Home | About | Donate

Don't Worry, Europe, Radioactive Cloud Likely From Russia Nuclear Plant Accident Deemed 'Harmless'


#1

Don't Worry, Europe, Radioactive Cloud Likely From Russia Nuclear Plant Accident Deemed 'Harmless'

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Ruthenium-106 was detected "in the atmosphere of the majority of European countries" beginning late September, French officials said


#2

Remember Citizen…a little radiation is good for your over-all health and a slight glowing during the nighttime hours is perfectly normal…now at 3pm local time we will have the news of the day plus how to cook your favorite meal, this episode is titled “…fresh from the trash…” you don’t want to miss it.


#3

Alert!

Why do dust clouds and storms travel east and radiation travels west?


#4

In Europe, particularly in the cold season, the prevailing lower level flow is westward, out of Russia. Recall that radiation from Chernobyl was first detected in the west at a nuclear plant in Sweden.

And yes, while the type of radiation indicated it is from a man-made radionuclide, the level is in the background range - comparable to the radioactive K40 you get eating a banana.


#5

I’m wondering if this is from one of the reactors in Ukraine. I’ve read more than one report over the past 6 months or so that Ukraine’s nuclear reactors are in a very dangerous state due to corruption/no money being spent to maintain them and replacement of Russian made parts with American parts that do not work in the Russian-built reactors properly - due to the Ukrainian leadership wanting to give the finger to Russia.


#6

Interesting. I have heard of cold wind from the northeast during storms.


#7

Don’t forget that during all this turmoil, Russia oversaw placement of the largest moving structure humanity has ever built parked now over Chernobyl. It will hold for about one hundred years. Then Chernobyl will bubble out again unless an even bigger biggest building ever built goes over the top again.


#8

Human beings are literally made out of radioactive isotopes. Carbon 14 is radioactive with a half life of about 5,000 years. Your skin is made of this isotope. Should we now begin the flaying of humanity as all radiation is bad?


#9

There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth: 99% of the carbon is carbon-12, 1% is carbon-13, and carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, i.e., making up about 1 or 1.5 atoms per 1012 atoms of the carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon-12 and carbon-13 are both stable, while the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730±40 years.[3] Can’t be very much in our skin can there.


#10

I don’t know how it is distributed, but C-14 accounts for more decay activity in the human body than any other isotope except K-40. In an average adult, that would be something like 3,000 decay events per second. (For comparison, the concentration of ruthenium 106 was on the order of 1 decay event per second per hundred cubic meters of atmosphere at an NCBJ monitoring station.)


#11

RonR wrote (to PaulSwanee1):

‘There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth: 99% of the carbon is carbon-12, 1% is carbon-13, and carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, i.e., making up about 1 or 1.5 atoms per 1012 atoms of the carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon-12 and carbon-13 are both stable, while the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730±40 years.[3] Can’t be very much in our skin can there.’

If I may point out that your “10^12” (or 1e12 or 1 trillion) came through as “1012”.

7% (by mass) of “Standard Man” (SM) is skin. There are 16 nanograms of C-14 in SM. So the mass of C-14 in skin is in the order of 1.1 ng. That’s much more than enough to measure, to determine how long ago SM died.


#12

And your point is what exactly? My comment was made to Ditton who sarcastically discussed radioactive isotopes as if there are no “safe” levels of radioactive materials. I gave the explanation that human beings contain Carbon 14, which is radioactive to prove that in fact people at exposed to radioactive materials their entire lives and that there are in fact adequate levels of radiation.


#13

My thoughts exactly. It would fit the description of the general geographical origin of the cloud. Funny how those French experts name Russia and Kazakhstan, but not Ukraine. I guess that wouldnt’ gibe with the Western Russia demonization campaign.


#14

natyliesb wrote:

‘I’m wondering if this is from one of the reactors in Ukraine. I’ve read more than one report over the past 6 months or so that Ukraine’s nuclear reactors are in a very dangerous state due to corruption/no money being spent to maintain them and replacement of Russian made parts with American parts that do not work in the Russian-built reactors properly - due to the Ukrainian leadership wanting to give the finger to Russia.’

I believe that a reactor accident has been ruled out as the source, since no other fission products have been detected.


#15

Dis-information programs are part of most industries. The cost of which is built into the price of the goods sold. Whether it be tobacco, oil or nuke-pukes.


#16

**“There’s no need for nuclear power, so why do we allow these accidents to keep happening?”

“The next one could be another Fukushima or Chernobyl.”**

So true!


#17

And more generally, I always find it odd that the left fully trust scientists regarding their findings on anthropogenic global warming and some other environmental issues, yet reject science when the topic is radiological safety and health. So, it appears that the left plays the same game that the right does - they embrace science when it fits their ideological viewpoint, but rejects science when it inconveniently gets in the way of some particular shibboleth of their movement.


#18

We do need nuclear power. With hydropower pretty much developed-out, it is the only CO2 emission free source that can reliably provide power 24 hours a day. There are still no cases of wind-solar providing 100 percent of a developed nations electricity needs except for brief periods. They still rely on conventional thermal generation - and Germany’s ugly secret is that as it has been shutting down nuclear plants, it has been expanding coal power generation and strip-mining of lignite coal. Many nations and regions rely on nuclear power for the majority of their energy needs. The province of Ontario, where local opposition greatly limits wind development, can brag about soon being 100% CO2 free for electric generation only because of their two large nuclear plants.


#19

Here is a more comprehensive discussion of the incident. Note that a nuclear power plant or spent fuel handling accident is ruled out - since many other more common radionuclides would have been detected.

The levels were typically a few microbequerels with a peak of 5 millibequerels per cubic meter - in other words, a cubic meter of air experienced a single atom disintegrating ever couple days, to every few minutes at the peak. This is addition to the far greater number of natural disintegrations occurring in that same cubic meter, not to mention cosmic radiation.

The real significance of this incident is the amazingly tiny levels of radioactive materials that modern technology is capable of detecting - down to single disintegrating atoms! The impact of human health is absolutely nil.

https://www.bfs.de/SharedDocs/Kurzmeldungen/BfS/EN/2017/1003-ruthenium-106.html


#20

I think what you meant was “Amen!” or “Preach it!”.