Submitted by bncolby (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-08 16:09.
I would like to have the equipment on hand at our farm in case we need to monitor our pastures for hot particles that might end up in the meat or milk from our animals. Apparently the fallout is too minimal to worry about at this point, but in case the fourth reactor at Fukushima should meltdown or any other future nuclear accident might occur in Japan, China or Korea or the two reactors located close to faults on the California cost I want to be able to keep track of hot particles. Comparing radioactive dosage to airplane trips does not deal with ingesting hot particulate matter and I don't want to be selling meat or milk from our organic farm in the event that our pastures would be contaminated with hot particles. Can someone recommend what kind of device might be best used for such a purpose?
Submitted by T.O. Mom (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-08 00:41.
Hi BRAWM Team.
Would love to hear your feeedback about Gunderson's interview on CNN regarding hot particles. He mentioned that hot particles would be too small to be picked up on radiation monitors, but I am not sure if he's referring to geiger counters that a layman would purchase or monitors that the EPA and BRAWM would have. Is BRAWM able to detect these hot particles (in the air, food and milk) that Gundersen mentions in his interview? Thank you.
I'm not exactly sure what Gunderson is referring to (as some people had discussed before, I think this is related to the work by WPI), but I can clarify what we are measuring, at least.
For our food, soil, milk, and rainwater measurements, it's pretty straightforward: we just measure anything and everything radioactive in the sample, whether it's a particle, rock, single atom, or what have you.
For our air measurements, it's less simple, because we're measuring only what gets stuck on our filters. For instance, if there were a gas that doesn't like to stick to HEPA filters, we wouldn't be able to see that very well. HEPA filters are rated to catch particles .3 micrometers in size and larger, and in fact were originally designed for the Manhattan project, to filter out radioactive contamination from the labs.
We know that our filters are not perfect, but when it comes to particulates, we should be able to capture and measure any "hot particles" -- at least looking at WPI's work, they're measuring particles around 10 micrometers in size, easily picked up by our HEPA filters.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-08 05:11.
when this first happened, all the "experts" were talking about how this was at the very least, one partial meltdown. they said that if we had a FULL meltdown, which was essentially impossible, it would be a catastrophic disaster. Now we find out it's not one, but 3 full meltdowns, and the reaction is...oh well. Way to go humans. You get what you deserve.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-08 17:00.
The US NRC chaiman said on 3/16 that they probably melted down. And actually went a step further in saying that the spent fuel pool in building 4 had no water and probably melted down (which apparently turned out to be incorrect). Which is why the NRC told US nationals to evacuate out to 80km (50 miles) vs. the Japanese governments 12-20 mile evacuation area
Monitoring hot particles
I would like to have the equipment on hand at our farm in case we need to monitor our pastures for hot particles that might end up in the meat or milk from our animals. Apparently the fallout is too minimal to worry about at this point, but in case the fourth reactor at Fukushima should meltdown or any other future nuclear accident might occur in Japan, China or Korea or the two reactors located close to faults on the California cost I want to be able to keep track of hot particles. Comparing radioactive dosage to airplane trips does not deal with ingesting hot particulate matter and I don't want to be selling meat or milk from our organic farm in the event that our pastures would be contaminated with hot particles. Can someone recommend what kind of device might be best used for such a purpose?
What do you think, BRAWM Team?
Hi BRAWM Team.
Would love to hear your feeedback about Gunderson's interview on CNN regarding hot particles. He mentioned that hot particles would be too small to be picked up on radiation monitors, but I am not sure if he's referring to geiger counters that a layman would purchase or monitors that the EPA and BRAWM would have. Is BRAWM able to detect these hot particles (in the air, food and milk) that Gundersen mentions in his interview? Thank you.
I'm not exactly sure what
I'm not exactly sure what Gunderson is referring to (as some people had discussed before, I think this is related to the work by WPI), but I can clarify what we are measuring, at least.
For our food, soil, milk, and rainwater measurements, it's pretty straightforward: we just measure anything and everything radioactive in the sample, whether it's a particle, rock, single atom, or what have you.
For our air measurements, it's less simple, because we're measuring only what gets stuck on our filters. For instance, if there were a gas that doesn't like to stick to HEPA filters, we wouldn't be able to see that very well. HEPA filters are rated to catch particles .3 micrometers in size and larger, and in fact were originally designed for the Manhattan project, to filter out radioactive contamination from the labs.
We know that our filters are not perfect, but when it comes to particulates, we should be able to capture and measure any "hot particles" -- at least looking at WPI's work, they're measuring particles around 10 micrometers in size, easily picked up by our HEPA filters.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
when this first happened,
when this first happened, all the "experts" were talking about how this was at the very least, one partial meltdown. they said that if we had a FULL meltdown, which was essentially impossible, it would be a catastrophic disaster. Now we find out it's not one, but 3 full meltdowns, and the reaction is...oh well. Way to go humans. You get what you deserve.
Which experts?
The US NRC chaiman said on 3/16 that they probably melted down. And actually went a step further in saying that the spent fuel pool in building 4 had no water and probably melted down (which apparently turned out to be incorrect). Which is why the NRC told US nationals to evacuate out to 80km (50 miles) vs. the Japanese governments 12-20 mile evacuation area
yes, but that was the last
yes, but that was the last comment he made. he was ostracized and made to be a fool.
i meant "at the very most"
i meant "at the very most"
Thanks for keeping us up to
Thanks for keeping us up to snuff with the latest from Gundersen.
more
Thank goodness for Twitter!
Saw this linked in the "Bill" post below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMzfq31U1QU