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

51–60 of 81 posts

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

#51

Post by tilt_error »

ris wrote: post #17
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?

> How does a piece of spent fuel end up in a "grassy bit of ground" outside the reactor? There was a pretty huge steam-based explosion, blowing the top off the reactor building and scattering fuel and various debris quite far & wide.

There is a possibility that the first explosion (there were several) was nuclear-based and not steam-based [1] and produced radioactive plasma, but the plasma jets cut through both the bottom and top of the reactor.

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2017.1...

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

#52

Post by dkersten »

ribalda wrote: post #7

Good to know. I was worried for this girl :) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejZyDvtX85Y

I recently watched her videos for the first time (the one where she visited the reactor 4 control room and a few others). A very interesting channel indeed.

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

#53

Post by ianai »

godelski wrote: post #23
ianai wrote: post #5

A discussion about the everyday occurrence of radioactive sources may be more productive.

Here or in the Quora post? There's plenty of people here that know quite a bit about reactors and radiation. Ask away.

Both. This question seems like a way to emphasize extreme dangers of radiation.

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

#54

Post by andai »

CydeWeys wrote: post #11
lisper wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the interesting thing: it's not really very hazardous, but it is awfully annoying.

To be fair, it has had several decades to decay, and the most dangerous radionuclides are the ones with short half-lives and thus high output. It's pretty amazing that it's still that dangerous given it's had over 30 years to decay.

Noob question, if it decays so quickly, how come there's so much of it around this late in the Earth's history? Or was it created only decades ago, by artificial means?

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

#55

Post by blake1 »

justnoise wrote: post #34
goatlover wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The exclusion zone is actually resembles a wildlife refuge these days. From reports of the numbers of animals present it seems like human populations are much worse for wildlife than low levels of ionizing radiation and other contaminants from the disaster.

The animals’ populations have rebounded, especially those, like wolves and foxes, who’s habitats are least compatible with humans. Still, mean lifetimes, fertility rates and mean body mass are down, while illness are up. This also applies to some plant species. In no way was Chernobyl a strictly good event for wildlife, just that removing humans took away a very strongly negative factor.

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

#56

Post by jellicle »

andai wrote: post #54
CydeWeys wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, it has had several decades to decay, and the most dangerous radionuclides are the ones with short half-lives and thus high output. It's pretty amazing that it's still that dangerous given it's had over 30 years to decay.

Noob question, if it decays so quickly, how come there's so much of it around this late in the Earth's history? Or was it created only decades ago, by artificial means?

Some things decay quickly and some very slowly, forming a sort of chain where the events might happen fast-slow-fast-fast-superfast-superslow-slow-fast-medium-fast-slow, or something like that.

So these fast-decaying things disappear quickly but are also being constantly created by things spontaneously decaying into them. The point of a nuclear reactor is to increase the overall rates of decay, so you end up with disproportionately large amounts of the short-lived isotopes as opposed to what you would find in nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain

If you scroll down you see thorium series, neptunium series, uranium series, and so on. You can see the half-life at each step.

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

#57

Post by roenxi »

It is worth noting that there is almost literally no mention of potential health impacts; almost all the outcomes listed in the answer are regulatory.

On the one hand, that might be good regulation - we don't want workers getting harmed. On the other hand, it serves as ongoing evidence that getting worried because a situation exceeds regulatory standards is foolish.

Given how little attention he gives it the "marginally higher theoretical likelihood of later detriment such as cancer" turns out to be something trivial like less damage than done by drinking sugar water or not exercising.

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

#59

Post by dgoodell »

StreamBright wrote: post #32
codeduck wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. There were two explosions - the second of which destroyed the reactor core and distributed parts of the reactor structure (including fuel) over the area. 2. That speck of spent fuel is still radioactive enough after 30 years to push most nuclear industry workers over their annual permissable dosage. Chernobyl itself is still phenomenally radioactive - but is far less so than it was immediately after the accident.

Given that half time is 50000 years for some of its content its is not a big surprise.

The dangerous part, and the part that is discussed in the article, is CS-137, which has a half-life of about 30 years. The longer the half-life of something the less radioactive it is.
Post reply on HN