Author Topic: CHERNOBYL, inhabitable in 30 years[?] (Read 15795 times)

Tokarev · « **on:** Dec 14, 2016, 09:35 »

We have all heard it: "Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for 20,000 years". But this is false. I argue it will be habitable ~~in 30, if not~~ sooner.

The biggest contaminate in Чернобыль (yes, I taught myself to read Cyrillic) is Cesium¹³⁷, along with a small amount of Strontium⁹⁰ and Uranium^(various). There used to be Iodine¹³¹, but that disappeared ~~16 days after, correct?~~ [within a year(?)].

So nearly all of you know that the half life of Cs¹³⁷ is ~30 years, and Sr⁹⁰ is ~29 years....

And it has been 30 years since the disaster last April on the 26th...

So the Cs is halfway gone...

So we have 30 years and it is ~~all gone~~! [Scratch that, 25% gone]

Where people went wrong on those huge time predictions is they are accounting for the long half life radioisotopes, which are not a problem because they are less radioactive (over a common amount of time) than shorter ones like Cs. Plus, they are only a tiny fraction of the contamination.

Also, hardly any Uranium left the reactor building, and that that did was virtually cleaned up by the liquidators.

Also, I think Chernobyl already is partly habitable; author Tom Bethell remarked that Grand Central Station is more radioactive than Chernobyl because of all the granite. And people do live in Chernobyl; illegally of course.

I also believe in Radiation Hormesis, but that's another flame war.

(But if you are ready to go down the rabbit hole....)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/
But either way, small amounts of radiation are not harmful, and that safe threshold may be higher than we thought.

This post contained information that was based on internet lies. I have struck through false information and corrected it.. Ignore the technical stuff, and keep in mind my original thesis; Chernobyl will be inhabitable sooner than people thought.

I know I told you all (y'all) things you already know, but I think it is interesting to apply it to Чернобыль this way.

I hope this has been educational and/or interesting, and thank you all so much!

(If I have made any errors of fact, PLEASE correct me, as I will learn from it!

"Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wiseman, and he will love you."
Proverbs 9:8 )

Tokarev · « **Reply #1 on:** Dec 14, 2016, 10:03 »

Oh yes...

Ч-е-р-н-о-б-ы-л-ь (ь has no grammatical value)
Ch-e-r-n-o-b-y-l-'

Nuclear NASCAR · « **Reply #2 on:** Dec 14, 2016, 10:06 »

I'm not in radiation protection but if I remember correctly in another 30 years the radioactive material will be decayed to 25% of its initial radioactivity. As I remember it, each half life decays the material by 50% of what it is at the beginning of the half life. After 1 half life material is decayed to 50% of the original activity, after the second half life it is 25% of the original activity and so on. Please correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly as I'm more used to dealing with volts, amps, and the like.

Ksheed · « **Reply #3 on:** Dec 14, 2016, 10:21 »

Quote from: Nuclear NASCAR on Dec 14, 2016, 10:06

I'm not in radiation protection but if I remember correctly in another 30 years the radioactive material will be decayed to 25% of its initial radioactivity. As I remember it, each half life decays the material by 50% of what it is at the beginning of the half life. After 1 half life material is decayed to 50% of the original activity, after the second half life it is 25% of the original activity and so on. Please correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly as I'm more used to dealing with volts, amps, and the like.

Sounds right to me, but I'm certainly no expert on it either. Hand me the slugger wrench and the BFH.

Tokarev · « **Reply #4 on:** Dec 14, 2016, 10:59 »

Oh yes I think y'all are right. I am not an expert in radiation, I have to gleen stuff from the sources available. Thanks for the info!

Well, I guess 25% of original radioactivity is far better than the 100% or even the current 50%.

Thanks again!

GLW · « **Reply #5 on:** Dec 14, 2016, 12:09 »

Quote from: Tokarev on Dec 14, 2016, 10:59

Oh yes I think y'all are right. I am not an expert in radiation, I have to gleen stuff from the sources available. Thanks for the info!

Well, I guess 25% of original radioactivity is far better than the 100% or even the current 50%.

Thanks again!

not even close, a good starting point:

Subpart D—Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public

20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public.

20.1302 Compliance with dose limits for individual members of the public.
Subpart E—Radiological Criteria for License Termination

20.1401 General provisions and scope.

20.1402 Radiological criteria for unrestricted use.

20.1403 Criteria for license termination under restricted conditions.

20.1404 Alternate criteria for license termination.

20.1405 Public notification and public participation.

20.1406 Minimization of contamination.

and then this:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1575/r1/

plus this:

http://www.evs.anl.gov/resrad/

of course, once upon a time this worked well and still does by my reckoning:

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0906/ML090640319.pdf

Tokarev · « **Reply #6 on:** Dec 14, 2016, 04:01 »

Ah... That makes much more sense. Thanks for the info!

Bonds 25 · « **Reply #7 on:** Dec 14, 2016, 06:37 »

Depends what parts of Chernobyl you are talking about? The areas outside of the sarcophagus are habitable right now from a "realistic" standpoint. While for the most part you were incorrect about radiation decay processes, you can see the whole "spent" fuel being deadly for THOUSANDS of years is BS. After 210 years the main fission products (which are the only serious concern from a radiological perspective) will be <1% of the original curie content.

hamsamich · « **Reply #8 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 02:18 »

I tend to agree with bonds25...one good comparison may be what people will live with in their basement in a higher than average radon area. Are people dying from that? The amount of perceived risk when it comes to radiation from a nuclear power plant is much higher than most other health threats. No one thinks twice about driving anywhere anytime but I bet there is much more hazard to your health from driving 100000 miles than getting 100000 mrem over natural exposure in a 70 year lifetime. Check out page 9 of the following.

https://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/WTS-Networks/DISPONET/disponetfiles/TurkeyTC2012/TurkeyTC-UnderstandingRiskPerception_Zeleznik.pdf

Tokarev · « **Reply #9 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 08:50 »

Thanks everyone. See, I'm learning from my mistakes. You would not believe it, learning technical knowledge from the internet is like trying to find out what the president had for breakfast. I'm trying to find some good books to read about it (and don't cost an arm and a leg).

GLW · « **Reply #10 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 08:54 »

there is a significant difference between what is habitable and what is survivable,...

there is a significant difference between what is a choice for yourself, and what you choose for your children,...

and that difference is tempered by perception,....

UNC was essentially bulldozed, boxed up, carted off and license terminated,...

in the middle of some of the most prime, lucrative, undeveloped, residential real estate in the US of A,...

did anybody try to build houses on top if it?!?!?!?

nope, those houses and estates would have been hard to sell, and the legacy lawsuits would have been a nightmare,...

BUT!!!!!!!

if you put a casino on top of it ?!?!?!?,...

well, THAT'S just ducky!!!!!!!!

perception and human proclivities,....

home and hearth and farm on top of a "nuclear waste site"?!?!?!?

non-starter,.....

casino?!?!?!?!

oh yeah!!!! great stuff, good stuff,....

okay mac, whatever,....

almost forgot: ETD and (sic) for beercourt,...

SloGlo · « **Reply #11 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 09:20 »

[quote author=Bonds 25 After 210 years the main fission products (which are the only serious concern from a radiological perspective) will be <1% of the original curie content.

watt was the original curie content n the 1% value wood be?
how much of the the original content 1% n associated daughters dew you want in you're tomatoes, cantaloupes, corn, et set terra?

Tokarev · « **Reply #12 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 09:25 »

The main reason the houses won't sell is radiophobia, and it is rampant. There are few things that make me more mad than a radiophobic idiot with a Geiger Counter. There is such a big deal about tuna having, what was it? .11[?] mSv more rad than normal. All I can do is shake my head.

Tokarev · « **Reply #13 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 09:53 »

Typo! MICRO Sievert, not millisievert. Gosh, what am I talking about? I am one of those radiological idiots; just not radiophobic.

Bonds 25 · « **Reply #14 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 10:21 »

watt was the original curie content n the 1% value wood be?
how much of the the original content 1% n associated daughters dew you want in you're tomatoes, cantaloupes, corn, et set terra?
[/quote]

Not much....makes it too metallic tasting.

Bonds 25 · « **Reply #15 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 11:00 »

Quote from: Tokarev on Dec 15, 2016, 09:53

Typo! MICRO Sievert, not millisievert. Gosh, what am I talking about? I am one of those radiological idiots; just not radiophobic.

Please use America's units.....Rem. Some of us are too lazy to convert. The radioactivity in tuna would be better measured by nanoCuries (lb)........becquerels (kg) for the rest of the world.

Marlin · « **Reply #16 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 11:17 »

Quote from: Bonds 25 on Dec 15, 2016, 11:00

Please use America's units.....Rem. Some of us are too lazy to convert. The radioactivity in tuna would be better measured by nanoCuries (lb)........becquerels (kg) for the rest of the world.

Not so much, the conversion nationally was called for in 1985 By the NCRP with a five year transition, and the HPS put out a position paper on the exclusive use of SI units.

It is the position of the Health Physics Society (HPS) that the International System of Units (SI) should be used
exclusively when expressing radiological quantities. The continued use of traditional, yet outdated, units to
express radiological quantities in the United States can have significant repercussions with regard to effective
response to radiation emergencies. It will also have negative impacts on educating and conditioning future
generations in the United States who are not well versed in the current scientific and internationally adopted
radiological units.

http://hps.org/documents/SIunits_ps025-0.pdf

Bonds 25 · « **Reply #17 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 11:47 »

I know....I was being a sarcastic "old timer"

GLW · « **Reply #18 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 11:54 »

Quote from: Bonds 25 on Dec 15, 2016, 11:47

I know....I was being a sarcastic "old timer"

As in really really old "old timer",...

Marlin · « **Reply #19 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 12:07 »

Quote from: Bonds 25 on Dec 15, 2016, 11:47

"old timer"

I resemble that remark.

SloGlo · « **Reply #20 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 01:18 »

yins are awl a bunch of pups.

Tokarev · « **Reply #21 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 03:06 »

I corrected the errors. Sometimes I feel like throwing the computer out in the yard

, especially when thinking about all the lies and false info I believed because of the internet.

Once again, I have to get those radiation books.

Bonds 25 · « **Reply #22 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 03:12 »

You want some good reading, go to......

atomicinsights.com

Nukeknews.com

hiroshimasyndrome.com

Tokarev · « **Reply #23 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 03:40 »

Thank you so much! I needed some good internet sources.

Tokarev · « **Reply #24 on:** Dec 15, 2016, 04:09 »

Well everyone, I would like to thank you all for all you have done. I am going to only read from now on, but I'll be baaaaaack... in about 4 years when I have my Biology B.S, and working at a plant.

Once again, thank you all, and have a good one!

Tokarev