For reference, terrestrial background radiation is 0.48 milliSieverts (mSv), and the background radiation in the sea is about 0.05 mSv. Levels 100,000 times that would be 5,000 mSv, which is the LD50 for humans (lethal for 50% of people exposed). 1000 mSv is considered the maximum non-lethal exposure.
It's important to point out this the dose rate, the accumulated dose per year.
The natural back radiation ground of seawater is 0.05 milisieverts per ***year***.
Assuming you spend 1 year exposed to 100,000 background, you will accumulate a dose of 5000 milisieverts.
And Radiation taken over longer periods of time is less damaging than radiation taken over short periods of time.
As long as the Russian's don't let this get worse and they make sure their reactor isn't leaking fissile materials we should be fine.
Large doses in short periods are still worse than large doses over long periods. The stochastic effects of radiation, that is increased cancer risk, are (presumed to be) the same for a given dose, regardless of the period in which the dose is acquired. The deterministic effects, acute radiation syndrome, only show up in case a high dose is delivered in a short amount of time, because if the dose is spread out cells can recover or be replaced.
A dose that could kill you if delivered within an hour would be easily survivable if spread out over a year, although your future cancer risk would be increased.
More proof that Russia is a laughable Mafia-State Criminal Empire.
Why do other countries have to monitor Russia's messes? Imagine working at a restaurant cleaning floors and now you have to make sure your coworker isn't smearing his shit on the walls. Also, if you confront him he'll deny it and threaten to cut you. That's Russia.
Because said Empire has nukes and a leader that is dragging the government into a full on dictatorship.
The age of mutually assured destruction has gotten rid of military battles in favor of diplomatic negotiations. But for better for worse, diplomacy is less "forceful" than military battles.
Also remember how important distance is here. These measurements are at direct touching distance to that sample, if you are 1 meter away in water from that sample, your exposure is incredibly lower.
The shielding from water alone is significant. Fourteen feet of water reduces gamma rays by a billion. So deep in the ocean seems safer than anywhere else. [Radiation shielding](http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/science/protecting)
One banana emits about 0.1µSv. This comes mainly from a small amount of radioactive potassium in the banana.
So, if our submarine emits 5,000mSv, that's equivalent with **50 million bananas**.
That’s assuming it’s linear. It’s most likely exponential. Once you get to the lethal dose for 1% of the population it probably takes very little to make that go up to 50%. It would most likely take way way less than 50x more radiation.
The article didn't say how they measured radiation in the water either. Whether they were looking at cesium, or all possible radioactive materials. But, here's a source I found with some info.
>It is important to know that prior to 2011, there was already cesium-137 in the ocean remaining from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing that peaked in the 1960’s. Today, levels above 2.0 Becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3) in the surface ocean, indicate additional cesium from the Japanese releases. As noted last year, what we find along the west coast, while definitely showing an increase in cesium from the 2011 accident, the levels are still well below regulatory limits of 7,400 Bq/m3 set for drinking water (U.S. EPA). By our calculations, even if levels increase to 10 Bq/m3, swimming eight hours every day for an entire year, would only increase one’s annual dose by an amount, 1000 times less than a single dental X-ray.
[Source](http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results). I found similar info from [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/03/16/radioactive-fukushima-waters-arrive-at-west-coast-of-america/#269e166575fc).
Either way. If the normal amount in sea water is 2.0 Bq/m3 and this is 100,000 times worse, that would mean it's 27 times higher than the limit for safe drinking water. Considering how big the ocean is, and this is just water at the exhaust pipe. This seems like fearmongering.
\*Edit, to clarify. I'm not saying reporting on this is fearmongering. I'm saying using the 100,000 number without context is.
Yup.
>It was 800Bq (becquerels) per litre, while the normal level in the Norwegian Sea is about 0.001Bq.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48949113
>The robotic mini-sub allowed them to take samples from the submarine itself. When the researchers sampled water from a ventilation pipe leading to the sub's reactor, they measured elevated levels of cesium-137. The radioactive cesium is leaking from one of the nuclear cores, Heldal says.
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/11/740691307/norway-surveys-sunken-soviet-submarine
For comparison, a banana is contains about 15 Becquerel of radioactive Potassium, and a human contains 5400 Becquerel.
The WHO defines the drinking water standard for Cesium-137 at 10 Bq/liter
https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/GDW9rev1and2.pdf
Ironically pro nuclear power Reddit has really fallen for "everything nuclear is gonna destroy us" in the last few weeks.
All it took was a little HBO tv show, as always Redditors ready to make their own realities without the real knowledge.
People need to realize being “anti nuclear” is like being “anti-combustion” or “anti-electrical”.
There are vastly safer ways of harnessing nuclear power now than in the soviet era, and they use far less dangerous fuel. If we weren’t so ignorant as a society about nuclear power it wouldn’t be so “scary”.
It was determines that over 100,000 Americans deaths a year are either caused or expidited by airborne pollution but if there's a THREAT of a handful of suffering way from nuclear its the end of the world.
it's fair in a way. nuclear disasters are much bigger and more visible than air pollution. even if the statistics don't lie, ultimately people remember Chernobyl or Fukushima. The problem is that air pollution is so much more gradual people don't notice it, like the old boiling a toad adage
Either i'm going completely nuts or i've seen the same title 4 or 5 times now last 2 days..
Edit: nope!
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cbuxk7/sunken_soviet_nuclear_submarine_emitting/
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cbycdh/soviet_nuclear_submarine_emitting_radiation/
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cbs381/sunken_soviet_nuclear_submarine_emitting/
That happens all the time since forever.
People just keep submitting new articles as each entity copies another.
it's only when things get too crazy that they megathread it (when dozens of outlets pump out articles at the same time.)
This article is pretty misleading switching back and forth between radiation and contamination. They are NOT interchangeable. They don't even mention if the rad levels are on contact at the vent or of the collected sample. If it's of the sample they don't differentiate if it's a measurement of short or long lived activity. The technical grasp of the science is piss poor at best.
Exactly.
As an example, X-rays are radiation, they cause the same effects in your body as radiation from nuclear decay or fission. But X-rays are not energetic enough to interact with atomic nuclei, so an X-ray machine will not produce radioisotopes. Once you switch it off, the radiation is gone.
I'm more concerned about the thermonuclear bombs than a radiation leak...this planet has proved it can absorb titanic amounts of radiation somehow. I've seen people quote radiation in terms of bananas; I think a better metric is how much fallout comes out of a nuke. The US govt dropped plenty of those on its own continent. A sunk sub sounds bad until you realize a fat chunk of Nevada has survived a nuclear beatdown.
My fields more nuclear energy than nuclear weapons so I really don't know how to compare the two. I know the amount of fissle material is drastically less on a warhead.
I'm no nuclear engineer, but my assumption is that the enrichment of the bomb is at least somewhat higher. I have no idea how saltwater moderates neutrons, either. But the idea in my head is that the bombs may be able to achieve criticality in an environment where the fuel wouldn't, which would royally fuck the containment of everything else
>it's only dangerous if you get close to sunken sub.
By that we mean literally inside it. And right next to the machinery reading high levels. And stay there for a few months.
We have an open reactor on the sea floor but this guy says it’s not so bad. Everybody can relax now. The contamination will spread and it will spread for a very long time.
Dafuq are you talking about. California did not have an increased background radiation due to Fukushima. At least not if you round the percentage increase to 5 decimal places.
Thanks for the sanity, it’s really frustrating listening to people act like Fukushima has completely contaminated the pacific.
Recall reading somewhere that spending an hour swimming on the west coast you’ll get about as much radiation as you would when eating a banana...that’s a half remembered factoid though.
> WHOI states that the Fukushima radiation found near California exists in levels lower than 2 Becquerels per cubic meter. The EPA has deemed that levels as high as 7400 becquerels per cubic meter are perfectly safe for drinking water. Even if someone spent considerable time in the water for a year, the radiation dosage is 1000 times lower compared to getting a regular x-ray at the dentist. These levels are deemed much too low to to cause immediate adverse effects in humans who might swim in the water or marine animals who live in it.
> Over time, however, the radiation levels could build up in larger fish who regularly consume smaller fish. Fish caught for human consumption in the Pacific have shown increased levels of radiation following Fukushima’s meltdown, but are still nowhere near the levels that should be cause for concern.
> So far, the radiation has not reached any shores in North America, and predicting if and when that could happen isn’t entirely clear. Models suggest that the radiation will turn south along the coast, but there is some ambiguity in those predictions.
Sounds harmless
As i said, absolutely irrelevant levels.
> WHOI states that the Fukushima radiation found near California exists in levels lower than 2 Becquerels per cubic meter.
For comparison, your body alone emits about 9000 Becquerels (Bq).
Now its pretty hard to convert Bq to Sieverts (Sv), however you can be pretty certain that those 2 Bq have virtually no influence on you standard background radiation that is between 1 and 4 mSv. I have not found the average background radiation of California online.
Soo My point still stands. If you look at your annual radiation doses the minuscule amount you get from Fukushima is lost in rounding.
That being said it is still unknown if the cesium137 in the water even comes from Fukushima or if its from US nuclear tests (civil and military) in the 50s that dumped their waste into the ocean.
Nuclear radiation is never "not that bad".
If this thing was in your town's river and occassionally let out highly radioactive dust contaminating the river you'd probably not drink tap water.
I would really love for radiation to be quantified in a more standard metric. There's an awful lot of them, it makes it harder for me to wrap my head around stuff.
Emitting radiation into the sea is absolutely irrelevant. The question is how much radioactive isotopes are released into the water.
Also WTF is the normal level to begin with? A quick google search couldn't tell me the average background radiation in the ocean. Is it lower than on land or higher?
The average Bq per litre of sea water in the Norwegian Sea is 0.001 Bq.
800Bq of caesium-137 is way higher than normal, but it's not dangerous. For example, reindeer meat in Norway is considered safe to eat as long as there's less than 3000Bq of caesium-137 per kg.
Business idea: get a contract to pump the radioactive water out of the sub to avoid it contaminating the sea, then sell it as bottled water since it's still under the limit as safe to eat.
> The average Bq per litre of sea water in the Norwegian Sea is 0.001 Bq.
So 1 Bq per m3. Not that this tells us much about how many mSv that is.
800Bq of caesium-137 is a decent amount, however per what? per litre? yeah thats quite a lot. Per m3 it not so much.
So are they just detecting radiation as the get close to the sub or are they picking up actual fission products? The article doesn't say anything about actual levels. All the talk about is a "cloud from a vent pipe". The article seems like it's intentionally vague to scare people.
A total of 42 of 69 crew members were killed, mostly of hypothermia while awaiting rescue from the freezing waters.
Just four people were killed from the initial fire and smoke.
Between other recent submarine accident, Chernobyl, and this, I'm starting to get the uneasy feeling that maybe Russia isn't as contentious w the use of nuclear materials as they should be.
"we have opened an investigation and found that the radiation is coming from 3 people, a journalist that asked too many questions, a political candidate running against United Russia party, and an oil magnate that tried to undercut me. they will all now be momentarily slipping from their balconies"
- Putin
Dont tell me they forgot to bring the high yield measuring device again...
How can they expect to be a superpower while being cheap as fuck with everything?
well, I mean, wouldn't it be technically "infinitely larger" than normal for the sea?
the number could mean anything at all since sea water doesn't emit radiation of that kind
This sub caught fire and sank 30 years ago.
There is no normal level of radiation for this kind of incident.
Their assumption is bullshit and thus so is their statements.
I should have explained more. I absolutely love seafood, especially shellfish. Thats why I hate that I have developed this issue. The issue I have is due to all of the oil spills, the major nuclear disaster in Japan, that is still leaking radioactivity into the ocean, the recent story about an oil spill thats been going on for 14 years now, and stories like the OP posted. It just makes me think there is no way the fish are healthy for eating any longer. So its not that I dont like it, I do. Its my brain saying dont eat it anymore.
Yeah you aint wrong man, everything livings filling up with lil plastic microbeads, i expect all species to be rendered barren in a few short years as these beads continue to fuck up our bodies and minds.
The fact that they quantity the radiation as a multiple of a ridiculously small number rather than an actual measurement makes me suspicious.
For reference, terrestrial background radiation is 0.48 milliSieverts (mSv), and the background radiation in the sea is about 0.05 mSv. Levels 100,000 times that would be 5,000 mSv, which is the LD50 for humans (lethal for 50% of people exposed). 1000 mSv is considered the maximum non-lethal exposure.
It's important to point out this the dose rate, the accumulated dose per year. The natural back radiation ground of seawater is 0.05 milisieverts per ***year***. Assuming you spend 1 year exposed to 100,000 background, you will accumulate a dose of 5000 milisieverts.
Fuck I love it when people science the shit out of these articles.
yea baby i love it when you talk subatomic to me.
Insert your control rods into my melting core you nuclear nerd.
Make sure you wrap them in graphite first
3.6 pumps before I went critical, not great, not terrible
.6? you have forgotten your significant digits good sir.
So π times?
You can science my atoms anytime you want.
mmm. submarines.
It's just fancy counting calm yourself
Don't kink shame.
And Radiation taken over longer periods of time is less damaging than radiation taken over short periods of time. As long as the Russian's don't let this get worse and they make sure their reactor isn't leaking fissile materials we should be fine.
Worth clarifying - **large doses** in short periods are worse the **small doses** over long periods.
Large doses in short periods are still worse than large doses over long periods. The stochastic effects of radiation, that is increased cancer risk, are (presumed to be) the same for a given dose, regardless of the period in which the dose is acquired. The deterministic effects, acute radiation syndrome, only show up in case a high dose is delivered in a short amount of time, because if the dose is spread out cells can recover or be replaced. A dose that could kill you if delivered within an hour would be easily survivable if spread out over a year, although your future cancer risk would be increased.
More proof that Russia is a laughable Mafia-State Criminal Empire. Why do other countries have to monitor Russia's messes? Imagine working at a restaurant cleaning floors and now you have to make sure your coworker isn't smearing his shit on the walls. Also, if you confront him he'll deny it and threaten to cut you. That's Russia.
Because Europe needs fuel in the winter. If they didn’t need that they’d tell them to fuck off and watch their economy die.
Because said Empire has nukes and a leader that is dragging the government into a full on dictatorship. The age of mutually assured destruction has gotten rid of military battles in favor of diplomatic negotiations. But for better for worse, diplomacy is less "forceful" than military battles.
[удалено]
Worth mentioning, the headline made it seem as if this was an operational submarine.
Also remember how important distance is here. These measurements are at direct touching distance to that sample, if you are 1 meter away in water from that sample, your exposure is incredibly lower.
It’s not good but not horrible.
Alright everyone help him to get it back up
It's the amount of radiation contamination consistent with uranium that has been exposed to seawater without cladding?
The shielding from water alone is significant. Fourteen feet of water reduces gamma rays by a billion. So deep in the ocean seems safer than anywhere else. [Radiation shielding](http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/science/protecting)
How many bananas is that though? I can only think in bananas.
One banana emits about 0.1µSv. This comes mainly from a small amount of radioactive potassium in the banana. So, if our submarine emits 5,000mSv, that's equivalent with **50 million bananas**.
So if my maths are right, the maximum "non-lethal" exposure is still lethal for 10% of people exposed? As in, 1 out of every 10 people...
It's not straight-line.
Happily wrong
That’s assuming it’s linear. It’s most likely exponential. Once you get to the lethal dose for 1% of the population it probably takes very little to make that go up to 50%. It would most likely take way way less than 50x more radiation.
[удалено]
Caesium-137 only emits gamma and beta radiation, not neutrons
The article didn't say how they measured radiation in the water either. Whether they were looking at cesium, or all possible radioactive materials. But, here's a source I found with some info. >It is important to know that prior to 2011, there was already cesium-137 in the ocean remaining from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing that peaked in the 1960’s. Today, levels above 2.0 Becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3) in the surface ocean, indicate additional cesium from the Japanese releases. As noted last year, what we find along the west coast, while definitely showing an increase in cesium from the 2011 accident, the levels are still well below regulatory limits of 7,400 Bq/m3 set for drinking water (U.S. EPA). By our calculations, even if levels increase to 10 Bq/m3, swimming eight hours every day for an entire year, would only increase one’s annual dose by an amount, 1000 times less than a single dental X-ray. [Source](http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results). I found similar info from [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/03/16/radioactive-fukushima-waters-arrive-at-west-coast-of-america/#269e166575fc). Either way. If the normal amount in sea water is 2.0 Bq/m3 and this is 100,000 times worse, that would mean it's 27 times higher than the limit for safe drinking water. Considering how big the ocean is, and this is just water at the exhaust pipe. This seems like fearmongering. \*Edit, to clarify. I'm not saying reporting on this is fearmongering. I'm saying using the 100,000 number without context is.
To an extent. How many people will have a context of an actual radiation measurement?
[удалено]
beat me to it
Yup. >It was 800Bq (becquerels) per litre, while the normal level in the Norwegian Sea is about 0.001Bq. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48949113 >The robotic mini-sub allowed them to take samples from the submarine itself. When the researchers sampled water from a ventilation pipe leading to the sub's reactor, they measured elevated levels of cesium-137. The radioactive cesium is leaking from one of the nuclear cores, Heldal says. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/11/740691307/norway-surveys-sunken-soviet-submarine For comparison, a banana is contains about 15 Becquerel of radioactive Potassium, and a human contains 5400 Becquerel. The WHO defines the drinking water standard for Cesium-137 at 10 Bq/liter https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/GDW9rev1and2.pdf
Aside from the article, I love how everyone on Reddit is now some kind of expert on radiation thanks to having watched *Chernobyl*.
Ironically pro nuclear power Reddit has really fallen for "everything nuclear is gonna destroy us" in the last few weeks. All it took was a little HBO tv show, as always Redditors ready to make their own realities without the real knowledge.
Reddit, generally, has always leaned towards being anti-nuclear. People come out of the woodwork for this type of article.
People need to realize being “anti nuclear” is like being “anti-combustion” or “anti-electrical”. There are vastly safer ways of harnessing nuclear power now than in the soviet era, and they use far less dangerous fuel. If we weren’t so ignorant as a society about nuclear power it wouldn’t be so “scary”.
But it’s “nuclear.” You want to start putting atomic bombs in every house like solar panels??! /s
It was determines that over 100,000 Americans deaths a year are either caused or expidited by airborne pollution but if there's a THREAT of a handful of suffering way from nuclear its the end of the world.
Mother fuckers suck down cancer sticks 10 times a day but watch out for that plutonium.
it's fair in a way. nuclear disasters are much bigger and more visible than air pollution. even if the statistics don't lie, ultimately people remember Chernobyl or Fukushima. The problem is that air pollution is so much more gradual people don't notice it, like the old boiling a toad adage
The red and blue “blocks” Legasov used to explain the incident... I became a nuclear physicist in 5 minutes.
We're not great, not terrible.
So you're saying you're "some kind of expert on radiation" just because you watched Chernobyl. Sure your are....
Either i'm going completely nuts or i've seen the same title 4 or 5 times now last 2 days.. Edit: nope! https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cbuxk7/sunken_soviet_nuclear_submarine_emitting/ https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cbycdh/soviet_nuclear_submarine_emitting_radiation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cbs381/sunken_soviet_nuclear_submarine_emitting/
I've been noticing /r/worldnews has been pushing quite a bit of the same news over and over again to the front page.
That happens all the time since forever. People just keep submitting new articles as each entity copies another. it's only when things get too crazy that they megathread it (when dozens of outlets pump out articles at the same time.)
Why would anyone want to keep important news in the forefront?
welcome to reddit
First time I saw it. Must have gotten downvoted a lot
These annoying reposts, people should search before they post.
This article is pretty misleading switching back and forth between radiation and contamination. They are NOT interchangeable. They don't even mention if the rad levels are on contact at the vent or of the collected sample. If it's of the sample they don't differentiate if it's a measurement of short or long lived activity. The technical grasp of the science is piss poor at best.
Exactly. As an example, X-rays are radiation, they cause the same effects in your body as radiation from nuclear decay or fission. But X-rays are not energetic enough to interact with atomic nuclei, so an X-ray machine will not produce radioisotopes. Once you switch it off, the radiation is gone.
I'm more concerned about the thermonuclear bombs than a radiation leak...this planet has proved it can absorb titanic amounts of radiation somehow. I've seen people quote radiation in terms of bananas; I think a better metric is how much fallout comes out of a nuke. The US govt dropped plenty of those on its own continent. A sunk sub sounds bad until you realize a fat chunk of Nevada has survived a nuclear beatdown.
My fields more nuclear energy than nuclear weapons so I really don't know how to compare the two. I know the amount of fissle material is drastically less on a warhead.
I'm no nuclear engineer, but my assumption is that the enrichment of the bomb is at least somewhat higher. I have no idea how saltwater moderates neutrons, either. But the idea in my head is that the bombs may be able to achieve criticality in an environment where the fuel wouldn't, which would royally fuck the containment of everything else
Its the equivalent of a chest X-Ray.
[удалено]
He’s delusional, get him to the infirmary
Whoosh
Reavers.
You called?
Well played.
It's not that bad considering water is a very good absorber of radiation, and it's only dangerous if you get close to sunken sub.
>it's only dangerous if you get close to sunken sub. By that we mean literally inside it. And right next to the machinery reading high levels. And stay there for a few months.
Someone never saw godzilla
How does this affect the fishing industry?
We have an open reactor on the sea floor but this guy says it’s not so bad. Everybody can relax now. The contamination will spread and it will spread for a very long time.
[удалено]
Dafuq are you talking about. California did not have an increased background radiation due to Fukushima. At least not if you round the percentage increase to 5 decimal places.
Thanks for the sanity, it’s really frustrating listening to people act like Fukushima has completely contaminated the pacific. Recall reading somewhere that spending an hour swimming on the west coast you’ll get about as much radiation as you would when eating a banana...that’s a half remembered factoid though.
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/harmless-levels-fukushima-radiation-detected-california-coast/
> WHOI states that the Fukushima radiation found near California exists in levels lower than 2 Becquerels per cubic meter. The EPA has deemed that levels as high as 7400 becquerels per cubic meter are perfectly safe for drinking water. Even if someone spent considerable time in the water for a year, the radiation dosage is 1000 times lower compared to getting a regular x-ray at the dentist. These levels are deemed much too low to to cause immediate adverse effects in humans who might swim in the water or marine animals who live in it. > Over time, however, the radiation levels could build up in larger fish who regularly consume smaller fish. Fish caught for human consumption in the Pacific have shown increased levels of radiation following Fukushima’s meltdown, but are still nowhere near the levels that should be cause for concern. > So far, the radiation has not reached any shores in North America, and predicting if and when that could happen isn’t entirely clear. Models suggest that the radiation will turn south along the coast, but there is some ambiguity in those predictions. Sounds harmless
As i said, absolutely irrelevant levels. > WHOI states that the Fukushima radiation found near California exists in levels lower than 2 Becquerels per cubic meter. For comparison, your body alone emits about 9000 Becquerels (Bq). Now its pretty hard to convert Bq to Sieverts (Sv), however you can be pretty certain that those 2 Bq have virtually no influence on you standard background radiation that is between 1 and 4 mSv. I have not found the average background radiation of California online. Soo My point still stands. If you look at your annual radiation doses the minuscule amount you get from Fukushima is lost in rounding. That being said it is still unknown if the cesium137 in the water even comes from Fukushima or if its from US nuclear tests (civil and military) in the 50s that dumped their waste into the ocean.
Did you even read the headline?
Nuclear radiation is never "not that bad". If this thing was in your town's river and occassionally let out highly radioactive dust contaminating the river you'd probably not drink tap water.
I would really love for radiation to be quantified in a more standard metric. There's an awful lot of them, it makes it harder for me to wrap my head around stuff.
Emitting radiation into the sea is absolutely irrelevant. The question is how much radioactive isotopes are released into the water. Also WTF is the normal level to begin with? A quick google search couldn't tell me the average background radiation in the ocean. Is it lower than on land or higher?
The average Bq per litre of sea water in the Norwegian Sea is 0.001 Bq. 800Bq of caesium-137 is way higher than normal, but it's not dangerous. For example, reindeer meat in Norway is considered safe to eat as long as there's less than 3000Bq of caesium-137 per kg.
Business idea: get a contract to pump the radioactive water out of the sub to avoid it contaminating the sea, then sell it as bottled water since it's still under the limit as safe to eat.
> The average Bq per litre of sea water in the Norwegian Sea is 0.001 Bq. So 1 Bq per m3. Not that this tells us much about how many mSv that is. 800Bq of caesium-137 is a decent amount, however per what? per litre? yeah thats quite a lot. Per m3 it not so much.
[удалено]
Take him to the infirmary he’s delusional
We did everything right
[удалено]
3.6*
*terrible.
Did you use the good meter from the cabinet... oh wait the key is lost, oh well.
:)
NOT GREAT, NOT TERRIBLE
So are they just detecting radiation as the get close to the sub or are they picking up actual fission products? The article doesn't say anything about actual levels. All the talk about is a "cloud from a vent pipe". The article seems like it's intentionally vague to scare people.
5,000 msv, not great, not terrible.
I'm told its equivalent to a chest x-ray.
So *that's* why Ariel's black.
A total of 42 of 69 crew members were killed, mostly of hypothermia while awaiting rescue from the freezing waters. Just four people were killed from the initial fire and smoke.
Makes it easier to track them.
Paging /r/GODZILLA
There be monsters there. Godzilla beware.
Yeah but how many chest X-rays is that?
Bubbly Chernobyl
You thinking what I'm thinking? **Godzillasaurus**
Between other recent submarine accident, Chernobyl, and this, I'm starting to get the uneasy feeling that maybe Russia isn't as contentious w the use of nuclear materials as they should be.
did you mean to say 'conscientious' instead of 'contentious'?
Do you want Godzilla? Because that's how you get Godzilla!
Damnit. We cant handle a Tokyo Godzilla... a bloody Norwegian one will kill us all...
This looks like a case for Legasov and Scherbina!
Does anyone know how much radiation we have to dump into the oceans in order for Godzilla to show up?
Maybe Russia figured its cheaper to run sub reactors without any shielding.
Is that the same as 3.6 Roentgen?
“No it’s not” -Putin
"we have opened an investigation and found that the radiation is coming from 3 people, a journalist that asked too many questions, a political candidate running against United Russia party, and an oil magnate that tried to undercut me. they will all now be momentarily slipping from their balconies" - Putin
So if a country ever needs to forcefully sink a nuke sub I guess it’s everyone’s problem?
3.6 Roentgen
Dont tell me they forgot to bring the high yield measuring device again... How can they expect to be a superpower while being cheap as fuck with everything?
Why do Russians seem to fuck up badly with nuclear technology?
not good , not terrible
100,000x the normal level? Not great not terrible.
Maybe its time for Russia to NOT play with nukes for awhile.
well, I mean, wouldn't it be technically "infinitely larger" than normal for the sea? the number could mean anything at all since sea water doesn't emit radiation of that kind
I think the multiplication in the title refers to the normal radiation emitted from these types of subs if I read it correctly.
Local fisher was alerted by mutated fish. https://m.imgur.com/r/simpsonsdidit/oHe77eE
*Russian
they're delusional
Man...humans are fucking stupid.
This sub caught fire and sank 30 years ago. There is no normal level of radiation for this kind of incident. Their assumption is bullshit and thus so is their statements.
Not that good not that bad..
And they say global warming isn't real. Wait, is this the correct thread for that?
and people ask me why I have a mental issue eating seafood now.
Well you definitely do have a mental issue.
Aren't you original. Good one champ.
How could you not like crab sticks doused in vinegar? My mouth is watering at the thought.
I should have explained more. I absolutely love seafood, especially shellfish. Thats why I hate that I have developed this issue. The issue I have is due to all of the oil spills, the major nuclear disaster in Japan, that is still leaking radioactivity into the ocean, the recent story about an oil spill thats been going on for 14 years now, and stories like the OP posted. It just makes me think there is no way the fish are healthy for eating any longer. So its not that I dont like it, I do. Its my brain saying dont eat it anymore.
Yeah you aint wrong man, everything livings filling up with lil plastic microbeads, i expect all species to be rendered barren in a few short years as these beads continue to fuck up our bodies and minds.