Death By Radiation Exposure

[bilby]

Meh. I slept in a navy ammunition facility and on two ships, the nuclear reactor was closer to my rack than the galley.
Got a fleet unit commendation a few times, but never felt that any gods hated me.

It was an attempt at humor.

The property values did fall after the ammo facility and the nuclear reactor were installed.

However, I believe the ammo dump and the reactor are necessities and they will have to be in some bodies back yard.

We have a power plant within easy driving distance from us and I have been concerned about it.

Why have you been concerned about it?

What other industry is near you, and do you have concerns about that too?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Meh. I slept in a navy ammunition facility and on two ships, the nuclear reactor was closer to my rack than the galley.
Got a fleet unit commendation a few times, but never felt that any gods hated me.

I slept in aft CIWS adjacent to our 20mm DU ammo magazine for years. Never thought a thing about it until our next trip to load out and they told us to put our existing DU ammo in the center of the magazine and the new tungsten rounds along the perimeter. And to expend all the DU first.
Huh, I thought.

In other news, TerraPower is building a Natrium reactor in Wyoming. Supposedly this first 500 MW will be completed by 2028 at 4 billion. After that they are suppose to come in at 1 billion. It'd be nice if we actually did a u-turn on nuclear power.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bil...its-first-nuclear-reactor-in-a-coal-town.html

 

[Keith&Co.]

I slept in aft CIWS adjacent to our 20mm DU ammo magazine for years. Never thought a thing about it until ...

They used to have us drag the radiacs down to the crew's mess for training on thei roperation. Part of the training was ALWAYS to wave the thing around and note the background radiation, usually with a crack about 'So there, environmentalists.' I never thought about it until....
One day, taking the Neutron detector back to stowage between the tubes, i thought, 'Why not take a reading NEXT TO the weapons? Lit it off, it was a bit higher. Held it up into the area i climbed up to clean during field days. Thing sang like a canary.

Got yelled at. For refusing to go between the tubes any more. But yelled at louder for having the audacity to measure my actual exposure. "It's a marked radiation hazard area! With signs! You're not supposed to measure the radiation in an radiation hazard area!"
...but i'm supposed to clean it.... Huh.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Meh. I slept in a navy ammunition facility and on two ships, the nuclear reactor was closer to my rack than the galley.
Got a fleet unit commendation a few times, but never felt that any gods hated me.

It was an attempt at humor.

The property values did fall after the ammo facility and the nuclear reactor were installed.

However, I believe the ammo dump and the reactor are necessities and they will have to be in some bodies back yard.

We have a power plant within easy driving distance from us and I have been concerned about it.

Why have you been concerned about it?

What other industry is near you, and do you have concerns about that too?

I was pointing out that the nuclear power plant and ammo dump drove down the value of my property causing me to suffer a loss.

This is an objective verifiable fact.

I talked to a number of real estate agents in that area that reported people moving out and a drop in property value after the plant and the ammo dump were built.

 

[bilby]

I slept in aft CIWS adjacent to our 20mm DU ammo magazine for years. Never thought a thing about it until ...

They used to have us drag the radiacs down to the crew's mess for training on thei roperation. Part of the training was ALWAYS to wave the thing around and note the background radiation, usually with a crack about 'So there, environmentalists.' I never thought about it until....
One day, taking the Neutron detector back to stowage between the tubes, i thought, 'Why not take a reading NEXT TO the weapons? Lit it off, it was a bit higher. Held it up into the area i climbed up to clean during field days. Thing sang like a canary.

Got yelled at. For refusing to go between the tubes any more. But yelled at louder for having the audacity to measure my actual exposure. "It's a marked radiation hazard area! With signs! You're not supposed to measure the radiation in an radiation hazard area!"
...but i'm supposed to clean it.... Huh.

Weapons grade material will give off neutron radiation, which could be an issue, but it's likely that the reduction in cosmic radiation exposure on a submarine (due to seawater being excellent shielding) more than compensates - a boomer crew (even those who frequently need to access radiation hazard areas) likely gets a lower annual dose at sea than they do onshore.

Depleted uranium, on the other hand, is (as the name implies) depleted.

It contains very little of the fissile stuff, and what little neutron radiation it generates is mostly shielded from the outside world by the bulk of the uranium itself. As to the decay radiation from the 238-U, that's alpha, and can be effectively shielded against by a thin sheet of paper, or your own skin. Seeping in a bunk made of DU would actually reduce your total radiation exposure over a regular bunk (regular steel contains various trace beta emmitters, particularly 14-C), and as long as the metal is painted, the alphas won't get out. Sleeping on the other side of a bulkhead from it, or even leaning against it, would have almost no detectable effect on radiation dose, and even minuscule radiation doses are very easy to detect.

DU is more of a concern due to its chemical properties as a heavy metal than due to its radioactivity; And even there it's of similar hazard to other heavy metals, such as lead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the event of thermonuclear war, very few people would die due to radiation exposure, and almost all of that few would die from chronic exposure causes, such as thyroid cancers that could have been treated had all the hospitals not been nuked.

Acute radiation syndrome would be rare, because thermonuclear weapons are very powerful, and fairly clean; Anyone close enough to get a lethal radiation dose from such a weapon is almost certainly going to die from thermal or blast effects long before they could develop any symptoms of ARS.

To see large numbers of ARS cases, you would need to fight your war with low yield fission bombs; Nobody's seriously planned to do that since the 1950s.

Disagree. In terms of direct exposure you're right, only small bombs can fry you. Big bombs kill farther away than they fry. However, the fallout is another matter. At the height of the Cold War the estimates were 2000 rads across much of the northern hemisphere. AFIAK we don't have good data on the lethality of radiation spread over time, but that much over a few days is most likely lethal. (Known data points: As a single exposure you have no chance of survival. At ~10 rads/day you only face an increased cancer risk.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nuclear's biggest problem in the US is NIMBYism, and there isn't much of a cure. Even those who support nuclear don't want a reactor near them. Nuclear suffers a great deal from misinformation, misunderstanding, and concern with such powerful stuff. But fertilizer killed more people in one explosion in Lebanon, than I think nuclear plants have in decades.

Nuclear is dangerous, but those dangers can and have been mitigated.

I don't want any large industrial operation in a city. Large industrial operations should be put in reasonably remote areas and the surrounding area made off limits to development other than transport & utilities.

On the other hand, if there is to be a big power plant in the city I would prefer nuke over any of the other current choices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Speaking of NIMBYs, I drove down to Lansing a few weeks ago. In one area of the two lane highway populated by farms and rural single family homes, almost every property had "REJECT WINDMILLS" signs. I don't understand the problems people have with windmills.

A very red bedroom community outside town here is objecting to solar, don't despoil the desert.

Actually, they have half a point--when hiking I hate solar plants. You have a huge area of glass all at the same angle, the glare can be nasty from long distances away. Please put your solar plants so they're shielded by terrain!

 

[Coleman Smith]

Attitudes toward living near nuclear power plant may be changing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

.

Weapons grade material will give off neutron radiation, which could be an issue, but it's likely that the reduction in cosmic radiation exposure on a submarine (due to seawater being excellent shielding) more than compensates - a boomer crew (even those who frequently need to access radiation hazard areas) likely gets a lower annual dose at sea than they do onshore.

Plus, the weapons get cleaner every upgrade.
I spent two and a half years on a C4 boat, lots of it in upper level, near the warheads, got 70 millirem as a lifetime dose.
Two years on a C3 tender, aligning missile alignment equipment (in upper level) on ten different boats, with an earlier weapon design, it got pushed up to 700 mr.
Two full 3-year tours on two Trident subs, with D5 missiles, similar jobs, AND a shore tour moving missiles onto and off of subs, actually touching warheads directly, only got three hundred more, ended up with one rem.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nuclear's biggest problem in the US is NIMBYism, and there isn't much of a cure. Even those who support nuclear don't want a reactor near them. Nuclear suffers a great deal from misinformation, misunderstanding, and concern with such powerful stuff. But fertilizer killed more people in one explosion in Lebanon, than I think nuclear plants have in decades.

Nuclear is dangerous, but those dangers can and have been mitigated.

I want a reactor near me. Yes, put the reactor in my back yard. I want cheap, affordable long term base load power. And an easy commute to a power plant job.

Maybe that is a solution to getting a bigger home. Encourage a nuclear plant near a swanky rich neighborhood. Property values will drop, and badda-bing! I'm living in 10,000 SF of luxury for a 1,500 SF price.

In all honesty, I would love to live next to a nuclear plant with a long commission and active software/firmware positions.

 

[bilby]

In the event of thermonuclear war, very few people would die due to radiation exposure, and almost all of that few would die from chronic exposure causes, such as thyroid cancers that could have been treated had all the hospitals not been nuked.

Acute radiation syndrome would be rare, because thermonuclear weapons are very powerful, and fairly clean; Anyone close enough to get a lethal radiation dose from such a weapon is almost certainly going to die from thermal or blast effects long before they could develop any symptoms of ARS.

To see large numbers of ARS cases, you would need to fight your war with low yield fission bombs; Nobody's seriously planned to do that since the 1950s.

Disagree. In terms of direct exposure you're right, only small bombs can fry you. Big bombs kill farther away than they fry. However, the fallout is another matter. At the height of the Cold War the estimates were 2000 rads across much of the northern hemisphere. AFIAK we don't have good data on the lethality of radiation spread over time, but that much over a few days is most likely lethal. (Known data points: As a single exposure you have no chance of survival. At ~10 rads/day you only face an increased cancer risk.)

"The estimates"

According to estimates by crazy lobby groups, Chernobyl rendered half of Europe uninhabitable, and caused hundreds of thousands, even millions, of deaths.

Realistic calculations of likely radiation exposure from fallout after a large thermonuclear war suggest almost zero exposure to sufficient doses for ARS. If you were close enough to get a sizable dose, but survived the heat and blast, then you had to be sufficiently well shielded to prevent ARS in the first few days. After that, the radiation drops off very rapidly as the short lived isotopes are the ones that are active enough to be of concern in this regard.

You still have the problem of chronic exposure in the absence of modern medical facilities, but acute sickness would be rare.

Fallout plumes would mostly fall either on sparsely populated areas, or targets where there were few survivors other than those with shelters.

Low level fallout is just not that dangerous, despite the crazy claims of CND and Greenpeace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the event of thermonuclear war, very few people would die due to radiation exposure, and almost all of that few would die from chronic exposure causes, such as thyroid cancers that could have been treated had all the hospitals not been nuked.

Acute radiation syndrome would be rare, because thermonuclear weapons are very powerful, and fairly clean; Anyone close enough to get a lethal radiation dose from such a weapon is almost certainly going to die from thermal or blast effects long before they could develop any symptoms of ARS.

To see large numbers of ARS cases, you would need to fight your war with low yield fission bombs; Nobody's seriously planned to do that since the 1950s.

Disagree. In terms of direct exposure you're right, only small bombs can fry you. Big bombs kill farther away than they fry. However, the fallout is another matter. At the height of the Cold War the estimates were 2000 rads across much of the northern hemisphere. AFIAK we don't have good data on the lethality of radiation spread over time, but that much over a few days is most likely lethal. (Known data points: As a single exposure you have no chance of survival. At ~10 rads/day you only face an increased cancer risk.)

"The estimates"

According to estimates by crazy lobby groups, Chernobyl rendered half of Europe uninhabitable, and caused hundreds of thousands, even millions, of deaths.

Realistic calculations of likely radiation exposure from fallout after a large thermonuclear war suggest almost zero exposure to sufficient doses for ARS. If you were close enough to get a sizable dose, but survived the heat and blast, then you had to be sufficiently well shielded to prevent ARS in the first few days. After that, the radiation drops off very rapidly as the short lived isotopes are the ones that are active enough to be of concern in this regard.

You still have the problem of chronic exposure in the absence of modern medical facilities, but acute sickness would be rare.

Fallout plumes would mostly fall either on sparsely populated areas, or targets where there were few survivors other than those with shelters.

Low level fallout is just not that dangerous, despite the crazy claims of CND and Greenpeace.

I'm not talking low level fallout. I'm talking about the hot stuff falling from the skies in the first few days. Survive that and what's left is just an increased cancer risk.

 

[bilby]

In the event of thermonuclear war, very few people would die due to radiation exposure, and almost all of that few would die from chronic exposure causes, such as thyroid cancers that could have been treated had all the hospitals not been nuked.

Acute radiation syndrome would be rare, because thermonuclear weapons are very powerful, and fairly clean; Anyone close enough to get a lethal radiation dose from such a weapon is almost certainly going to die from thermal or blast effects long before they could develop any symptoms of ARS.

To see large numbers of ARS cases, you would need to fight your war with low yield fission bombs; Nobody's seriously planned to do that since the 1950s.

Disagree. In terms of direct exposure you're right, only small bombs can fry you. Big bombs kill farther away than they fry. However, the fallout is another matter. At the height of the Cold War the estimates were 2000 rads across much of the northern hemisphere. AFIAK we don't have good data on the lethality of radiation spread over time, but that much over a few days is most likely lethal. (Known data points: As a single exposure you have no chance of survival. At ~10 rads/day you only face an increased cancer risk.)

"The estimates"

According to estimates by crazy lobby groups, Chernobyl rendered half of Europe uninhabitable, and caused hundreds of thousands, even millions, of deaths.

Realistic calculations of likely radiation exposure from fallout after a large thermonuclear war suggest almost zero exposure to sufficient doses for ARS. If you were close enough to get a sizable dose, but survived the heat and blast, then you had to be sufficiently well shielded to prevent ARS in the first few days. After that, the radiation drops off very rapidly as the short lived isotopes are the ones that are active enough to be of concern in this regard.

You still have the problem of chronic exposure in the absence of modern medical facilities, but acute sickness would be rare.

Fallout plumes would mostly fall either on sparsely populated areas, or targets where there were few survivors other than those with shelters.

Low level fallout is just not that dangerous, despite the crazy claims of CND and Greenpeace.

I'm not talking low level fallout. I'm talking about the hot stuff falling from the skies in the first few days. Survive that and what's left is just an increased cancer risk.

And I am saying that the survivors are, by definition, those with adequate shelter for those first few days. Nobody's going camping in the first few days after a nuclear war, as long as people spend most of their time in their shelters for that short period, ARS isn't going to be an issue.

There will certainly be tiny numbers of cases amongst those who are unaware of the need to shelter in place, but such cases will form a vanishingly small proportion of total casualties.

Most people who get enough radiation to suffer ARS will die long before they show any symptoms, from other causes directly attributable to the attack. Many of them within a few seconds of being irradiated.

 

[Jarhyn]

In the event of thermonuclear war, very few people would die due to radiation exposure, and almost all of that few would die from chronic exposure causes, such as thyroid cancers that could have been treated had all the hospitals not been nuked.

Acute radiation syndrome would be rare, because thermonuclear weapons are very powerful, and fairly clean; Anyone close enough to get a lethal radiation dose from such a weapon is almost certainly going to die from thermal or blast effects long before they could develop any symptoms of ARS.

To see large numbers of ARS cases, you would need to fight your war with low yield fission bombs; Nobody's seriously planned to do that since the 1950s.

Disagree. In terms of direct exposure you're right, only small bombs can fry you. Big bombs kill farther away than they fry. However, the fallout is another matter. At the height of the Cold War the estimates were 2000 rads across much of the northern hemisphere. AFIAK we don't have good data on the lethality of radiation spread over time, but that much over a few days is most likely lethal. (Known data points: As a single exposure you have no chance of survival. At ~10 rads/day you only face an increased cancer risk.)

"The estimates"

According to estimates by crazy lobby groups, Chernobyl rendered half of Europe uninhabitable, and caused hundreds of thousands, even millions, of deaths.

Realistic calculations of likely radiation exposure from fallout after a large thermonuclear war suggest almost zero exposure to sufficient doses for ARS. If you were close enough to get a sizable dose, but survived the heat and blast, then you had to be sufficiently well shielded to prevent ARS in the first few days. After that, the radiation drops off very rapidly as the short lived isotopes are the ones that are active enough to be of concern in this regard.

You still have the problem of chronic exposure in the absence of modern medical facilities, but acute sickness would be rare.

Fallout plumes would mostly fall either on sparsely populated areas, or targets where there were few survivors other than those with shelters.

Low level fallout is just not that dangerous, despite the crazy claims of CND and Greenpeace.

I'm not talking low level fallout. I'm talking about the hot stuff falling from the skies in the first few days. Survive that and what's left is just an increased cancer risk.

And I am saying that the survivors are, by definition, those with adequate shelter for those first few days. Nobody's going camping in the first few days after a nuclear war, as long as people spend most of their time in their shelters for that short period, ARS isn't going to be an issue.

There will certainly be tiny numbers of cases amongst those who are unaware of the need to shelter in place, but such cases will form a vanishingly small proportion of total casualties.

Most people who get enough radiation to suffer ARS will die long before they show any symptoms, from other causes directly attributable to the attack. Many of them within a few seconds of being irradiated.

I think it's pointless to describe what horrors "may come" from a direct nuclear attack.

So many people would suffer so badly! It would be a tragedy that dwarfs all other tragedies of our time.

The things that would be invented to respond to such a thing would be far worse.

It would be such an atrocity as would drive unimaginable consequences to whoever did such a thing to all of us, and then the rule of three would operate on that to make something even worse happen.

But nuclear power-to is not nuclear power-over.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not talking low level fallout. I'm talking about the hot stuff falling from the skies in the first few days. Survive that and what's left is just an increased cancer risk.

And I am saying that the survivors are, by definition, those with adequate shelter for those first few days. Nobody's going camping in the first few days after a nuclear war, as long as people spend most of their time in their shelters for that short period, ARS isn't going to be an issue.

There will certainly be tiny numbers of cases amongst those who are unaware of the need to shelter in place, but such cases will form a vanishingly small proportion of total casualties.

Most people who get enough radiation to suffer ARS will die long before they show any symptoms, from other causes directly attributable to the attack. Many of them within a few seconds of being irradiated.

Most people don't have access to adequate shelter.

Even without radiation an awful lot of people aren't going to be in a position to survive. Looking around here to see what's going to go boom--there is an airbase in the NE part of town that will no doubt go boom--and all roads heading NE will be out of the question. NW has multiple facilities--many of those drone strikes in Afghanistan were directed from there. I'm not sure that takes out all roads NW, but it's 12 hours by car to the next major city anyway.

That leaves one road SE and two roads SW. Think those aren't going to be blocked by wreckage? And if you try to walk or bike down those roads you'll no doubt be stopped by looters. That leaves overland--and I don't think even an experienced backpacker in very good shape could make it to the next substantial city. Even making the attempt would be a bad idea, you would go through whatever water you had considerably faster than if you stayed home.

Add in fallout and all the surface water turns deadly.

 

[bilby]

I'm not talking low level fallout. I'm talking about the hot stuff falling from the skies in the first few days. Survive that and what's left is just an increased cancer risk.

And I am saying that the survivors are, by definition, those with adequate shelter for those first few days. Nobody's going camping in the first few days after a nuclear war, as long as people spend most of their time in their shelters for that short period, ARS isn't going to be an issue.

There will certainly be tiny numbers of cases amongst those who are unaware of the need to shelter in place, but such cases will form a vanishingly small proportion of total casualties.

Most people who get enough radiation to suffer ARS will die long before they show any symptoms, from other causes directly attributable to the attack. Many of them within a few seconds of being irradiated.

Most people don't have access to adequate shelter.

Then they will die regardless of radiation.

Even without radiation an awful lot of people aren't going to be in a position to survive.

Which is exact my point.

Looking around here to see what's going to go boom--there is an airbase in the NE part of town that will no doubt go boom--and all roads heading NE will be out of the question. NW has multiple facilities--many of those drone strikes in Afghanistan were directed from there. I'm not sure that takes out all roads NW, but it's 12 hours by car to the next major city anyway.

That leaves one road SE and two roads SW. Think those aren't going to be blocked by wreckage? And if you try to walk or bike down those roads you'll no doubt be stopped by looters. That leaves overland--and I don't think even an experienced backpacker in very good shape could make it to the next substantial city. Even making the attempt would be a bad idea, you would go through whatever water you had considerably faster than if you stayed home.

Wait, who needs roads? There's a nuclear war on, where the hell are these people planning to go, and why?

Add in fallout and all the surface water turns deadly.

No, it really doesn't. It possibly becomes risky, in terms of longer term effects, but 'deadly' is a fantasy of the anti-nuclear movement.

And you live in a desert. Anyone who is dependent on surface water is dead even before anyone drops a nuke.

As I said, it's a nuclear war. Who the fuck is going camping??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wait, who needs roads? There's a nuclear war on, where the hell are these people planning to go, and why?

You need roads if you want to use any wheeled conveyance to haul more than you can put on your back.

Add in fallout and all the surface water turns deadly.

No, it really doesn't. It possibly becomes risky, in terms of longer term effects, but 'deadly' is a fantasy of the anti-nuclear movement.

In the short run it's deadly because of the fallout that rained down on it. In the summer here you're not living long without water.

And you live in a desert. Anyone who is dependent on surface water is dead even before anyone drops a nuke.

We actually have quite a bit of surface water--Lake Mead.

As I said, it's a nuclear war. Who the fuck is going camping??

I was talking about what it would take to move overland, staying away from the roads that would no doubt very quickly become a way to get ambushed and killed. The same skills and equipment apply to moving from point A to point B as apply to the more typical out-and-back trip. And I was talking backpacking--normal camping gear is way too heavy, you need the light stuff meant to be carried on the back, not in a vehicle.

 

[bilby]

Wait, who needs roads? There's a nuclear war on, where the hell are these people planning to go, and why?

You need roads if you want to use any wheeled conveyance to haul more than you can put on your back.

Add in fallout and all the surface water turns deadly.

No, it really doesn't. It possibly becomes risky, in terms of longer term effects, but 'deadly' is a fantasy of the anti-nuclear movement.

In the short run it's deadly because of the fallout that rained down on it. In the summer here you're not living long without water.

And you live in a desert. Anyone who is dependent on surface water is dead even before anyone drops a nuke.

We actually have quite a bit of surface water--Lake Mead.

As I said, it's a nuclear war. Who the fuck is going camping??

I was talking about what it would take to move overland, staying away from the roads that would no doubt very quickly become a way to get ambushed and killed. The same skills and equipment apply to moving from point A to point B as apply to the more typical out-and-back trip. And I was talking backpacking--normal camping gear is way too heavy, you need the light stuff meant to be carried on the back, not in a vehicle.

I have no idea what you are on about.

You appear to assume that I am privy to some highly complex and detailed narrative about what a post nuclear war world would be like; And to believe that I agree that this narrative is an accurate reflection of the most probable scenario. But you haven't told me what the story is, much less obtained my agreement that it's a plausible outcome of a nuclear war.

The question was about radiation exposure. Where has all this travelling about come from? Why are survivors doing all this stuff? Who are the people ambushing them, and why aren't you discussing their situation - these bandits appear to be non-player characters in your fantasy, whose only role is to harrass your main party, and who have barely enough back-story to even fulfill that role.

Literally none of what you are saying is based in things you have established as existing outside your imagination, or have even shared with us as speculations. You're just assuming we all know that things are playing out the way you imagine.