Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Actual, current dose rate levels near Chernobyl.

  1. Nov 8, 2008 #1

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Does anyone have a source of the actual (today) dose rate levels in the 30 km zone near Chernobyl ?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 8, 2008 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm sure the data are collected and reported, but the results likely are not available on-line.

    Here is some background -

    Radio-Adaptive Response to Environmental Exposures at Chernobyl
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2478521

    Exposures in the Chernobyl environment currently are from low-LET (linear energy transfer), low dose rate ionizing radiation, primarily gamma radiation from 137Cs and 90Sr as well as limited amounts of ß radiation. The highest levels of radiation are found in the Red Forest, 1.5 km West of the destroyed reactor, although levels are nonetheless considered low dose, low dose rate radiation.

    http://www.lowdose.energy.gov/
    http://www.lowdose.energy.gov/about_main.htm

    Chernobyl Accident
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm

    Studies on the gamma radiation environment in Sweden with special reference to 137Cs
    http://gupea.ub.gu.se/dspace/handle/2077/17691


    Chernobyl, 22 Years Later
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/31/eveningnews/main3984592.shtml

    Laurin Dodd is managing director of the Chernobyl Shelter Implementation Program (SIP) Project Management Unit, Bechtel International Systems, Inc.
    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11801&page=96
     
  4. Nov 8, 2008 #3

    vanesch

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is because I've read wildly varying statements (but without any numbers or references) about this. I'm not talking about right next to the sarcophagus, I'm talking at, about, say, 5 km from the site, or 15 km, or 25 km - and probably this is not cylindrical.
     
  5. Nov 9, 2008 #4

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There are periodic meetings on radiation protection, particularly for Pripyat.

    Chernobyl disaster - numerous references
    http://www.answers.com/topic/chernobyl-disaster-1
    Prypiat, Ukraine - local town affected by fission product release from Chernobyl accident
    http://www.answers.com/topic/prypiat-ukraine

    Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts
    2002 Update of Chernobyl: Ten Years On
    http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/
    Chapter IV. Dose estimates
    http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c04.html


    10th Meeting of the Urban Remediation Working Group
    Environmental Modeling for Radiation Safety (EMRAS) Project
    http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/projects/emras/urban/urban-wg-minutes-tenth-meeting.pdf

    It's a matter of finding the right person(s) who are involved in the radiological monitoring program.
     
  6. Nov 9, 2008 #5
    Having been very involved with Chernobyl issues for nine years, I would be happy to share any information that I have. Did an on site study through the UW at the "Chornobyl Nuclear Power Station" in 2004. Will tell you that radiation levels change daily, dependent upon factors including wind speeds. Also, variations will occur within mere feet of registering statistics, i.e. Blacktop areas of Prypit register within the hundreds, while in the soil just a few feet away it had registered, that day at 1,240.

    Bottom line with Chernobyl, there is no finite, hence the wide spectrum of stats you will find, with includes official deaths (numbering only 31) due to the Chernobyl Nuclear holocaust.

    As an addendum: You realize of course, that this nuclear facility was built for the express reason of extracting plutonium for military purposes, which also accounts for some of the instability of the "power plant."
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2008
  7. Nov 9, 2008 #6
    Right you are Astronuc, "It's a matter of finding the right person(s) who are involved in the radiological monitoring program." Still, it changes daily.

    Dr. Ron Chesser of Texas A&M has lead the team studying effects of radiation for many years, now. His work is easy to Google. I met with him, and found that the results were not were not what I had expected.
     
  8. Nov 9, 2008 #7

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    From what I have heard from the man who was there last year there are huge differences between places. There are places (in the closed zone) where the radiation level is that of normal bacgkround for this area, there are places where the radiation level is high. They are sometimes hundred meters apart. Bottom line: there is no such thing as a single number radiation level.
     
  9. Nov 12, 2008 #8

    Mk

    User Avatar

    No numbers here yet have been stated, just a lot of links. I was expecting it in rem or sievert.
    This?
     
  10. Jan 5, 2009 #9
  11. Feb 5, 2009 #10
    So... what is the annual dosage for the people still living in the zone around the plant?

    As they move around, I guess it should even out over the untouched and the contaminated areas?

    Higher or lower dosage than they get in 260 mSv Ramsar, Iran?
     
  12. Feb 5, 2009 #11

    Morbius

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Ohio River,

    Correct - the Soviet RBMK reactor at Chernobyl was a scaled up version of a previous weapons
    production reactor. Chernobyl is primarily a weapons production reactor with a steam plant attached
    in order to to convert the byproduct heat to electricity instead of just dumping the heat to the environmet.

    In a way, Chernobyl is similar to the Hanford N Reactor. The previous reactors at Hanford - the
    B, D, F, H, DR, C, KW and KE reactors just dumped their byproduct heat into the Columbia River.

    The Hanford N Reactor which operated from Dec 1963 to Jan 1987 included a steam plant, turbine
    and generator to make electric power from the byproduct heat.

    Dr. Gregory Greenman
    Physicist
     
  13. Oct 19, 2010 #12
    Hi, I was looking up information on pripat for a screenplay I am working on and found this site. I was wondering if there is any way to estimate how long it would be until it is safe for humans to inhabit the location
     
  14. Oct 20, 2010 #13

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It is not that easy. Problem is, terrain there is mostly safe, but there are patches of elevated radiation levels, and you can never say - without a correct equipment - what is the level of radiation where you stand.
     
  15. Oct 20, 2010 #14

    QuantumPion

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I wonder, where did the workers for the other Chernobyl units live when they were still operating? Did they still live in Pripyat, or did they commute from somewhere far away?
     
  16. Jan 11, 2011 #15
  17. Apr 13, 2011 #16
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Actual, current dose rate levels near Chernobyl.
  1. Chernobyl reactors 1-3 (Replies: 129)

  2. Chernobyl project (Replies: 6)

  3. Chernobyl Worst Case (Replies: 24)

Loading...