On 05/12/2023 20:39, %% wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 03:33:34 +1100, Ottavio Caruso
> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Am 05/12/2023 um 15:06 schrieb alan_m:
>>> On 05/12/2023 14:17, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Didn't we leave Europe?
>>>>
>>>   No we left the EU, not Europe
>>
>> Then we should leave Europe too.
>
> Bit hard to drag that soggy little frigid island further away.

Scrap all the green initiatives and we could have Doggerland phase2 :)
That's win, win!

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 5 Dec 2023 22:14:30 GMT, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:

>On 05 Dec 2023 at 21:55:26 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 05/12/2023 15:39, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 05 Dec 2023 at 15:09:00 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/12/2023 12:43, SteveW wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While Sellafield does not have a chain reaction, it does have stores of
>>>>> old materials, in aging and damaged buildings - at least one of which is
>>>>> part way into a 20 year programme to empty it, because of the danger it
>>>>> presents. Failure of that building could contaminate large areas - and
>>>>> the prevailing winds would likely send a plume over parts of large
>>>>> Cumbria and Lancashire, including across Manchester.
>>>>>
>>>> Plume of what exactly?
>>>>
>>>> AIUI, the risk was that contaminated water might leak into the sea, just
>>>> as it has in the past.
>>>
>>> Well quite. The questions are, what is the old material in the building, and
>>> what is it stored in?
>>
>> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
>> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
>> radioactive materials up, not down.
>
>OK. So the water is the critical item, not the building (necessarily). Could
>be safely stored in a deep pool (like old fuel rods are at the moment).

Are there not (at least) two main sources of radioactive waste at
Sellafield? One is the tanks of water that contain dissolved
radioactive stuff, which are leaking and are slowly being drained down
and processed. The other is the 'Cockroft's Follies', the two towers
with the filters on the top to catch any dust etc emerging from the
plutonium reactors at their base, which are now being/have been
dismantled https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-29803990

--
Chris

On 05/12/2023 22:52, SteveW wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 22:14, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 05 Dec 2023 at 21:55:26 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/12/2023 15:39, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 05 Dec 2023 at 15:09:00 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/12/2023 12:43, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> While Sellafield does not have a chain reaction, it does have
>>>>>> stores of
>>>>>> old materials, in aging and damaged buildings - at least one of
>>>>>> which is
>>>>>> part way into a 20 year programme to empty it, because of the
>>>>>> danger it
>>>>>> presents. Failure of that building could contaminate large areas -
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the prevailing winds would likely send a plume over parts of large
>>>>>> Cumbria and Lancashire, including across Manchester.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Plume of what exactly?
>>>>>
>>>>> AIUI, the risk was that contaminated water might leak into the sea,
>>>>> just
>>>>> as it has in the past.
>>>>
>>>> Well quite. The questions are, what is the old material in the
>>>> building, and
>>>> what is it stored in?
>>>
>>> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
>>> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
>>> radioactive materials up, not down.
>>
>> OK. So the water is the critical item, not the building (necessarily).
>> Could
>> be safely stored in a deep pool (like old fuel rods are at the moment).
>
> The materials in the silos has become a sludge - allowing the
> radioactivity to decrease and the metals to corrode to a more easily
> handled sludge, was the whole intent of storing it for decades.
>
> Wxtraction of the sludge to store it elsewhere is carried out by a
> couple of machines (weighing a couple of hundred tons apiece)

I got my weights wrong, they weight 400 tons each.

On 06 Dec 2023 at 09:51:17 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 05/12/2023 22:52, SteveW wrote:
>> On 05/12/2023 22:14, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 05 Dec 2023 at 21:55:26 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/12/2023 15:39, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>> Well quite. The questions are, what is the old material in the
>>>>> building, and what is it stored in?
>>>>
>>>> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
>>>> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
>>>> radioactive materials up, not down.
>>>
>>> OK. So the water is the critical item, not the building (necessarily).
>>> Could be safely stored in a deep pool (like old fuel rods are at the moment).
>>
>> The materials in the silos has become a sludge - allowing the
>> radioactivity to decrease and the metals to corrode to a more easily
>> handled sludge, was the whole intent of storing it for decades.
>>
>> Wxtraction of the sludge to store it elsewhere is carried out by a
>> couple of machines (weighing a couple of hundred tons apiece)
>
> I got my weights wrong, they weight 400 tons each.

Either way - thanks for the info. That clarifies matters a lot.

--
Tim

On 05/12/2023 21:55, SteveW wrote:
> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
> radioactive materials up, not down.

Er no, it probably couldn't.

Storage in water is more about reducing radiation leakage as it is
about cooling. Its ok to swim in a spent fuel pond, but not to dive to
the bottom where the blue glow is...

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 06/12/2023 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 21:55, SteveW wrote:
>> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
>> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
>> radioactive materials up, not down.
>
> Er no, it probably couldn't.
>
> Storage in water is more  about reducing radiation leakage as it is
> about cooling. Its ok to swim in a spent fuel pond, but not to dive to
> the bottom where the blue glow is...

It is finely powdered. Any powdered metal is a fire risk. That it is
still corroding will self-heat the mass and could lead to ignition.

On 06/12/2023 12:10, SteveW wrote:
> On 06/12/2023 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/12/2023 21:55, SteveW wrote:
>>> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
>>> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
>>> radioactive materials up, not down.
>>
>> Er no, it probably couldn't.
>>
>> Storage in water is more  about reducing radiation leakage as it is
>> about cooling. Its ok to swim in a spent fuel pond, but not to dive to
>> the bottom where the blue glow is...
>
> It is finely powdered. Any powdered metal is a fire risk. That it is
> still corroding will self-heat the mass and could lead to ignition.
>
>
Bollocks.
>

--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 06 Dec 2023 at 12:10:14 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 06/12/2023 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/12/2023 21:55, SteveW wrote:
>>> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
>>> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
>>> radioactive materials up, not down.
>>
>> Er no, it probably couldn't.
>>
>> Storage in water is more about reducing radiation leakage as it is
>> about cooling. Its ok to swim in a spent fuel pond, but not to dive to
>> the bottom where the blue glow is...
>
> It is finely powdered. Any powdered metal is a fire risk. That it is
> still corroding will self-heat the mass and could lead to ignition.

Fuel rod casing is presumably zirconium, or are there other metals? Any
decaying isotopes mixed in? Is there also self-heat due to decay?

--
Tim

On 06/12/2023 12:41, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 06 Dec 2023 at 12:10:14 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2023 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2023 21:55, SteveW wrote:
>>>> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
>>>> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
>>>> radioactive materials up, not down.
>>>
>>> Er no, it probably couldn't.
>>>
>>> Storage in water is more about reducing radiation leakage as it is
>>> about cooling. Its ok to swim in a spent fuel pond, but not to dive to
>>> the bottom where the blue glow is...
>>
>> It is finely powdered. Any powdered metal is a fire risk. That it is
>> still corroding will self-heat the mass and could lead to ignition.
>
> Fuel rod casing is presumably zirconium, or are there other metals? Any
> decaying isotopes mixed in? Is there also self-heat due to decay?
>

I thought it was quite old, decades old. So the hot stuff will have
decayed quite a lot.

I'm really not seeing a scenario where the water disappears, no one
notices, and it has time to heat and catch fire. Maybe if a catastrophe
destroys civilisation, but then survivors would have bigger concerns.

On 06/12/2023 14:24, Pancho wrote:
> On 06/12/2023 12:41, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 06 Dec 2023 at 12:10:14 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/12/2023 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 05/12/2023 21:55, SteveW wrote:
>>>>> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
>>>>> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
>>>>> radioactive materials up, not down.
>>>>
>>>> Er no, it probably couldn't.
>>>>
>>>> Storage in water is more  about reducing radiation leakage as it is
>>>> about cooling. Its ok to swim in a spent fuel pond, but not to dive to
>>>> the bottom where the blue glow is...
>>>
>>> It is finely powdered. Any powdered metal is a fire risk. That it is
>>> still corroding will self-heat the mass and could lead to ignition.
>>
>> Fuel rod casing is presumably zirconium, or are there other metals? Any
>> decaying isotopes mixed in? Is there also self-heat due to decay?
>>
>
> I thought it was quite old, decades old. So the hot stuff will have
> decayed quite a lot.
>
> I'm really not seeing a scenario where the water disappears, no one
> notices, and it has time to heat and catch fire. Maybe if a catastrophe
> destroys civilisation, but then survivors would have bigger concerns.
>
Indeed. Even the total clusterfuck of chernobyl only killed a few tens
of people, though Pripyat probably did need evacuation.

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 06 Dec 2023 at 14:24:43 GMT, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

> On 06/12/2023 12:41, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 06 Dec 2023 at 12:10:14 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/12/2023 12:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 05/12/2023 21:55, SteveW wrote:
>>>>> Fuel rod casing swarf and various other waste, in water. Loss of the
>>>>> water could lead to self combustion of the waste, which could carry
>>>>> radioactive materials up, not down.
>>>>
>>>> Er no, it probably couldn't.
>>>>
>>>> Storage in water is more about reducing radiation leakage as it is
>>>> about cooling. Its ok to swim in a spent fuel pond, but not to dive to
>>>> the bottom where the blue glow is...
>>>
>>> It is finely powdered. Any powdered metal is a fire risk. That it is
>>> still corroding will self-heat the mass and could lead to ignition.
>>
>> Fuel rod casing is presumably zirconium, or are there other metals? Any
>> decaying isotopes mixed in? Is there also self-heat due to decay?
>>
>
> I thought it was quite old, decades old. So the hot stuff will have
> decayed quite a lot.

Any of the relatively short-lived stuff (such as I-131), yes. That will have
disappeared completely. I don't know what other isotopes there might be but
anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going quite
strong.

--
For me leaving the EU has always been a fundamental if abstract question of democratic accountability: disliking a transnational government it's impossible to kick out.

Iain Martin - The Times 24/11/2022

On 06/12/2023 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
> anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going quite
> strong.

well no, not really. If its got that long a half life it will still be
going, quite *weakly*.

The very few radionuclides that are 'of *real* concern' are those that
manage to find an unhappy medium, Cobalt 60. Caesium 137, Strontium 90.

All cooked up in fission reactions, all long enough lived to be a pain
to wait to cool down and all short enough to be quite intensely
radioactive. And in the case of Cobalt 60, more or less lethal.

I think more people have been killed by (accidental) cobalt 60
irradiation than any other source, but on the other hand its estimated
to have treated 70 million people with existing cancers, successfully.

Tons of the stuff around in any hospital X-ray, or CT scan department,
or dental surgery. Keeps your supermarket veg fresh as well.

It is probably the primary source of unnatural radiation for most
people. I'll be getting another massive dose from a whole torso CT scan
in a week or two.

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On Wednesday 6 December 2023 at 16:48:09 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 06/12/2023 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
> > anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going quite
> > strong.
> well no, not really. If its got that long a half life it will still be
> going, quite *weakly*.
>
> The very few radionuclides that are 'of *real* concern' are those that
> manage to find an unhappy medium, Cobalt 60. Caesium 137, Strontium 90.
>
> All cooked up in fission reactions, all long enough lived to be a pain
> to wait to cool down and all short enough to be quite intensely
> radioactive. And in the case of Cobalt 60, more or less lethal.
>
> I think more people have been killed by (accidental) cobalt 60
> irradiation than any other source, but on the other hand its estimated
> to have treated 70 million people with existing cancers, successfully.
>
> Tons of the stuff around in any hospital X-ray, or CT scan department,
> or dental surgery. Keeps your supermarket veg fresh as well.

Cobalt 60 is used for radiotherapy and food processing, but I have never
heard of it being used for ordinary hospital or dental x-ray or CT-scanning
purposes. It would be very difficult to get the point source that is needed
for a sharp image and there is no control over the energy which is needed
to get good contrast in different tissues.
John

> It is probably the primary source of unnatural radiation for most
> people. I'll be getting another massive dose from a whole torso CT scan
> in a week or two.
>
>
>
> --
> Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.
>
> "Saki"

On 06 Dec 2023 at 16:45:46 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 06/12/2023 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>> anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going quite
>> strong.
>
> well no, not really. If its got that long a half life it will still be
> going, quite *weakly*.
>
> The very few radionuclides that are 'of *real* concern' are those that
> manage to find an unhappy medium, Cobalt 60. Caesium 137, Strontium 90.
>
> All cooked up in fission reactions, all long enough lived to be a pain
> to wait to cool down and all short enough to be quite intensely
> radioactive. And in the case of Cobalt 60, more or less lethal.
>
> I think more people have been killed by (accidental) cobalt 60
> irradiation than any other source, but on the other hand its estimated
> to have treated 70 million people with existing cancers, successfully.
>
> Tons of the stuff around in any hospital X-ray, or CT scan department,
> or dental surgery. Keeps your supermarket veg fresh as well.
>
> It is probably the primary source of unnatural radiation for most
> people. I'll be getting another massive dose from a whole torso CT scan
> in a week or two.

I found this interesting comment on Wikipedia:

"Circa 1983, construction was finished of 1700 apartments in Taiwan which were
built with steel contaminated with cobalt-60. Approximately 10,000 people
occupied these buildings during a 9–20 year period. On average, these people
unknowingly received a radiation dose of 0.4 Sv. This large group did not
suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the linear no-threshold
model would predict, but suffered a lower cancer mortality than the general
Taiwan public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation
hormesis model."

Nearly half an Sv. That's quite a lot.

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since ... it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.”

Sir Roger Scruton

On 06/12/2023 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 06 Dec 2023 at 16:45:46 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2023 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going quite
>>> strong.
>>
>> well no, not really. If its got that long a half life it will still be
>> going, quite *weakly*.
>>
>> The very few radionuclides that are 'of *real* concern' are those that
>> manage to find an unhappy medium, Cobalt 60. Caesium 137, Strontium 90.
>>
>> All cooked up in fission reactions, all long enough lived to be a pain
>> to wait to cool down and all short enough to be quite intensely
>> radioactive. And in the case of Cobalt 60, more or less lethal.
>>
>> I think more people have been killed by (accidental) cobalt 60
>> irradiation than any other source, but on the other hand its estimated
>> to have treated 70 million people with existing cancers, successfully.
>>
>> Tons of the stuff around in any hospital X-ray, or CT scan department,
>> or dental surgery. Keeps your supermarket veg fresh as well.
>>
>> It is probably the primary source of unnatural radiation for most
>> people. I'll be getting another massive dose from a whole torso CT scan
>> in a week or two.
>
> I found this interesting comment on Wikipedia:
>
> "Circa 1983, construction was finished of 1700 apartments in Taiwan which were
> built with steel contaminated with cobalt-60. Approximately 10,000 people
> occupied these buildings during a 9–20 year period. On average, these people
> unknowingly received a radiation dose of 0.4 Sv. This large group did not
> suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the linear no-threshold
> model would predict, but suffered a lower cancer mortality than the general
> Taiwan public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation
> hormesis model."
>
> Nearly half an Sv. That's quite a lot.
>
It's not that much - on average ten years that's 40mSv/yr.

Ramsar, in Iran is around 200mSv/yr
Places in Dartmoor 20mSv/yr.
My CT scan next week will pump in 7mSV
Nuclear worker limits are around 50mSv/yr
Standing next to Chernobyl, the day after, for ten minutes
4Sv - fatal.

The importance of this incident is more subtle: The LNT model of
radiation damage assumes that the total cumulative dose is what is
important.
0.4Sv is enough to cause severe radiation poisoning if recieved in a
single dose.
Ergo it disproves completely the LNT models assumptions. Cumulative low
level radiation is simply nowhere near as dangerous as had been assumed
by the regulatory models, and nowhere near as dangerous as a single high
level exposure.

IIRC Wade Allison's studies revealed there was no direct measurable
effect on cell mutation below around 400mSv/y. Although some uptick in
cancers have been recorded by people, especially those with impaired
lung function, at radon levels of only 40mSv/y - which I suspect is due
less to radiation tan to the fact that breathable radon is a heavy gas
that will stick in the lungs and turn into nasty heavy metals there, and
heavy metals are themselves known carcinogens

As Allison points out, the impact of these findings renders nearly all
nuclear regulation completely pointless.

And if the science were followed, would probably cut the cost of nuclear
power by 80%.

--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell

On 07 Dec 2023 at 10:15:01 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 06/12/2023 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 06 Dec 2023 at 16:45:46 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/12/2023 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going quite
>>>> strong.
>>>
>>> well no, not really. If its got that long a half life it will still be
>>> going, quite *weakly*.
>>>
>>> The very few radionuclides that are 'of *real* concern' are those that
>>> manage to find an unhappy medium, Cobalt 60. Caesium 137, Strontium 90.
>>>
>>> All cooked up in fission reactions, all long enough lived to be a pain
>>> to wait to cool down and all short enough to be quite intensely
>>> radioactive. And in the case of Cobalt 60, more or less lethal.
>>>
>>> I think more people have been killed by (accidental) cobalt 60
>>> irradiation than any other source, but on the other hand its estimated
>>> to have treated 70 million people with existing cancers, successfully.
>>>
>>> Tons of the stuff around in any hospital X-ray, or CT scan department,
>>> or dental surgery. Keeps your supermarket veg fresh as well.
>>>
>>> It is probably the primary source of unnatural radiation for most
>>> people. I'll be getting another massive dose from a whole torso CT scan
>>> in a week or two.
>>
>> I found this interesting comment on Wikipedia:
>>
>> "Circa 1983, construction was finished of 1700 apartments in Taiwan which were
>> built with steel contaminated with cobalt-60. Approximately 10,000 people
>> occupied these buildings during a 9–20 year period. On average, these people
>> unknowingly received a radiation dose of 0.4 Sv. This large group did not
>> suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the linear no-threshold
>> model would predict, but suffered a lower cancer mortality than the general
>> Taiwan public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation
>> hormesis model."
>>
>> Nearly half an Sv. That's quite a lot.
>>
> It's not that much - on average ten years that's 40mSv/yr.

I meant it would be quiet a lot in a single dose. But that spread over time,
it had no effect at all.

--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)

On 07/12/2023 10:38, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 07 Dec 2023 at 10:15:01 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2023 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 06 Dec 2023 at 16:45:46 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/12/2023 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going quite
>>>>> strong.
>>>>
>>>> well no, not really. If its got that long a half life it will still be
>>>> going, quite *weakly*.
>>>>
>>>> The very few radionuclides that are 'of *real* concern' are those that
>>>> manage to find an unhappy medium, Cobalt 60. Caesium 137, Strontium 90.
>>>>
>>>> All cooked up in fission reactions, all long enough lived to be a pain
>>>> to wait to cool down and all short enough to be quite intensely
>>>> radioactive. And in the case of Cobalt 60, more or less lethal.
>>>>
>>>> I think more people have been killed by (accidental) cobalt 60
>>>> irradiation than any other source, but on the other hand its estimated
>>>> to have treated 70 million people with existing cancers, successfully.
>>>>
>>>> Tons of the stuff around in any hospital X-ray, or CT scan department,
>>>> or dental surgery. Keeps your supermarket veg fresh as well.
>>>>
>>>> It is probably the primary source of unnatural radiation for most
>>>> people. I'll be getting another massive dose from a whole torso CT scan
>>>> in a week or two.
>>>
>>> I found this interesting comment on Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> "Circa 1983, construction was finished of 1700 apartments in Taiwan which were
>>> built with steel contaminated with cobalt-60. Approximately 10,000 people
>>> occupied these buildings during a 9–20 year period. On average, these people
>>> unknowingly received a radiation dose of 0.4 Sv. This large group did not
>>> suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the linear no-threshold
>>> model would predict, but suffered a lower cancer mortality than the general
>>> Taiwan public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation
>>> hormesis model."
>>>
>>> Nearly half an Sv. That's quite a lot.
>>>
>> It's not that much - on average ten years that's 40mSv/yr.
>
> I meant it would be quiet a lot in a single dose. But that spread over time,
> it had no effect at all.
>
Indeed. But that was the whole point.

The whole reason why people fear 'nuclear waste' is that it represents a
chronic low dose. Leading to a high cumulative dose.

Since a high cumulative dose is essentially harmless over a period of
many cell regenerations, this is an irrational fear.

But it's built in and strengthened by the politrical regulatory
framework of the nuclear industry.

People think that because they cant eat Cumbrian lamb because of 'high
radiation levels' post Chernobyl, it's therefore dangerous to do so.
The reality is that the authorities simply don't know, and are very far
from listening to the very few scientists who do, and so "no one got
sacked for saying 'the regulations say "no"' ".

It's just like Covid. No one knew anything really. So the politicians
get their focus groups and think tanks out, and ask in any way but
directly 'which decision is the most likely to see me lose the next
election'

That is, they never respond to 'the science' - only to the public's
perceptions, which can be guided and manipulated by media bullshit.

Of which the guardian is an important influencer.

--
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift

On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 10:03:39 -0800, John Walliker wrote:

> On Wednesday 6 December 2023 at 16:48:09 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
> wrote:
>> On 06/12/2023 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>> > anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going
>> > quite strong.
>> well no, not really. If its got that long a half life it will still be
>> going, quite *weakly*.
>>
>> The very few radionuclides that are 'of *real* concern' are those that
>> manage to find an unhappy medium, Cobalt 60. Caesium 137, Strontium 90.
>>
>> All cooked up in fission reactions, all long enough lived to be a pain
>> to wait to cool down and all short enough to be quite intensely
>> radioactive. And in the case of Cobalt 60, more or less lethal.
>>
>> I think more people have been killed by (accidental) cobalt 60
>> irradiation than any other source, but on the other hand its estimated
>> to have treated 70 million people with existing cancers, successfully.
>>
>> Tons of the stuff around in any hospital X-ray, or CT scan department,
>> or dental surgery. Keeps your supermarket veg fresh as well.
>
> Cobalt 60 is used for radiotherapy and food processing, but I have never
> heard of it being used for ordinary hospital or dental x-ray or
> CT-scanning purposes. It would be very difficult to get the point
> source that is needed for a sharp image and there is no control over the
> energy which is needed to get good contrast in different tissues.
> John
>
>> It is probably the primary source of unnatural radiation for most
>> people. I'll be getting another massive dose from a whole torso CT scan
>> in a week or two.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.
>>
>> "Saki"

When I was an apprentice in 1958 I used a 3mCi cobalt60 source for taking
pictures of stainless steel pipe welds.

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 18:12:53 -0000 (UTC), jon <jon@nospam.cn> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 10:03:39 -0800, John Walliker wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 6 December 2023 at 16:48:09 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
>> wrote:
>>> On 06/12/2023 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> > anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going
>>> > quite strong.
>>> well no, not really. If its got that long a half life it will still be
>>> going, quite *weakly*.
>>>
>>> The very few radionuclides that are 'of *real* concern' are those that
>>> manage to find an unhappy medium, Cobalt 60. Caesium 137, Strontium 90.
>>>
>>> All cooked up in fission reactions, all long enough lived to be a pain
>>> to wait to cool down and all short enough to be quite intensely
>>> radioactive. And in the case of Cobalt 60, more or less lethal.
>>>
>>> I think more people have been killed by (accidental) cobalt 60
>>> irradiation than any other source, but on the other hand its estimated
>>> to have treated 70 million people with existing cancers, successfully.
>>>
>>> Tons of the stuff around in any hospital X-ray, or CT scan department,
>>> or dental surgery. Keeps your supermarket veg fresh as well.
>>
>> Cobalt 60 is used for radiotherapy and food processing, but I have never
>> heard of it being used for ordinary hospital or dental x-ray or
>> CT-scanning purposes. It would be very difficult to get the point
>> source that is needed for a sharp image and there is no control over the
>> energy which is needed to get good contrast in different tissues.
>> John
>>
>>> It is probably the primary source of unnatural radiation for most
>>> people. I'll be getting another massive dose from a whole torso CT scan
>>> in a week or two.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.
>>>
>>> "Saki"
>
>When I was an apprentice in 1958 I used a 3mCi cobalt60 source for taking
>pictures of stainless steel pipe welds.

My BiL was a metallurgist (MSc from Brunel, IIRC) and did much the
same thing at a local foundry, checking castings for defects. Some of
the castings were quite large. I don't know the strength of the
sources he used, but he had a special radiation-proof lab in which he
took photographs with a remotely operated camera.

He died of a brain tumor some thirty years ago. There may or may not
have been a connection, but I always thought he was a bit cavalier
with his sources.

--
Chris

On 09/12/2023 20:53, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 18:12:53 -0000 (UTC), jon <jon@nospam.cn> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 10:03:39 -0800, John Walliker wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 6 December 2023 at 16:48:09 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 06/12/2023 16:23, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> anything with a half-life in the tens of years will still be going
>>>>> quite strong.
>>>> well no, not really. If its got that long a half life it will still be
>>>> going, quite *weakly*.
>>>>
>>>> The very few radionuclides that are 'of *real* concern' are those that
>>>> manage to find an unhappy medium, Cobalt 60. Caesium 137, Strontium 90.
>>>>
>>>> All cooked up in fission reactions, all long enough lived to be a pain
>>>> to wait to cool down and all short enough to be quite intensely
>>>> radioactive. And in the case of Cobalt 60, more or less lethal.
>>>>
>>>> I think more people have been killed by (accidental) cobalt 60
>>>> irradiation than any other source, but on the other hand its estimated
>>>> to have treated 70 million people with existing cancers, successfully.
>>>>
>>>> Tons of the stuff around in any hospital X-ray, or CT scan department,
>>>> or dental surgery. Keeps your supermarket veg fresh as well.
>>>
>>> Cobalt 60 is used for radiotherapy and food processing, but I have never
>>> heard of it being used for ordinary hospital or dental x-ray or
>>> CT-scanning purposes. It would be very difficult to get the point
>>> source that is needed for a sharp image and there is no control over the
>>> energy which is needed to get good contrast in different tissues.
>>> John
>>>
>>>> It is probably the primary source of unnatural radiation for most
>>>> people. I'll be getting another massive dose from a whole torso CT scan
>>>> in a week or two.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.
>>>>
>>>> "Saki"
>>
>> When I was an apprentice in 1958 I used a 3mCi cobalt60 source for taking
>> pictures of stainless steel pipe welds.
>
> My BiL was a metallurgist (MSc from Brunel, IIRC) and did much the
> same thing at a local foundry, checking castings for defects. Some of
> the castings were quite large. I don't know the strength of the
> sources he used, but he had a special radiation-proof lab in which he
> took photographs with a remotely operated camera.
>
> He died of a brain tumor some thirty years ago. There may or may not
> have been a connection, but I always thought he was a bit cavalier
> with his sources.
>
When I was offered adjuvant radiotheraphy, the oncologist said that
there was a 15% greater chance of developing an unrelated cancer 15
years or more later.
That uses pretty high blasts of cobalt 60.

Cobalt 60 is definitely capable of taking the radiation dose levels into
the 'unacceptable' regions.

And yet is is the dominant source of medical X-rays.

--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 14:32:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> When I was offered adjuvant radiotheraphy, the oncologist said that
> there was a 15% greater chance of developing an unrelated cancer 15
> years or more later.
> That uses pretty high blasts of cobalt 60.
>
> Cobalt 60 is definitely capable of taking the radiation dose levels into
> the 'unacceptable' regions.
>
> And yet is is the dominant source of medical X-rays.

That's interesting. When I had prostate cancer 4 years ago it was treated
with HIMB - High Intensity Modulated Beam radiotherapy. I don't know what
source it used, however last year during routine flexible cystography a
small bunch of cancer cells were spotted on the bladder lining. They were
surgically removed and tested and found to be low grade. This year during
another check a bigger bunch of cells were spotted. These were removed
and tested and found to be medium grade, i.e. a higher risk of returning,
so I've just finished a 6 week course of chemotherapy direct into the
bladder in an attempt to stop it recurring. Could it have been caused by
the radiation?

--
TOJ.

On 10/12/2023 15:24, The Other John wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 14:32:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> When I was offered adjuvant radiotheraphy, the oncologist said that
>> there was a 15% greater chance of developing an unrelated cancer 15
>> years or more later.
>> That uses pretty high blasts of cobalt 60.
>>
>> Cobalt 60 is definitely capable of taking the radiation dose levels into
>> the 'unacceptable' regions.
>>
>> And yet is is the dominant source of medical X-rays.
>
> That's interesting. When I had prostate cancer 4 years ago it was treated
> with HIMB - High Intensity Modulated Beam radiotherapy. I don't know what
> source it used, however last year during routine flexible cystography a
> small bunch of cancer cells were spotted on the bladder lining. They were
> surgically removed and tested and found to be low grade. This year during
> another check a bigger bunch of cells were spotted. These were removed
> and tested and found to be medium grade, i.e. a higher risk of returning,
> so I've just finished a 6 week course of chemotherapy direct into the
> bladder in an attempt to stop it recurring. Could it have been caused by
> the radiation?
>
It could, but its very hard to assign causality in such a complex situation.

Radiotherapy is pretty much if 'if we don't do this you *will* die in 3
years .
If we do you *may* die of an unrelated cancer in 15 years. Your choice..'

The same as most medical treatment.

How many people *didn't* die because they got covid vaccinations, as
against those who *may* have died *because of* it?

I *didn't* have radiotherapy, and now I have a different unrelated
cancer. Fortunately so slow and unimportant it won't affect me. I will
die with it, not of it.

--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

On 10/12/2023 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> When I was offered adjuvant radiotheraphy, the oncologist said that
> there was a 15% greater chance of developing an unrelated cancer 15
> years or more later.
> That uses pretty high blasts of cobalt 60.
>
> Cobalt 60 is definitely capable of taking the radiation dose levels into
> the 'unacceptable' regions.
>
> And yet is is the dominant source of medical X-rays.

That's not what the NIH says.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537046/

"Once the high kinetic energy electrons finally reach the anode target,
this initiates the process of X-ray production."

Cobalt 60 may well be the usual method for radiotherapy, but it's not
what's used to generate X-rays. Not even for a CT scan.

Andy

On 10/12/2023 20:58, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 10/12/2023 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> When I was offered adjuvant radiotheraphy, the oncologist said that
>> there was a 15% greater chance of developing an unrelated cancer 15
>> years or more later.
>> That uses pretty high blasts of cobalt 60.
>>
>> Cobalt 60 is definitely capable of taking the radiation dose levels
>> into the 'unacceptable' regions.
>>
>> And yet is is the dominant source of medical X-rays.
>
> That's not what the NIH says.
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537046/
>
> "Once the high kinetic energy electrons finally reach the anode target,
> this initiates the process of X-ray production."
>
> Cobalt 60 may well be the usual method for radiotherapy, but it's not
> what's used to generate X-rays. Not even for a CT scan.
>
I think it is used in a CT scanner actually.

I have to defer on normal x-rays. I thought they had got rid of that
ancient method years ago

> Andy

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton

On Monday 11 December 2023 at 04:01:50 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 10/12/2023 20:58, Vir Campestris wrote:
> > On 10/12/2023 14:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> When I was offered adjuvant radiotheraphy, the oncologist said that
> >> there was a 15% greater chance of developing an unrelated cancer 15
> >> years or more later.
> >> That uses pretty high blasts of cobalt 60.
> >>
> >> Cobalt 60 is definitely capable of taking the radiation dose levels
> >> into the 'unacceptable' regions.
> >>
> >> And yet is is the dominant source of medical X-rays.
> >
> > That's not what the NIH says.
> >
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537046/
> >
> > "Once the high kinetic energy electrons finally reach the anode target,
> > this initiates the process of X-ray production."
> >
> > Cobalt 60 may well be the usual method for radiotherapy, but it's not
> > what's used to generate X-rays. Not even for a CT scan.
> >
> I think it is used in a CT scanner actually.
>
> I have to defer on normal x-rays. I thought they had got rid of that
> ancient method years ago
>

There are many good reasons why cobalt 60 would be a poor choice for
a CT scanner. I have never heard of it being used for this application.
John

> > Andy
> --
> “It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
> intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
> intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
> futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
> we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
> criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
> power-directed system of thought.”
> Sir Roger Scruton