The Fukushima Thread

[Agloco]

so is fukushima a threat to all those living in the northern hemisphere or not?

Having been there, I'd say no. You are obviously of a differnt persuasion though. I'm simply trying to find out why. I'm not looking to attack you regarding your opinion.

first, are you a nuclear physics expert, or a doctor who understands the implications radiation has on the human body? there is a difference

Both. You can ask Borat about these things as well. As he stated, you're looking for a radiation biologist, radiation oncologist, or health/medical physicist.

[Agloco]

but out of curiosity, what does Eric Hall say about Fukushima?

See the problem I'm having is, I don't trust anything the government says (you'd be stupid to) and a lot of others are coming out saying this is disastrous. It's hard to really know who's right without being an expert, but intuition and common sense tell me that those screaming disaster are a lot closer to right than the govt trolls who say everything is just fine.

The problem with radiation and it's effects is that a lot of what is observed and known is counterintuitive, and necessarilty requires a bit more knowledge than is gleaned from a few internet articles. It's not about "I'm a scientist and you're not", etc etc. It's about having the requisite knowledge to make heads of tails of all of the numbers and jargon being thrown around. Until you understand that, no amount of common sense will help you. Yo must enable your common sense by giving it the proper perspective.

As Borat suggested, Hall and Giaccia (6th ed) is an excellent text on Rad Bio, and is pretty much the bible for radiobiologic modelling for medical physicists and Rad Oncs in the clinincal setting. Invest some time in reading it.

Regarding Eric Hall, I'm not sure if he's taken an official position on the matter. I haven't corresponded with his group since the crisis began.

[mavs>spurs]

and you don't think we are at risk? whats the difference between normal background radiation, and radiation from those particles released by the accident? what happens when you inhale or ingest a radioactive particle? it pretty much just chills inside you and causes cancer correct?

[Agloco]

i want to be a geologist.

Geo-physicist tbh. That's where the money is.

[mavs>spurs]

Geo-physicist tbh. That's where the money is.

as far as that goes, i'll be 18k in debt after my finance degree is complete (in a month) and i already know i don't want to work in that sector forever. i've always been into geology since i was a kid and should have studied it in the first place, but we all make mistakes and you don't know at 18 what you do at 23.

my question to you is, with money being a factor i've found that i can take some of the intro physics, chem, geo classes at the local community college. you think it's worth doing it this way for money, or would the community college material/professors not be sufficient preparation in your opinion?

[Edward]

Spurstalk has a resident geo-physicist tbh

[Agloco]

and you don't think we are at risk?

Provided that the situation doesn't deteriorate, no.

whats the difference between normal background radiation, and radiation from those particles released by the accident?

Assuming comparable dose rates from those sources, nothing from a biologic standpoint. Of course, higher dose rates and annual ulated doses are generally assumed to increase one's lifetime risk for various cancers. There are notable exceptions to this general rule though. You might want to read about the population of Ramsar in Iran. These people are an example of how our bodies may adapt to long term exposure to significantly higher levels of radiation.

what happens when you inhale or ingest a radioactive particle? it pretty much just chills inside you and causes cancer correct?

In the case of inhalation, it is either exhaled or is trapped in the mucosal membranes of the respiratory tract in which case it delivers radiation to the area in question. In the case of ingestion, it is either metabolized and eliminated or remains in the lumen of the intestine, in which case you have the same scenario as for the respiratory tract.

Fortunately, cancer induction is a multistep process involving a variety of cell signalling pathways. Simply damaging the DNA of one cell, or many hundreds of cells is insufficient to induce cancer unless some other deficiency in cancer suppression pathways exist. It is also possible to flood the body with radiation to the point where repair processes are overwhelmed and cancer induction becomes inevitable.

Your concerns appear to revolve around the latter scenario. Again, this is highly unlikely as it would take another calamatous event such as the one which caused the leak in the first place. You're much more likely to die of heart failure, coronary artery disease or DM than you are to die of any cancer induction as a result of radiation released from Fukushima.

[Agloco]

as far as that goes, i'll be 18k in debt after my finance degree is complete (in a month) and i already know i don't want to work in that sector forever. i've always been into geology since i was a kid and should have studied it in the first place, but we all make mistakes and you don't know at 18 what you do at 23.

my question to you is, with money being a factor i've found that i can take some of the intro physics, chem, geo classes at the local community college. you think it's worth doing it this way for money, or would the community college material/professors not be sufficient preparation in your opinion?

Your education is what you make of it tbh. You'll encounter some of the worst teachers ever in college, and most will have PhD stamped behind their names. Being a researcher doesn't confer the ability to teach. Being a researcher at a top university doesnt change that either. They are completely different animals.

But I'm digressing. Go to community college, and kill your classes. You have to carefully consider what your eventual economic potential will be. You could also major in geology and minor in physics for undergrad, then go to a graduate geo-physics program.

As Edward points out, I believe Halberto is a better person to talk to about this.

[mavs>spurs]

i was looking at my schools geology program and they required several physics classes, not sure if it's anywhere near enough to be a minor. working and taking on such a load is going to be hard as , without taking the extra classes for a minor i'm already old

[mavs>spurs]

Provided that the situation doesn't deteriorate, no.



Assuming comparable dose rates from those sources, nothing from a biologic standpoint. Of course, higher dose rates and annual ulated doses are generally assumed to increase one's lifetime risk for various cancers. There are notable exceptions to this general rule though. You might want to read about the population of Ramsar in Iran. These people are an example of how our bodies may adapt to long term exposure to significantly higher levels of radiation.



In the case of inhalation, it is either exhaled or is trapped in the mucosal membranes of the respiratory tract in which case it delivers radiation to the area in question. In the case of ingestion, it is either metabolized and eliminated or remains in the lumen of the intestine, in which case you have the same scenario as for the respiratory tract.

Fortunately, cancer induction is a multistep process involving a variety of cell signalling pathways. Simply damaging the DNA of one cell, or many hundreds of cells is insufficient to induce cancer unless some other deficiency in cancer suppression pathways exist. It is also possible to flood the body with radiation to the point where repair processes are overwhelmed and cancer induction becomes inevitable.

Your concerns appear to revolve around the latter scenario. Again, this is highly unlikely as it would take another calamatous event such as the one which caused the leak in the first place. You're much more likely to die of heart failure, coronary artery disease or DM than you are to die of any cancer induction as a result of radiation released from Fukushima.

so what about the reports saying that there has been more radiation released from fukushima than in all prior events/bomb testing/nuclear waste combined? any truth to that? also, isn't this stuff piling up on us if we just create more and more of it, with the half life on most isotopes being many years? what's the breaking point in regards to that?

also, how do you feel about the practice of just storing the spent fuel on top of the reactors, and the danger posted by an earthquake/natural event damaging more of these sites?

i dunno, nuclear power has me spooked. and the EPA raised the "safe limits" on so many different radioactive elements after fukushima, i'm just skeptical and a bit worried.

[Agloco]

i was looking at my schools geology program and they required several physics classes, not sure if it's anywhere near enough to be a minor. working and taking on such a load is going to be hard as , without taking the extra classes for a minor i'm already old

Most minors are 9 hours beyond your core classes. You might want to check with your college for specifics.

[mavs>spurs]

i do know that a minor in geology is 18 hours i believe, so i dont see why physics would be any different

[Agloco]

so what about the reports saying that there has been more radiation released from fukushima than in all prior events/bomb testing/nuclear waste combined? any truth to that?

That may well be true. One thing to consider is where most of that went or is going: into the ocean (as opposed to Chernobyl where most of it was airborne). There it will be diluted and sink to the bottom. Of course, there is the concern of it getting into the food supply (fish, etc). How many deadly radioactive fish will survive and make it to the West Coast. How many will make it past radiation detection stations before processing? I'm not sure its a significant amount, but I'm no expert on those matters.

also, isn't this stuff piling up on us if we just create more and more of it, with the half life on most isotopes being many years? what's the breaking point in regards to that?

Storing and disposal of spent fuel is definitely a big problem area for the nuclear industry. One of the proposed solutions is building more reactors that use the "spent fuel" as a new fuel source. The resultant waste is composed of much shorter lived radioisotopes with less energetic emissions.

As for a breaking point, we have adequate space to store these things. The rate of production is not anticipated to increase drastically in the future. Eventually, we will reach an equilibrium point where production and decay and more or less equal. That will occur long before space becomes an issue.

also, how do you feel about the practice of just storing the spent fuel on top of the reactors, and the danger posted by an earthquake/natural event damaging more of these sites?

In light of recent events, it definitely needs re-assessment. This is especially true in areas that are earthquake/tsunami prone. I just attended a meeting in Japan that was partly aimed at addressing this very issue. What we learned is that while we can anticipate the effects of an earthquake on structures critical to shielding, we cannot adequately anticipate after effects. Perhaps the biggest contributor to this mess was the location of the electrical systems at the plants. Are we having this discussion if power doesn't fail at the plants? Doubtful.

So this is more a question of how power is handled, distributed and rerouted during a crisis more than anything. Should spent fuel pool power stations be coupled to the main reactor chamber?

i dunno, nuclear power has me spooked. and the EPA raised the "safe limits" on so many different radioactive elements after fukushima, i'm just skeptical and a bit worried.

It's natural. I'm quite worried about the situation myself. I do know that the sky is not falling though. Also remember, safe limits are arbitrary but are based on evidence collected to date. Thus they are constantly being revised. The fact that they are being raised during a crisis of this nature should cause some concern, especially if one is not privy to the context under which those changes are occurring.

[Agloco]

i do know that a minor in geology is 18 hours i believe, so i dont see why physics would be any different

If you already require some physics classes for your Geo major, doesn't that reduce the burden?

[leemajors]

Why do you believe that? Was there something in literature that suggested that this is the case?



Besides the supposed contribution from Fukushima can you name some other sources that contribute significantly to cancer prevalence? It would also help if you elaborated on what types of cancer you are referring to.

Ugh....."preventable". One of the most misused terms as it applies to medical maladies.

Cancer isn't preventable. STD's are preventable. You may reduce your lifetime risk of developing cancer, but there is no known way to reduce said risk to zero (ie prevent it). If you have a method for prevention, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.

Doofenshmirtz is awesome, and Phineas and Ferb is way better than anything I saw as a kid in the 80s, there is hope.

[MannyIsGod]

i was looking at my schools geology program and they required several physics classes, not sure if it's anywhere near enough to be a minor. working and taking on such a load is going to be hard as , without taking the extra classes for a minor i'm already old

You're likely not going to be able to get a physics minor without some very high level math courses beyond what almost every other program at any school requires (including geology), FYI.

[mavs>spurs]

geology only requires cal 1 and 2 i think, nothin too hard.

[MannyIsGod]

If you already require some physics classes for your Geo major, doesn't that reduce the burden?

Depends on the school. Jekka was able to get a degree in two similar fields of study because of course overlap but I was unable to add a geography degree even with the overlap I had. I think its a ridiculous policy as I'm learning the same material regardless but it is what it is.

[MannyIsGod]

geology only requires cal 1 and 2 i think, nothin too hard.

Yeah - thats what I'm saying. Physics will require you to do at least 2-3 more semsters of calc/diffeq/linear (even a minor) on top of the physics classes required. Honestly, even the 100 level physics classes I took had pre and corecs of calc 1 and 2 and would have been MUCH easier with calc 3.

[mavs>spurs]

Yeah - thats what I'm saying. Physics will require you to do at least 2-3 more semsters of calc/diffeq/linear (even a minor).

geophysics may be a bit much, i'm not trying to be the worlds next einstein i just enjoy geology and want to do something i enjoy for a living tbh. geologists (without the physics part) still earn really really really good pay in oil and gas exploration.

[Agloco]

You're likely not going to be able to get a physics minor without some very high level math courses beyond what almost every other program at any school requires (including geology), FYI.

geology only requires cal 1 and 2 i think, nothin too hard.

I recall that E&M and Classical Mechanics required Cal 3, but you don't get much out of CM if you haven't had differential equations.

You might qualify for a minor in math as well.

[Agloco]

geophysics may be a bit much, i'm not trying to be the worlds next einstein i just enjoy geology and want to do something i enjoy for a living tbh. geologists (without the physics part) still earn really really really good pay in oil and gas exploration.

Halberto might know more than we do here. My knowledge is limited to two colleagues who are in geophysics. They are in oil exploration as well.

[MannyIsGod]

I recall that E&M and Classical Mechanics required Cal 3, but you don't get much out of CM if you haven't had differential equations.

You might qualify for a minor in math as well.

All the engineering and physics students at UNM automatically get math minors. Its nuts. Mechanics required Calc 1 as a coreq (just re ed) and EM/Thermo had Calc2 as a coreq. Those classes would have been much easier for me with Calc 3 under my belt before them. However, taking CM before Calc 3 meant I already knew EVERYTHING about vectors.

[MannyIsGod]

Oil and gas is def where the money is at. The current research project I'm working on is funded by a grant from an oil and gas company (LOL I find the irony of this so awesome).

[Agloco]

All the engineering and physics students at UNM automatically get math minors. Its nuts. Mechanics required Calc 1 as a coreq (just re ed) and EM/Thermo had Calc2 as a coreq. Those classes would have been much easier for me with Calc 3 under my belt before them. However, taking CM before Calc 3 meant I already knew EVERYTHING about vectors.

Yeah, it's the same most everywhere. There's so much math required for those disciplines. I don't think I've met a physics major without a minor in math, except for those going into biophysics.

Integrals are quite necessary for EM, so Cal 2 makes sense.

CM is doable without DIff Eq, but I don't think it's quite as valuable as is needed for physics majors. I think now there's even a special vector calculus class. Back in the day I learned integrals, vectors and tensors in one semester.