Please share far and wide!

Monday, October 26, 2015

"Properly" Stored Dry Cask Used Nuke Fuel, and Nuke Dumps, Do Still Damage Babies

No time to develop into a nice article, this guy BasM really knows his stuff, so I want to document this information source.




Those nuclear waste dumps, harm DNA of new babies born up to 40km in their surroundings.
Due to the neutron-argon41 mechanisms DNA of babies born nearby the dump (within 5km) are less harmed and those at a distance of 20-30km away are harmed most!
This summer Germany closed its main nuclear storage site after several studies, a conference day with all pro and anti, and this final report (Okt.2014): http://www.helmholtz-muenchen....





  • "Due to the neutron-argon41 mechanisms DNA of babies born nearby the dump
    (within 5km) are less harmed and those at a distance of 20-30km away
    are harmed most!"
    Why would the harm be greater at 20-30km than at 5km? What would be the mechanism by which this "neutron-argon41 mechanism" harms babies' DNA?





      The mechanisms is illustrated in part 2 (Teil 2) of this presentation: http://www.helmholtz-muenchen....
      Shortly; the DNA damage is caused by (mainly gamma) radiation from argon41 (half life 108minutes). The argon41 is created by the collision of argon40 nuclei (in the air) with escaping neutrons from the nuclear waste dump (neutrons can pass through thick steel, etc). The air is relative hot due to heat of the nuclear waste casks, so it will rise.
      But the argon41 adheres to small water droplets and comes gradually down to the earth surface (as shown at the Belgian Mol experiment) where it is inhaled etc. The coming down takes time during which period the wind transported the argon41 already longer distance (depending on wind speed, but mostly >5km).






  • Sheesh, thats like a whole different language, lol





      Sorry.
      There is little US/UK research in this field. So the Germans are leading.
      German language is highly similar to English (English, Dutch, German are just dialects from each other). Google translates does a good job.
      Some of the research is published in English scientific journals and generated critical comments and responses. This Pubmed page gives a nice overview (note that no.5 is the original publication): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
      All critical comments come from Germans who felt rightfully that those studies may result in real consequences. Of course they also presented their point of view at the conference regarding Gorleben causing DNA harm (and hence Gorleben's future). The lower link in the middle column of this page deliver all presentations: http://www.nlga.niedersachsen....



      lol I was just joking around. I am an exceptional American, I speak english, spanish, japanese, and dog. But really if I read German in German, I can pretty much understand what they are talking about, although that breaks down when it turns more scientific.
      When I hear the spoken German word, I can't understand hardly anything. Danke shone

    • "the DNA damage is caused by (mainly gamma) radiation from argon41 (half life 108minutes)."
      Here is a table of gamma emission energies:
      https://www.cpp.edu/~pbsiegel/...
      Argon 41 has a gamma energy of 1293 KeV--so not quite as energetic as potassium 40 at 1460 KeV.
      "The argon41 is created by the collision of argon40 nuclei (in the air) with escaping neutrons from the nuclear waste dump (neutrons can pass through thick steel, etc)."
      I'm sure that happens, but the critical question is, how much does it happen? Here's a paper which modeled neutron emission from dry cask storage (page 17):
      https://www.mne.ksu.edu/~jks/p...
      Right at the surface of the cask, the average dose exposure rate from both neutrons and secondary photons averages around 0.07 millisieverts per hour. On page 28 of the study you cited, the chart there shows the absorption cross section for argon 40 is 0.2 % of its absolute cross section, which is 0.65 barns, That would mean its absorption cross section in the relevant spectrum would be 0.0013 barns. That's around 15 times larger than the corresponding absorption cross section for nitrogen 14, but nitrogen 14 is has 85 times the atmospheric prevalent of argon 40, so roughly 5.7 times as many neutrons would be absorbed by nitrogen 14 as by argon 40. And some neutrons will also be lost to oxygen and hydrogen. So we start with fairly low levels of neutron radiation right at the surface of the cask, and then maybe 15 percent of that results in argon 41 production.
      "The air is relative hot due to heat of the nuclear waste casks, so it will rise."
      The heat production by the time spent fuel goes into cask storage is around 1KW per tonne of fuel. So a cask with, say, 20 tonnes of fuel would start out with around 20 KW--about the energy of overhead sunlight falling on a 5 meter square. That small an amount of energy would quickly be lost in the normal behavior of thermals.
      "But the argon41 adheres to small water droplets"
      Argon is an inert gas at typical environmental temperatures. It seems unlikely that it would adhere to anything. Also, why would there be droplets except in fog or precipitation conditions?
      "and comes gradually down to the earth surface"
      Once mixed into the atmosphere, argon has virtually no tendency to unmix and settle.
      "(as shown at the Belgian Mol experiment) where it is inhaled etc."
      How much dispersal dilution will have occurred by this point? And how does this damage the DNA of babies?
      "The coming down takes time during which period the wind transported the argon41 already longer distance (depending on wind speed, but mostly >5km)."
      The half-life of argon 41 is only 1.8 hours. The more time it takes to reach the longer distances, the less of it there will be. In the U.S., the max allowed radiation from cask storage at the site boundary is less than 0.00003 millisieverts per hour, though measured values are typically well below that. Hard to see how that could pose any significant gamma hazard to baby DNA 20-30km away--especially when compared to in-body gamma emissions from potassium 40.


    • Thanks.
      This free publication may also give a better insight: http://www.iemss.org/sites/iem...
      BasM Jag_Levak 11 hours ago 
       
      AT JAG 
      Ar-41 gamma emissions
      Your table is too simple. The most important emissions are at 5.6MeV; 4.7keV; 3.7MeV and 1.2MeV.
      Total energy involved ~6MeV.
      Cask emissions
      Measurements with nice graphs: https://doris.bfs.de/jspui/bit...
      Gorleben has stationary measurement stations at the fence of its area. As the escaped neutrons have to pass the 50cm thick wall of the building and an high thick dike (berm), those measure mostly only sky-shined (reflected back to the surface via collisions with air nuclei) radiation. Abb.9 at page 24 shows that the sky-shined neutron radiation is ~0.2mSv/a: www.gns.de/binary.ashx/~defaul...
      Note that this sky-shined neutron radiation has little effect as also shown by m/f sex ratio of newborn in Gorleben (~2km away) and the measurement station in the village. The damaging effects are mainly at greater distances (20-30km away) due to the neutron-Ar41 mechanisms as e.g. shown at sheet 18 of this English presentation: http://www.helmholtz-muenchen....
      The heat production
      The power of the heat produced by the 113casks in the storage building is ~5MW. Enough to create the substantial upwards stream of air, which causes that the ar-41 need substantial time before it reaches the surface. Hence the DNA damage occurs mainly at 15-30km away (depends on the local wind speeds. At the Bezau NPP the DNA damage peak is more nearby).
      Argon41 coming down gradually
      Normal argon (ar-40) is indeed inert. But argon41 behaves differently as also shown by the Mol experiment.
      how does this damage the DNA of babies?
      The gamma radiation particles of the ar41 (partly also inhaled, etc) damage DNA, which is mostly repaired if the cell is stable.
      But sperm is produced via a.o. very fast cell division, shortly before conception.
      At cell division (and shortly thereafter) DNA damage cannot be repaired or is often repaired wrongly because a.o. the new cell isn't fully equipped for correct repair yet and/or the DNA is single stranded, etc.
      As male DNA is smaller it has a lower chance to be hit and killed by a radiation particle. So an increase in ionizing radiation creates an increase in the m/f sex ratio of new born as also stated by UNSCEAR in its 1958 report to the UN.
      The problem is that these new born have increased chance on Down syndrome, serious congenital malformations, etc. because the radiation particles damaged their DNA not enough to prevent multiplication. The radiation particles that hit the DNA will often only create some damage, not enough to prevent further cell division.
      Also shown by solid studies in areas ~1000miles away from Chernobyl. E.g: http://www.ibis-birthdefects.o...

4 comments:

  1. This article you wrote is utter rubbish with absolutely zero scientific basis. None of what you state has been proven by fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical nukist, just a quick pot shot, not a single refutation.

      Delete
  2. The refutation is self evident. Saying a stray particle causes a definite cancer is like saying a single O2 molecule causes cancer. You have no real hard scientific proof. Too much noise way way deep in the > 6 sigma range. Also Im jet setting this week. The local rat farmers protested this modernized non nuclear campus thinking there was SNM here. Silly rat farmers. There are way miee regular folks that believe what America does to keep countries like Iran at bay is justified. Rat farmers show weakness that allows these rogue countries to further their nuclear ambitions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your government hid the iran deal, and still hides it.

      $180M per year to "inspect" Iran, yet crowdfunding is needed to check on the die off of the Pacific.

      That shall be your legacy. Mr pHD

      Delete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments