Radiation, media and the public

Dolph

Dolph

Dolph

Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,386
Location
Plymouth
So this thread begins with this article from my local paper.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Dev...elease-extra/story-29298455-detail/story.html

In summary, a request has been made to increase the permitted level of radiation emission from the dockyard due to the refit work on HMS Vanguard, from 43 to 66 giga becquerel.

This results in a total radiation exposure for people of 0.11 microsieverts per year.

Needless to say, this has brought a number of people out going nuts about radiation.

So, given that this forum doesn't fit a normal demographic profile, I thought I would post it here for discussion.

I have my thoughts on it, but before I introduce anything additional to the article, I would like to see initial responses to the idea.
 
That's several hundred, if not thousands, times lower than safe 'public exposure' limits isn't it? Nevermind the working limits for actual workers dealing with it.

Just typical public ignorance with a helping of media hype.
 
Its a bit like the Fukushima nonsense.

You could spend your entire life living in the plant managers office and you would still be about a thousand times (Perhaps even more) more likley to come to an untimely death from the next earthquake/Tsunami than you would from a radiation induced illness.

I do not see the Japanese abandoning their coastal cities because of this however.

Instead we have a Nuclear "catastrophe" that didn't actually kill (or even significantly injure) anybody completely overshadowing a natural disaster that killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions!

Nuts really!
 
Have afew scans, x-rays etc and see how much your technically over your yearly "dose"

People need to live a little its not going to harm no one
 
Dolph said:
So this thread begins with this article from my local paper.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Dev...elease-extra/story-29298455-detail/story.html

In summary, a request has been made to increase the permitted level of radiation emission from the dockyard due to the refit work on HMS Vanguard, from 43 to 66 giga becquerel.

This results in a total radiation exposure for people of 0.11 microsieverts per year.

Needless to say, this has brought a number of people out going nuts about radiation.

So, given that this forum doesn't fit a normal demographic profile, I thought I would post it here for discussion.

I have my thoughts on it, but before I introduce anything additional to the article, I would like to see initial responses to the idea.
Click to expand...

It's a tiny amount. Effects on health will be for any practical purpose, nothing.
 
Kenai said:
That's several hundred, if not thousands, times lower than safe 'public exposure' limits isn't it? Nevermind the working limits for actual workers dealing with it.

Just typical public ignorance with a helping of media hype.
Click to expand...

It's the equivalent of eating a banana.
 
0.1 uSv/year is absolutely miniscule and well within the acceptability of the public dose limits. In fact, you would be pretty hard pressed to measure a dose rate so low off site.

Workers can receive up to 20 mSv/yr and the public 1 mSv/yr but it is extremely unlikely anybody goes anywhere near those levels.
 
Isn't that less than you'd get flying some transatlantic routes?

The reporting of radiation from nuclear related things is imo often overboard, the nuclear industry is from memory required to report any exposure even if it's lower than the background levels in some parts of the country, or any "leaks" even if the amount leaked is less than certain non nuclear industries put out due to "normal" industrial processes (don't some coal fired power stations put out more radiation than nuclear power stations are allowed?).

I'm fairly sure I read a story about one a "big" leak from one of our nuclear subs which turned out to slightly irradiated water, with a total radiation level that was far less than an old radium dial watch yet got the press and anti nuclear protesters really upset.
 
Werewolf said:
don't some coal fired power stations put out more radiation than nuclear power stations are allowed?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure that there used to be a coal station near Sellafield site that couldn't actually be built within the site boundary itself as it would have exceeded the off-site dose limits. Might need to check up on that one though.
 
Last edited:
A bit more research in the article wouldn't have gone amiss and explaining in terms of other things people are familiar with such as an X-Ray and a flight as already mentioned here.

So for a dumb joe public like me who has no idea what a becquerel is (I did physics to 'A' level, but if I ever knew what it was I've long forgotten now), what are we talking about in relative terms ?

Lets go with the speeding example since most people can relate to this. They want a roughly 50% increase in the limit, so are we talking about 1 mph to 1.5 mph change, so practically impossible to tell the difference, or a 70mph to 105mph and so in the murdering your children and eating their kittens territory ?
 
Kenai said:
That's several hundred, if not thousands, times lower than safe 'public exposure' limits isn't it? Nevermind the working limits for actual workers dealing with it.

Just typical public ignorance with a helping of media hype.
Click to expand...

This. Marie Curie worked directly with radioactive materials. When her body was exhumed, it was almost like she had never been near it.

Stupid people are stupid.
 
peterwalkley said:
A bit more research in the article wouldn't have gone amiss and explaining in terms of other things people are familiar with such as an X-Ray and a flight as already mentioned here.

So for a dumb joe public like me who has no idea what a becquerel is (I did physics to 'A' level, but if I ever knew what it was I've long forgotten now), what are we talking about in relative terms ?

Lets go with the speeding example since most people can relate to this. They want a roughly 50% increase in the limit, so are we talking about 1 mph to 1.5 mph change, so practically impossible to tell the difference, or a 70mph to 105mph and so in the murdering your children and eating their kittens territory ?
Click to expand...

Its better to refer to the result of radioactive material in terms of Sieverts, i.e. the radiation dose, rather than radioactive material activity (Becquerels).

Its hard to really quantify a dose, if I can remember correctly, the LD50 for radiation is about 4.5 Grays (or 4.5 Sv of gamma radiation), to put it in some sort of context.
 
Yep decades of scaremongering about radiation has led tot this.
Same applies when planning permission for nuclear power plants, or deep space manned missions to say mars. Even though it's within normal limits for workers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom