Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If I ingest a grain of sand size piece of the Chernobyl Reactor No.4 core

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: If I ingest a grain of sand size piece of the Chernobyl Reactor No.4 core

#21

Post by DuskStar »

beaner wrote: post #13

Couple naive questions: 1. How does a piece of spent fuel end up in a "grassy bit of ground" outside the reactor? Thought it would have all melted in one big clump in the same spot? 2. Why is Chernobyl still so dangerous if literally ingesting the spent fuel isn't super bad? Or is Chernobyl no longer dangerous?

For #1, about 5% of the reactor core was spread outside the building through a series of explosions. (which is a large part of why reactors in the western world all have containment structures) So while most of the core is in a couple of mounds within the reactor building, quite a bit got spread around.

Regarding #2, this is a very small fragment, and there are a lot of them around. Eating this wouldn't do much to you, but 10x a day for a year? Hello cancer.

Re: If I ingest a grain of sand size piece of the Chernobyl Reactor No.4 core

#22

Post by godelski »

AaronFriel wrote: post #18
beaner wrote: post #13

Couple naive questions: 1. How does a piece of spent fuel end up in a "grassy bit of ground" outside the reactor? Thought it would have all melted in one big clump in the same spot? 2. Why is Chernobyl still so dangerous if literally ingesting the spent fuel isn't super bad? Or is Chernobyl no longer dangerous?

1. There was an explosion (edit: two explosions) that began the incident which destroyed the reactor and ejected matter a significant distance. 2. Chernobyl, IIRC, isn't really so dangerous to visit but you should avoid eating or drinking anything in the exclusion zone. Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 will poison you from the inside out. The latter ends up bio-accumulating in bone.

IIRC the uptake rate of Cs-137 is about 10%. Meaning you only store about 10% of what you ingest. Also, we are SUPER safe when it comes to radiation. No chances. No ifs ands or buts. When it comes to dosage, rad workers already have several safety factors from what we can detect an increase risk of cancer, as it should be.

Re: If I ingest a grain of sand size piece of the Chernobyl Reactor No.4 core

#24

Post by i_am_proteus »

beaner wrote: post #13

Couple naive questions: 1. How does a piece of spent fuel end up in a "grassy bit of ground" outside the reactor? Thought it would have all melted in one big clump in the same spot? 2. Why is Chernobyl still so dangerous if literally ingesting the spent fuel isn't super bad? Or is Chernobyl no longer dangerous?

If a biological process concentrates a radioisotope in something humans consume (let's say a deer), and you eat that deer, you might get a much higher committed dose and a resultant materially higher probability of developing cancer.

Re: If I ingest a grain of sand size piece of the Chernobyl Reactor No.4 core

#25

Post by soundpuppy »

If we were to make an analogy between radiocative matter entering the body, and toxic information entering the mind, what metrics do we use to measure the dangerous effects of the information? How long it lasts or how deeply it can modify conscious/subconscious brain processes?

Re: If I ingest a grain of sand size piece of the Chernobyl Reactor No.4 core

#26

Post by rmdashrfstar »

soundpuppy wrote: post #25

If we were to make an analogy between radiocative matter entering the body, and toxic information entering the mind, what metrics do we use to measure the dangerous effects of the information? How long it lasts or how deeply it can modify conscious/subconscious brain processes?

There's no such thing as dangerous information, only truth and not truth.

Re: If I ingest a grain of sand size piece of the Chernobyl Reactor No.4 core

#27

Post by Lowkeyloki »

rmdashrfstar wrote: post #26
soundpuppy wrote: post #25

If we were to make an analogy between radiocative matter entering the body, and toxic information entering the mind, what metrics do we use to measure the dangerous effects of the information? How long it lasts or how deeply it can modify conscious/subconscious brain processes?

There's no such thing as dangerous information, only truth and not truth.

I disagree having read about people who work as content moderators for websites like YouTube. They frequently suffer from acute forms of PTSD having only passively consumed information. If information can cause PTSD, I would consider that information dangerous to one's mental health.

Re: If I ingest a grain of sand size piece of the Chernobyl Reactor No.4 core

#28

Post by kadendogthing »

rmdashrfstar wrote: post #26
soundpuppy wrote: post #25

If we were to make an analogy between radiocative matter entering the body, and toxic information entering the mind, what metrics do we use to measure the dangerous effects of the information? How long it lasts or how deeply it can modify conscious/subconscious brain processes?

There's no such thing as dangerous information, only truth and not truth.

>There's no such thing as dangerous information

There most certainly is. We actively codify for it in most societies in a myriad of ways. See: Nuclear technology secrets, CDC protocols, and the fact that things like PTSD exist.

And to your underlying point: stop assuming everyone is rational or will act in the best interests of society with information. There is plenty of information available to you to negate that assumption.

Re: If I ingest a grain of sand size piece of the Chernobyl Reactor No.4 core

#29

Post by sircastor »

rmdashrfstar wrote: post #26
soundpuppy wrote: post #25

If we were to make an analogy between radiocative matter entering the body, and toxic information entering the mind, what metrics do we use to measure the dangerous effects of the information? How long it lasts or how deeply it can modify conscious/subconscious brain processes?

There's no such thing as dangerous information, only truth and not truth.

That's an over simplification. True information can be dangerous or not. Falsehoods can be harmless or not. Context has a significant impact on how the information is treated and the ramifications that come from it.

Re: If I ingest a grain of sand size piece of the Chernobyl Reactor No.4 core

#30

Post by goatlover »

AaronFriel wrote: post #18
beaner wrote: post #13

Couple naive questions: 1. How does a piece of spent fuel end up in a "grassy bit of ground" outside the reactor? Thought it would have all melted in one big clump in the same spot? 2. Why is Chernobyl still so dangerous if literally ingesting the spent fuel isn't super bad? Or is Chernobyl no longer dangerous?

1. There was an explosion (edit: two explosions) that began the incident which destroyed the reactor and ejected matter a significant distance. 2. Chernobyl, IIRC, isn't really so dangerous to visit but you should avoid eating or drinking anything in the exclusion zone. Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 will poison you from the inside out. The latter ends up bio-accumulating in bone.

Wouldn’t that also apply to all the wildlife in the area? Are there no animals inside the exclusion zone? I get that cancer rates and birth defects would go up, but that’s a bit different from being poisoned, the implication a lack of survivability.
Post reply on HN