291–300 of 545 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly, but I wouldn't think "least radioactive environments in a nuclear reactor" is a low bar. I don't know, though.
No you misread. One of the least radioactive areas, full stop. It is less radioactive than your house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should probably try improve their CV health via exercise, rather than pills, wherever possible.
Better than exercise is a better normal lifestyle. Trying to compensate in an hour what went wrong most of the day or week, and with your diet, is far from optimal. One of many, looking at just one detail (sitting): https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/sitting-may-i... From a personal experience, so it's just a guess, a contributor may be fluid movement in the body. Fluid in blood vessels are pumped directl…
I’ve heard of people falling into the spent fuel pool but never the reactor pool. Usually there are strict FME barriers in place and one cannot even look over into the pool without violating the FME. I wonder what led to the event? Definitely an OSHA recordable!
This is not true at all. I have personally looked into a reactor pool. I remember thinking how easy it would be to literally just jump in. I mean, I'd trip about a thousand alarms and probably end up in prison, but....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that reactor and waste pools are some of the least radioactive environments as they are constantly monitored for leakage.
It's because water blocks radioactivity. It's like the opposite of the Fallout games and their radioactive water: you would have to swim right down to the radioactive material and wrap yourself around it at which point you'd basically melt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't claim to know better. But restarting a $1.5B plant after 2 years of inactivity and having a worker fall into a vat of radioactive water and still being at 300 CPM after a decontamination procedure is not normal.
That'd be a very interesting statement if you were qualified to make it
Are you qualified to make the statement I'm replying to?
> 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"
In this case, not much. It's still an exposure event and absolutely worth giving medical attention to assess continued exposure levels from ingested contamination and generally be overly cautious. But that doesn't mean it's ultimately going to be a significant factor in this workers risk for radiation induced disease. It's certainly better than living in the vicinity of coal mining and processing plants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly, but I wouldn't think "least radioactive environments in a nuclear reactor" is a low bar. I don't know, though.
No you misread. One of the least radioactive areas, full stop. It is less radioactive than your house.
Hopefully the worker is okay. I have to agree that the non-emergency classification seems odd. This should warrant a proper investigation and steps to avoid this in the future.
And the reason the contamination transport off-site was classified as non-emergency was because even though the amount of radiation detected on the guy is less than he'd have gotten from flying in an airplane; nuclear safety standards are so unbelievably rigorous and strict that even that small of an incident needs to be reported; even if it presents absolutely no danger to anyone anywhere (not even the guy that was contaminated) and hence is classified as a non-emergency notification.