Radiation: FSU vs. Japan - Russian Ukrainian Belarus Travel Music Woman Dating News

	The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian... International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

Pages: 1

Radiation: FSU vs. Japan
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Raspberry

Just thought of something......some of my co-workers, who are Japanese, go to Japan, go back home frequently. Since their relatives live in Tokyo, Hokkaido and Osaka, they seldom have any reason to be in or near Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

One of the Japanese girls, in fact, lived in Belarus for a year, and had no problems when she was there.

Just wondering......how do the radiation levels compare between the two areas most catastrophically hit.

Posted by: Castlestormer

I would think the fact that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities, and Pripryat, Ukraine is still quarantined should answer that question. The dome they built over the core at Chernobyl still leaks.

If you haven't seen the documentary "Chernobyl Heart" put out by this amazing organization, you should rent it immediately. But have a box of tissue close by. They put on haz-met suites and went into Chernobly. Spooky stuff.

Posted by: Raspberry

I think I worded the question stupidly wrong. Of course, those cities are doing well now.....in fact, many parts for automobiles are made in those areas.

What I ment to ask was........how was the progress at this point in time, compared to the Japanese cities, at a similar time frame.

Posted by: GentleGiant

The difference is one of scale, Japan got hit by bombs containing kilogrammes of radioactive material designed to used up in microseconds, the radioactivity there is SECONDARY and most of that has now dispersed. Chernobyl has TONNES of long life radioactive material that will be "hot" for long after we are forgotten. it is going to keep leaking out and poisoning the area around it for hundreds of thousands of years unless someone can come up with a way to safely open it up and clean up the mess. The US MIGHT be able to do this, but I doubt any other country has the money or technology to do so without sacrificing many lives.

In theory they could errect a massive sealed building around the existing one, with onion layers of containment walls and decon equipment; then with all the equipment inside and operated remotely, use robots to open the reactor and contaminated concrete etc, and move everything into storage containers for safe removal and containment.
I would guess that this would take many years just to design, and the tonnage needing removal would be immense: 50-100 years??? Even safely constructing the operational area around the reactor building would take many years.
This would still leave the millions of acres of poisoned land around the accident site contaminated at dangerous levels for hundreds of years (at least).

Maybe our pet Nuclear Engineer could offer some suggestions.

Posted by: Raspberry

Thanks, GG....that is just the information I am looking for.

Posted by: matt235

As GG said, the difference between the two areas are the method and type of reaction that was "obtained". Let me explain a little more.

To begin with, you need to know the difference between radiation and contamination. I can go into a long explaination, however, one of my professors summed it up best. Assume your dog goes out in the back yard and makes a substantial "deposit". As you walk by it you smell the "deposit". This is the same as radiation. However, if you step in the "deposit" and walk away, now you have contamination on your feet (and everywhere else you walk with your shoes). Not the pretty picture, but rather sufficient for what we are talking about.

In Japan, the reaction was designed to develop a huge amount of energy release in a very quick time. The critical mass of the two bombs that were used there was relatively small, and even though the technology to really concentrate the fuel (uranium/plutonium) was still in its infancy, it was still quite concentrated. When the bombs were detonated, their design was to consume all of the fuel to maximize the energy release (explosion). When the reaction began (atoms began to split when hit by neutrons, additional neutrons released from the splitting process, find more atoms, repeat), it instantly went into a super critical condition (as intended) and began consuming the fuel. Within a couple of milliseconds, virtually all of the fuel had been consumed and was converted into what is called fission product daughters (there was some additional reactions taking place from these as well, but not of any significance in comparision). The fission product daughters and a small bit of unused fuel were carried in the "shock wave" that leveled each city and dispersed over that area, thus contaminating virtually everything for about a 10 mile radius from the point of the explosion. Likewise, from the 10 mile radius out to about a 50 mile radius the level of contamination decreased, but was still evident. This is why you still had people dying for years later from the contaminated areas that far out.

The important thing to remember here is that the material that was spread over that 50 mile radius is quite different than what happend at Chernobyl. The fission product daughters, while probably more detrimental healthwise, had a much shorter half life (the amount of time it takes to decrease their radioactive level by half) than you have of those found in a nuclear reactor. Because of this, you get much more dying but for a shorter period of time (i.e. within a few years). The people exposed to them in their first or second half life are the ones we see on the Discovery Channel with all sorts of health problems/dying. However, today (63 years later), the two areas in Japan are quite safe. I have been to Hiroshima about 10 times in the early part of this century (2000 and 2001) and noticed that it is quite a thriving city with no noticable effects from residual contamination. (Note: on one of the trips I also took a personal dosimetry device out of curiosity. When compared to another person here in Texas that wore his the same amount of time that I did, I actually received less background radiation than he did. Most of his came from the sun's UV rays due to Texas being marginally closer to the equator than Japan).

Now in Chernobyl, things are quite different. You must first understand what caused the accident and how the problems became problems. There were actually two significant (known) explosions that happened within seconds of each other at Chernobyl. However, unlike the two explosions in Japan, the explosions at Chernobyl are not officially a nuclear explosions. The first one that happend was a steam explosion as a result of pressurized water exceeding a specified temperature. When water flashes to steam, one cubic foot of water instantly requires approximately 80 cubic feet of space for the steam to exist in at that pressure. Thus when the reactor systems failed and the cooling water flashed, it had to release its energy somewhere and in some fashion. In this case, it blew apart the cooling system, the "lid" on top of the reactor and completely engulfed the "containment" building.

(Note: To the best of my understanding the containment buildings in the FSU were glorified metal barns designed to keep contaminated material inside, but not to contain the energy of an explosion. In the United States, the containment building are designed to not only keep any contaminated material from escaping, but also to withstand an earthquake, a 747 crashing into them or an explosion such as Chernobyl had. The containment building at STP in Texas where I worked for 7 years is between 3 and 4 feet thick and is the most dense rebar/concrete structure I have ever known of. To enter it you have to go through a series of air locks that are capable of withstanding any explosion short of a true nuclear explosion).

After the initial steam explosion, there was a Hydrogen explosion (I'm unsure exactly what caused the Hydrogen to be created--either the graphite or zirconium interacting with the steam that was in still in the building. The Hydrogen explosion was far greater than the steam explosion and I feel was what actually opened up the containment building.

As a reactor operator, one of the primary things that you learn is that you MUST keep the core (nuclear fuel) covered and cooled. Since it is unsure if the operator did this as I believe he died the same day as the accident, I am confident that he would have kept putting water on the core to try to cool it. In doing this, he inadvertantly added to the problem of contaminating the countryside by making more steam that just went up through the roof carrying the various radioisotopes away from the site.

These radioisotopes, specifically today Cesium 137, are what has caused the problems for the surrounding areas. The fallout (radioisotopes being blown by the wind will settle as they are heavier than the air) is spread over a great distance and specifically to the Northeast of Chernobyl. There are other radioisotopes that were problematic as well, such as Iodine, Xenon, Strontium, and Krypton, that had a shorter half life, however, they are being "recycled" through the food chain. The problem with Cs-137 is that it has a rather long half life and will not decay away quickly enough and to the best of my knowledge, will begin to peak in its "potency" at about 27.5 years after the event (sometime in 2013). This is a direct result of decay of other isotopes of Cesium that eventually become Cs-137.

As far as the reactor and the site itself, I know that they built a structure over the reactor very quickly to contain it (it is lovingly called the Sarcophagus), however, it is insufficient at best. They are currently building another structure that will be placed over it in about 4 years time (it is a big structure and is being built away from the site to minimize radiation exposure. it will be moved into place when completed). I suspect that the new structure will be capable of containing the radiation and contamination from the site and that it will be there for a very, very long time.

For the most part as long as one doen't really want to take a hiking trip to the site, you are generally going to be OK. The biggest way to protect yourself from radiation is distance. The farther away you are the better. However, just staying a couple of miles away from the site should be more than sufficient to prevent any excess radiation. Basically, if you are too far away you won't be able to "smell" the radiation.

The contamination is another issue all toghther. Depending upon where the fallout was (specifically Belarus area), would depend on the level of contamination that one would pickup along the way. I feel that most of the fallout contamination has decayed to a significantly low level to not be of concern. I am however, still concerned about two items. The first is the level of Cs-137 in the 10 mile radius surrounding the site and the Cs-137 levels in an area about 100 miles northeast of the site in Belarus and Russia. These levels are too high for me to be comfortable. The second thing that I am concerned about (and this one is important), is the possible contamination of the Dnieper river that flows to Kiev and beyond. It is fed by the Pripyat river which flows adjacent to the Chernobyl site. Knowing the differences between the regulatory agencies of the US and Russia/Ukraine, I am a bit worried about the water supply in the area immediately downstream of the site. The radioisotopes that might end up in the water don't necessarilly like to bond with water (at least not permanantly) which is a good thing. The reason that I say this is that the isotopes will have a dendency to drop out along the way and deposit on the river and lake bottoms. They would typically stay in this state until something upsets them (high water flow, people walking over them, or fish eating something from the bottom of the river/lake) or they just decay away. The exception to the rule here of course is CS-137.

Also, due to their size and nature, these isotopes are not prone to be filtered out through normal water filtration methods. Therefore depending upon where the water supply for Kiev comes from, I would be very leary of drinking it, but I do not think that it would be a problem to bathe in it as it would just wash away. The problem with drinking it is that it deposits in your organs and starts to do damage from the inside out. The same goes for the fish in the area. If caught upstream of Kiev, I'm concerned. Downstream, still a little concerned, but not as much. My recommendations...stick with saltwater fish while in Ukraine if possible.

OK, I realize that this is a very long explaination of my viewpoint of FSU vs. Japan rad levels and I hope that if anyone was crazy enough to actually read all of this, that you got some good out of it. If anyone wants to ask me specific questions, please feel free. I will answer to the best of my ability and if I don't know, I will tell you that I don't know. I will also tell you that I will find out and get back with you.

later,

Posted by: GentleGiant

Well I read it!!
My concern is the remains of the core, they are still in there and will stay radioactive long after the lighter elements decay; and the potential for them to leach out through the ground and into the water system.
Building another lid is not a very good long term solution; sooner or later that mess is going to get out; maybe not soon, but our great-great-grandchildren may have to sort it out. I cannot believe they are running tourist visits to the place; it feels like being invited to watch the fun at Belsen in 1944

Posted by: matt235

Quote:

Originally Posted by GentleGiant

Well I read it!!
My concern is the remains of the core, they are still in there and will stay radioactive long after the lighter elements decay; and the potential for them to leach out through the ground and into the water system.
Building another lid is not a very good long term solution; sooner or later that mess is going to get out; maybe not soon, but our great-great-grandchildren may have to sort it out. I cannot believe they are running tourist visits to the place; it feels like being invited to watch the fun at Belsen in 1944

At this time the core is still there, some melted into a couple of blobs but most of the fuel cells are roughly intact. Some international organization (I forget the name) is in charge of having the core removed and stored. They ran into some significant issues a few years ago with the storage facility and was set back quite a few years. They have since then found an "alternative" storage facility (I assume somewhere in the middle of nowhere Siberia--will probably melt snow and ice for miles around it). The removal is not going to be covered in the normal manner obviously. They have developed some remotly controlled robots to go in and dismantle the core, cut the cells into either 2 or 3 pieces about 4 feet long each (most US and French fuel cells are about 12 feet in lentgh, 12 inches square, and consists of many inconel (stainless style) tubes with the fuel contained inside the tubes). Once cut up they are to be put into some form of a containment transfer casket to be shipped out. I feel that this is adequate means of fuel removal. Once it leaves the site, it will be placed in the storage facility to allow for it to naturally decay over the next 50 or 200 million years (yes, 50,000,000 to 200,000,000 years). Some of the things will begin to decay much quicker, however Uranium 235 has a half life of about 700 million years. In most nuclear fuels, they are reprocessed to be used again in some fashion, however, Chernobyl is a different beast in itself.

Once the fuel (core) has been removed there will still be residual radiation as a result of irradiated components. These will exist for some time afterwards, however, they should decay away rather quickly after the removal of the core. Personally, I feel that once the core is removed the area will become "habitable" again sometime about 100 years after that point. Cesium 137 is the only long term radioisotope that should be in the area. It has a nuclear half life of about 30 years. It is normally considered that after 5 half lifes the issue becomes a non-issue (no more radiation emitted). Thus, at approximatly 150 years 5 half lifes will have expired and Cs-137 will no longer be problematic. Therefore by time the structure is completed it will be about 30 years after the accident. And I know that people will start to move in once the levels really start to drop off. I know it doesn't seem very quick, but in the nuclear world, time is considered at the two extremes (microseconds or centuries). This is something that we can worry and argue why it is not done faster, but we have to deal with mother nature and not humans regarding this.

One wonders if we are killing our planet. When we have accidents like Chernobyl, the answer is pretty clear. When we are responsible and do the right thing along the path, we are actually making our planet a better place. nuclear power is a wonderful thing, but in the wrong hands it becomes the biggest nightmare any of us can even imagine. I still support nuclear power and expect that we will begin to see more of it over the next few decades as a result of the increases in petro prices. However, I will welcome Hydrogen power (fuel cells, etc) with open arms as it is in my personal opinion much safer in the long run.

One last thought about Chernobyl, the new structure they are building to go over the site has me worried about one thing that I haven't heard about. That is the contamination levels that are affecting the ground water below the facility. The earth is a great shield against radiation, however, contamination can leach through the ground. I don't know for sure how this is going to affect us.

Posted by: GentleGiant

Thanks for that, yeah the ground water is the issue; I remember studying theoretical melts downs at Birmingham U many, many years ago, the potential for the water courses to spread the line life radioactives was my biggest concern.

Posted by: matt235

This is something that should be monitored better than it is currently. Also, it should be monitored continuously for the remainder of mankinds existance on this planet. It is not difficult to do, nor expensive from a governmental pespective, but I am rather concerned about the long term effects of the drinking water, especially in Kiev due to the population (local and visitors).

Posted by: blucatz

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt235

I hope its nowhere near Omsk. I have always wondered, why can't they just take all the fuel cells, the spent fuel rods, load them up in a container and rocket them into space towards the sun? It would be off the planet and eventually burn up in the sun. Or maybe send them towards some other planet to let it burn up in the atmosphere.

Posted by: Raspberry

Quote:

Originally Posted by blucatz

Many of the Soviet space vehicles were made in Dnepropetrovsk, so the logistics of getting rockets built, and over to Chernobyl are sensible. Mercury would be a good place to send it to, since the place is unihabitable anyway. And with the temperature there, it will most likely self destruct 2/3 of the way between Venus and Mercury.

Posted by: matt235

Quote:

Originally Posted by blucatz

This is a great idea, with one really, really big problem.

Loading them all up and shooting them at the sun would definately get rid of our problem of storing them here on Earth. But here is the problem. You can't just put all of the fuel cell in one rocket and launch it towards the sun, it is going to take multiple shots over time (as new spent fuel is created). Our space program (and Russia's, France's, and Japan's) is pretty good...seems that NASA keeps hiring some smart people, but the program is not perfect. We have had 2 shuttle explode in our atmosphere and countless rockets (satellite deployment vehicles) also lost due to some glitch or malfunction. Now let's suppose one of those rockets were loaded with a bunch of spent fuel cells...not good. Basically take the worst of Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and multiply it by a metric buttload and then spread it all over the globe. In a nutshell, the world largest dirty bomb ever conceived.

Personally, I'll stick with the underground storage for now.

Posted by: blucatz

Good point, but with the way the caskets are built to withstand an explosion, should be just a minor set back. You wouldn't need any of the complicated shuttles or satalite deployment rockets, just your basic, overgrown bottle rocket would do. Nothing fancy, and ynot launch them from say Bikini Atol, its already screwed up anyway, or better yet, from Chernobyl.

Posted by: matt235

Personally, I feel each of us have what we are willing to accept in regards to this issue. I know the problems associated with spent fuel due to my time around a spent fuel pool. I realize also that the caskets that they build are pretty durable, even black box durable, but look at what happened to the shuttle. Fragments scattered over literally thousands of square miles. To top it all off, what if something happened in the upper atmosphere with a good portion of this spent fuel items becoming airborne and floating for days on end until they drop out somewhere (anywhere) on the earth.

A spent fuel pool is where the nuclear power plants store the fuel after use for about 20 to 40 years to allow it to decay before shipping it to storage. The pool is normally about 40 feet deep full of borated water (boron is a very good neutron absorber which is used to prevent inadvertant criticality in the pool). If the level of the water were to drop about 2 feet below the normal level, a person working over the pool would die in short order (a few days). If for some reason the level drops down another 5 feet (7 feet total), anyone walking into the building would die within one minute. At a drop of 7 feet, there would still be about 10 feet of borated water covering the rods. Consider removing all the water and vaporizing this in the upper atmosphere.

Like I said, we all have our own level of acceptance. Having first hand (hands on) knowledge of spent fuel and its consequences, I would prefer that they did not attempt something of this nature. At least with our current and foreseeable technology levels.