7 ms·

This is bad but cavity water radiation is usually very weak. Ingestion could be bad but its not like he swallowed a uranium isotope which would be catastrophic.

by tt_dev 11mo ago

IlikeKitties 11mo ago
The Uranium Isotopes would also not be that terrible. It's the fission products that get you.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
mlindner 11mo ago
I wouldn't even call it bad. Reactor pools have basically zero radiation at the surface. The water is constantly filtered and kept very pure to remove contaminants that can be activated by neutrons. Even drinking it I would think would be completely fine. The water itself doesn't get activated.
- happyopossum 11mo ago
  Then where did their radioactive hair come from?
  - roenxi 11mo ago
    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.
    - ComplexSystems 11mo ago
      It says "The individual was decontaminated by radiation protection personnel but had 300 counts per minute detected in their hair."
      - roenxi 11mo ago
        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.
        sithadmin 11mo ago
        300cpm is lower than what you’d be exposed to on a commercial airline flight (400-900ish cpm).
        doetoe 11mo ago
        But is that the same thing? 300cpm says something about the risk to someone near the worker, not about what the worker has been exposed to
        gblargg 11mo ago
        CPM is a function of the detector sensitivity/size and radiation level.
      - madaxe_again 11mo ago
        For reference, this is about the same in your hair that you’d get from a few hours in a pub in the 90s, never mind working in one - surprising amount of radiation in cigarette smoke from polonium and lead-210.
  - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
    That's what I was thinking, but it does look like 300 cpm for a few hours is essentially nothing, or it looks real bad, I can't tell. I found this: Days to receive chronic dose for increase cancer risk of 1 in a 1,000 432 (at 100 CPM) 86 (at 500 CPM) Ok so 300 for an hour (we'll assume the hair is cut off and the exposure either stops or 90% reduces) means no problem. Don't do that every day that's all. But it's from a prepper site that doesn't cite their own sources. I found this: https://www.energy.gov/ehss/articles/doe-ionizing-radiation-dose-ranges-charts https://www.energy.gov/ehss/articles/doe-ionizing-radiation-... Which uses rem instead of cpm. An on-line converter of unknown quality says 300 cpm is 500 rem, and the pdf from the .gov site says 500 rem is "death probable in 2-3 weeks", but I think that chart is saying that's whole body & no therapy. Where this is probably mostly hair that can be just cut off totally let alone washed, and so the elevated exposure is probably both low and short duration, and medical therapy (whatever that means, if any in this case) on top. I can't tell, could be the same as just visting a country with a slightly higher background that isn't a problem for anyone, to dead in a month. Leaning towards no problem just because of the short time and apparently mostly external and removable source. However, it's not nothing either. It's maybe no problem for this person only because they avoided ingesting the water and the water was very quickly washed off and presumably their hair was cut off and all clothes etc removed as fast as possible. It's clearly at least "rather hot" and you can't just play in it and have prolonged exposure and ingestion. It doesn't seem to be "basically zero".
    - roenxi 11mo ago
      The report doesn't read like something involving 500 rem and potential death in 3 weeks. It says "Non Emergency". Can you link to this converter? It seems to be a rather key step that got handwaved. Wiki says [0] there isn't a standard on what a "count" counts. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_per_minute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_per_minute
      - aw1621107 11mo ago
        This website [0] gives the same numbers (300 CPM -> 500 REM). Seems like a candidate for what was used at the very least, and nothing else obviously appeared to claim a similar CPM -> REM conversion capability. Assuming this website was used, it looks like it does a naive multiplication by 5/3, which seems... simplistic? The rest of the page doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either. No indication of how the conversion factor was derived and there's a bunch of links to other CPM -> <radiation-related unit> calculators. On top of that, the landing page for the root domain boasts about AI capabilities and their AI page prominently features "Elevate Your Content Creation" and "Generate high-quality AI content with ease!" [0]: https://www.inayam.co/unit-converter/radioactivity/counts_per_minute-to-rem https://www.inayam.co/unit-converter/radioactivity/counts_pe...
- jojobas 11mo ago
  Water itself is activated by neutrons, even if slightly.
  - mlindner 11mo ago
    How? Neutrons slamming into water would break it apart, turn it into hydrogen and oxygen, and possibly activate the hydrogen into deuterium or tritium. But once it's hydrogen (or an isotope of it) it'll turn gaseous and be filtered off.
    - jojobas 11mo ago
      In order to become gaseous they need to combine with another atom of the same kind torn free, which is about as likely as combining with a free atom of another kind, form an HO radical and stay liquid. Tritiated water is a reality of reactor pools.
- golem14 11mo ago
  Obligatory what-if: https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
- nashashmi 11mo ago
  Is it not Heavy Water?
  - loeg 11mo ago
    Mostly no.
  - mafuy 11mo ago
    No, just pure water. It's used to isolate against radiation leaks.
robocat 11mo ago
FYI: the primary hazard from acute, high-dose uranium ingestion is chemical toxicity leading to acute kidney failure (nephrotoxicity), not radiation.
- anothernewdude 11mo ago
  Fuck me, is there anything fun that isn't nephrotoxic?
  - arthurcolle 11mo ago
    Menu tonight is neurotoxic or nephrotoxic
    - DoctorDabadedoo 11mo ago
      Would you have a fusion menu tasting? We are celebrating tonight.
      - Filligree 11mo ago
        Helium is pretty tasteless.
    - archon810 11mo ago
      "Sir, just stop chewing on the menu and move on to the food."
    - quitit 11mo ago
      I read this in the voice of GLaDOS
  - kybernetyk 11mo ago
    shrooms
    - Traubenfuchs 11mo ago
      think again https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211753918301490 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221175391...
yread 11mo ago
Sounds like it was a lot more serious for the water than for the worker

This is bad but cavity water radiation is usually very weak. Ingestion could be bad but its not like he swallowed a uranium isotope which would be catastrophic.

by tt_dev 11mo ago

This is bad but cavity water radiation is usually very weak. Ingestion could be bad but its not like he swallowed a uranium isotope which would be catastrophic.

IlikeKitties 11mo ago

The Uranium Isotopes would also not be that terrible. It's the fission products that get you.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]

mlindner 11mo ago

I wouldn't even call it bad. Reactor pools have basically zero radiation at the surface. The water is constantly filtered and kept very pure to remove contaminants that can be activated by neutrons. Even drinking it I would think would be completely fine. The water itself doesn't get activated.

happyopossum 11mo ago
Then where did their radioactive hair come from?
- roenxi 11mo ago
  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.
  - ComplexSystems 11mo ago
    It says "The individual was decontaminated by radiation protection personnel but had 300 counts per minute detected in their hair."
    - roenxi 11mo ago
      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.
      - sithadmin 11mo ago
        300cpm is lower than what you’d be exposed to on a commercial airline flight (400-900ish cpm).
        doetoe 11mo ago
        But is that the same thing? 300cpm says something about the risk to someone near the worker, not about what the worker has been exposed to
        gblargg 11mo ago
        CPM is a function of the detector sensitivity/size and radiation level.
    - madaxe_again 11mo ago
      For reference, this is about the same in your hair that you’d get from a few hours in a pub in the 90s, never mind working in one - surprising amount of radiation in cigarette smoke from polonium and lead-210.
- Brian_K_White 11mo ago
  That's what I was thinking, but it does look like 300 cpm for a few hours is essentially nothing, or it looks real bad, I can't tell. I found this: Days to receive chronic dose for increase cancer risk of 1 in a 1,000 432 (at 100 CPM) 86 (at 500 CPM) Ok so 300 for an hour (we'll assume the hair is cut off and the exposure either stops or 90% reduces) means no problem. Don't do that every day that's all. But it's from a prepper site that doesn't cite their own sources. I found this: https://www.energy.gov/ehss/articles/doe-ionizing-radiation-dose-ranges-charts https://www.energy.gov/ehss/articles/doe-ionizing-radiation-... Which uses rem instead of cpm. An on-line converter of unknown quality says 300 cpm is 500 rem, and the pdf from the .gov site says 500 rem is "death probable in 2-3 weeks", but I think that chart is saying that's whole body & no therapy. Where this is probably mostly hair that can be just cut off totally let alone washed, and so the elevated exposure is probably both low and short duration, and medical therapy (whatever that means, if any in this case) on top. I can't tell, could be the same as just visting a country with a slightly higher background that isn't a problem for anyone, to dead in a month. Leaning towards no problem just because of the short time and apparently mostly external and removable source. However, it's not nothing either. It's maybe no problem for this person only because they avoided ingesting the water and the water was very quickly washed off and presumably their hair was cut off and all clothes etc removed as fast as possible. It's clearly at least "rather hot" and you can't just play in it and have prolonged exposure and ingestion. It doesn't seem to be "basically zero".
  - roenxi 11mo ago
    The report doesn't read like something involving 500 rem and potential death in 3 weeks. It says "Non Emergency". Can you link to this converter? It seems to be a rather key step that got handwaved. Wiki says [0] there isn't a standard on what a "count" counts. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_per_minute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_per_minute
    - aw1621107 11mo ago
      This website [0] gives the same numbers (300 CPM -> 500 REM). Seems like a candidate for what was used at the very least, and nothing else obviously appeared to claim a similar CPM -> REM conversion capability. Assuming this website was used, it looks like it does a naive multiplication by 5/3, which seems... simplistic? The rest of the page doesn't exactly fill me with confidence either. No indication of how the conversion factor was derived and there's a bunch of links to other CPM -> <radiation-related unit> calculators. On top of that, the landing page for the root domain boasts about AI capabilities and their AI page prominently features "Elevate Your Content Creation" and "Generate high-quality AI content with ease!" [0]: https://www.inayam.co/unit-converter/radioactivity/counts_per_minute-to-rem https://www.inayam.co/unit-converter/radioactivity/counts_pe...
jojobas 11mo ago
Water itself is activated by neutrons, even if slightly.
- mlindner 11mo ago
  How? Neutrons slamming into water would break it apart, turn it into hydrogen and oxygen, and possibly activate the hydrogen into deuterium or tritium. But once it's hydrogen (or an isotope of it) it'll turn gaseous and be filtered off.
  - jojobas 11mo ago
    In order to become gaseous they need to combine with another atom of the same kind torn free, which is about as likely as combining with a free atom of another kind, form an HO radical and stay liquid. Tritiated water is a reality of reactor pools.
golem14 11mo ago
Obligatory what-if: https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
nashashmi 11mo ago
Is it not Heavy Water?
- loeg 11mo ago
  Mostly no.
- mafuy 11mo ago
  No, just pure water. It's used to isolate against radiation leaks.

robocat 11mo ago

FYI: the primary hazard from acute, high-dose uranium ingestion is chemical toxicity leading to acute kidney failure (nephrotoxicity), not radiation.

anothernewdude 11mo ago
Fuck me, is there anything fun that isn't nephrotoxic?
- arthurcolle 11mo ago
  Menu tonight is neurotoxic or nephrotoxic
  - DoctorDabadedoo 11mo ago
    Would you have a fusion menu tasting? We are celebrating tonight.
    - Filligree 11mo ago
      Helium is pretty tasteless.
  - archon810 11mo ago
    "Sir, just stop chewing on the menu and move on to the food."
  - quitit 11mo ago
    I read this in the voice of GLaDOS
- kybernetyk 11mo ago
  shrooms
  - Traubenfuchs 11mo ago
    think again https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211753918301490 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221175391...

yread 11mo ago

Sounds like it was a lot more serious for the water than for the worker