relevant xkcd not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreev_Bay_nuclear_accident#A...
A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
101–110 of 545 posts
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#102Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#103> Non Emergency I guess in a nuclear reactor there is a lingual shift and the word emergency cant be used for just any old 911 call. Like how Australians apparently call a jellyfish bite "uncomfortable"
It isn't an emergency. It was an accident that required medical attention.
If you fell in a lake and accidentally ingested some wayer known to contain some pathagen dangerous to humans, you might seek medical care, but I don't think most people would consider that an emergency. This is similar.
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then where did their radioactive hair come from?
The pool. But it isn't necessarily a problem - your hair, right now, is radioactive. Presumably wouldn't trip a measuring device because it'd be background levels. The linked report doesn't say how radioactive his hair is or give any indication of whether the person in question is threatened by this reading. Could be bad, could be nothing, we just know it is higher than normal.
It says "The individual was decontaminated by radiation protection personnel but had 300 counts per minute detected in their hair."
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pool. But it isn't necessarily a problem - your hair, right now, is radioactive. Presumably wouldn't trip a measuring device because it'd be background levels. The linked report doesn't say how radioactive his hair is or give any indication of whether the person in question is threatened by this reading. Could be bad, could be nothing, we just know it is higher than normal.
It says "The individual was decontaminated by radiation protection personnel but had 300 counts per minute detected in their hair."
It does say that. Can you translate that into a measurement of radioactivity & medical risk? I don't think it is obvious.
EDIT The report below it seems to literally be "nothing interesting happened". The thresholds here for something to be reportable are very low. Frankly I don't know why this story is upvoted so much but I'm not about to make a bigger deal about it than one sentence.
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#106Is he going to die no matter what or is this survivable?
I'm not an expert but it definitely doesn't sound like an immediate threat to his life.
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
It says "The individual was decontaminated by radiation protection personnel but had 300 counts per minute detected in their hair."
It does say that. Can you translate that into a measurement of radioactivity & medical risk? I don't think it is obvious. EDIT The report below it seems to literally be "nothing interesting happened". The thresholds here for something to be reportable are very low. Frankly I don't know why this story is upvoted so much but I'm not about to make a bigger deal about it than one sentence.
300cpm is lower than what you’d be exposed to on a commercial airline flight (400-900ish cpm).
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#108300 CPM in hair after decontamination is a massive red flag. If this is from systemic circulation, could be GBq-level total body activity.
The non-emergency classification is bureaucratic nonsense. This is an internal contamination event with unknown but potentially severe consequences.
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#109Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's generally speaking, not that dangerous. Water is very good at blocking radiation. That's part of the reason why the pool is filled with it to begin with.
I personally consider an area dangerous if I need to undergo radiation decontamination after entering it, continue emitting radiation after decontamination, and need to seek medical attention. Maybe the nuclear regulatory bodies have differen definitions?
I get a feeling that there are a lot of people trying to minimize this incident for some reason.