h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks, Orcus, for that detailed explanation. It was *just* the kind of answer I had been hoping for. Actually, I think this could make a really good guide entry.

Re. Chernobyl
I remember way back in 2006 there was a discussion here on ASK about the consequences of that catastrophe. Different users had found different statistics, ranging from "the impact on life and health was absolutely catastrophic" to "long term damage is basically non-existent". I guess the crux is that, severe radiation sickness aside, the impact of radiation (and even more so, the long term impact) has to be expressed in terms of statistics. If a member of the general public has a 25% likelihood of developing cancer* at some point in their life, exposure to radiation will increase that likelihood by whatever percentage. So... is a newly calculated likelihood of 30%** a severe impact? And if that person does develop cancer, is it because of those extra 5%, or would they have gotten cancer, anyway?
A clear-cut, cause causing effect type of impact like, tsunami comes and people drown, is much easier to come to terms with.

* Totally made up number, that.
** Totally made up, as well.

Re. Experiments one remembers
When we did Radioactivity back in school, our physics teacher one day brought a Geiger counter into class, as well as a radioactive emitter of some sort, which was stored inside a lead ampulla, stored inside a lead box. As we boys next to the teachers' desk were uneasily getting ready to duck under our tables, the teacher took out the emitter and pointed it at the Geiger counter. Tack.....Tack.......... ........ Tack... Tack..... "Well", he said, "looks like the emitter has exhausted itself." Suddenly, the Geiger counter went TackTackTackTacketytacketytacketyTackTack: the Geiger counter had picked up on the teacher's glow-in-the-dark watch...

Y.

>> We've been told not to buy Potasium Iodide so that it can be shipped to Japan <<

I've not been told that...but then the number of times I've bought potassium iodide could be counted on the fingers of one hand, after I'd had the hand amputated.

So who told you that? And how often do you buy potassium iodide?

RF

You're welcome


Yes it's very difficult to quantify the health risks. The things that are obvious are thyroid cancers and radiation sickness is very easy to spot - but then only those exposed to the very highest doses get the latter.

I think the line has to be drawn at when the rate of cancers in an area are undetectably different to what they were before. This of course gets complicated by how our ability to detect them and record them over time improves.

It's also very difficult to extract statistics from agendas. Those who have an axe to grind will naturally see disastrous data where they want to see it - and the pro nuclear power lobby will see the opposite. And the circular argument between the two will go on.

I've no idea if we've even yet had long enough to calculate such statistics as you put up there. How long before you stop believing the cancer was due to the leak. How can you be certain what caused *any* kind of cancer (aside from the rather easily spotted thyroid cancer).

>So who told you that? And how often do you buy potassium iodide?<

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a run on that in lots of places at the moment.

In fact, I think I could start a supply business

In my locale you see people buying truckloads of tins and other long term food items when there's a petrol strike for one day - or if there is a bank holiday even.

I can very much imagine a meme starting where panicking idiots 10,000 miles away buy up loads of the stuff.

Well, German news page http://www.spiegel.de are reporting that in a lot of places in China, there has been - and continues to be - a run on... salt. The rationale being that salt is iodized and the iodine will give those who eat that salt extra protection. The report says that many stores are already out of salt.

Now I am imagining lots of people eating too much salt and dying of salination...

Y.

Glad Orcus got here before I could. Makes it easier for me (as another professional in the nuclear safety world) to look good by just saying, "yeah, what he said!"

Not to point out my own work here, but I once wrote this thing, if it helps: A2922671

- JD

Great entry you linked to (and wrote), JD. Very informative and fun to read. This and Orcus&#39; information here really cleared things up for me. (At least to the extent of me seeing what I do *not* yet understand )

Y.

the biggest threat of radiation is the 'fallout' of any disaster, this is radioactive particles, debris and dust, that are spread by the winds or smoke from the scene and then contaminate the enviroment

clzoomer, you're 7,400km east of the disaster, not 500.