Sure, but their metric is to create and pass bills. The quality of them is a matter of perspective. Another part of their job is to listen to people who complain about it and respond. If lobby groups outweigh your interests, tuff titties buddy, you should have done something!
Oh, right, it's their fucking job.
No it isn't, it's YOUR job. Ever heard the saying "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"? That cost is yours to bare so please don't wrap you apathy in vitriol and point it at me. Your personal freedom is your personal responsibility and duty.
They work for you in the amount that you have paid them relative to everyone else who pays them.
Exactly!
Case Study #31027 of government twisting and misusing laws intended for one thing, to attack a completely different class of crime.
This "creativity" is nothing to be proud of.
If you don't like the wording of a proposed bill you can write to your congresscritter regarding your concerns about the wording of a law and have them change it before it is passed. I've done this in the past to some major acts of law and had a good response. Once it is law the authorities can press charges under that law.
If no one has raised objections to proposed laws, how can you expect the politicians to?
make my sandwich.
But nothing you are saying there contradicts what I was saying. That getting some spiked fuel into the onsite generator and cutting the grid tie would cause the reactor to melt down.
You said a few things and deliberate sabotage, indeed anything, that exposes a BDI introduces the possibility of a meltdown. Add more exposures and you increase the possibility.
From what I understand the reactors do not meltdown the second the pumps are offline.
What you need to understand is a meltdown is not the only threat to a reactor. Fukushima exploded first and then melted down. The second the pumps are offline the reactor starts producing hydrogen.
In fact that even with the system offline and now pumping occurring the convection currents alone will keep the reactor in a safe zone for quite some time. More than enough time to bring new pumps / generators or power supply to site.
No, it will not keep it in a 'safe zone' for long enough to install a new generator. It may give you enough time to restart or repair an existing one at best.
What happened at Fukashima was unfortunate.
What happened at Fukushima was criminal negligence and should be treated as such.
But the situation was made bad first by a large earthquake and second by a highly damaging tsumani.
Even the earthquake and tsunami should not have been a threat to the reactor. The situation was made bad first by the operators assumption that the plant was safe which created the mindset that they didn't need to protect the generators or raise the seawall - all of this is covered in the report.
The situation was made worse by the quake and tsunami.
The argument that you can cause a nuclear meltdown of an otherwise perfectly happy plant, in the middle of a highly developed country, just by taking out the generator and grid tie is I think a bit far fetched. You would have either the grid tie fixed, or a new generator in place well within safety margins.
It's not what I am talking about but educating anyone on how to do such a thing, as I said, would be irresponsible. I'm glad the information is not online.
Also as I understand is BWR-3s, BWR-4s and BWR-5s were 2nd generation systems. Fukushima had 1 three, 4 fours and a 5 with mk II containment.
Thanks for pointing that detail out. It is indeed a Gen II, GE Mark I reactor design.
What people need vs what they want are two different things.
Please go back to reddit. You don't even understand the Streisand effect. What made you think you're qualified to wander outside Facebook, anyway?
I don't use reddit or facebook and I doubt you are qualified to be on my lawn.
Heh, I'm assuming you're referring to this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...
I really like your reference, but I was referring to that 'Barbra Streisand' song by Duck Sauce.
Then how does it work? Please cite sources.
Please refer to Apples UI source code.
oowww owww oww ow ow ow ow, Barbra Streisand
There are 81 BWR plants in operation around the world. Of a total of 434 plants. Of those 81 over half are Gen 3 or later designs which do not have the same failure method as the Gen 2 Fukushima design.
Fukashima was a Gen 1 derived from a GE design. Two reactors were GE, one Hitachi and another was Toshiba(iirc).
That does not however change the fact that the Tsunami and earth quake destroyed the emergency response capability.
But not of the USS Ronald Reagan, who was stationed to respond to and monitor the incident. The sailors of which are now suffering because of their exposure to the fallout. A frustratingly unnecessarily sacrifice considering the dogmatic pride of TEPCO and the Japanese government was what allowed this completely avoidable disaster to unfold.
Remove those issues and taking out the generator and outside power will not cause the plant to meltdown because the plant isn't operating inside a bubble.
You may not be aware that your statement contradicts the guidelines for operating the reactors under these conditions. Specifically 'S' and 'B' class facilities (Reactor core and primary cooling loop are 2 major S class facilities) have to be *constantly* powered because if they are not the reactor, especially one in a SCRAMed condition, will melt down due to the residual operating heat in the core of the reactor.
Don't forget these plants also have battery backup. This covers an extended period of time for a replacement generator to be brought to site.
I really think you should consider the infrastructure concerns related to what is needed to cool a 600Mw reactor core. That is why the USS Reagan was stationed where it was.
I think you should read the official report as some of the misconceptions you have about what was actually possible are answered there.
Or perhaps there was this MASSIVE fucking Tsunami that killed 10,000+ people and a massive earthquake.
I think you might have forgotten about having a massive amount of sea water pouring into the facility. Roads into and out of the area destroyed. Emergency services essentially crippled.
None of which affect a reactor installation operated properly with suitable systems to mitigate basis design issues. Everything you have pointed out was covered by the official report into the disaster and the findings were that it was a "Man Made" disaster.
You take out the generators and the grid tie and even IF that could melt down the facility (note it would be unlikely as you would have to have the same era and plant design as Fukushima) there would be 100 generators and people on site within hours in any other circumstance outside of a massive earthquake and a killer Tsunami.
No, it has nothing to do with the generation of reactor, but the type of basis design issues and unfortunately generators don't counter the NRC scenarios for intentional sabotage.
A couple well placed hand grenades can take out most Tier-4 data centers. You need a bit more than that for a (nuclear) power plant, but a 2kg payload can do some real damage.
That said, the time to repair is minimal for anything I can think of, although you might be able to degrade the long-term service life.
Actually, no, you can provoke a meltdown.
NRC convened a panel of Industry makers and operators of Nuclear power plants to make recommendations to protect plants against sabotage. It is possible however I think it would be irresponsible to discus how. And before you start looking, the report is not on the net anymore either.
What is your point, and how it relates to binary logs? If your point is that on power failure, or hard disk failure the buffers are lost, then it's not limited to systemd.
No, that isn't my point.