Goods contamination by radiation

[Shinjukusam]

Ah, gotcha. Thought you were trying to send links that weren't going through.

 

[daveb]

Radioactive Used Car: 20.38 Microsieverts/Hr Car from Japan Destined for Kenya

Apparently the government is now allowing evacuees to go into the exclusion zone to get their contaminated cars. For some reason, some of them no longer want to drive these cars.
According to the government "That level of radiation does not have an immediate effect on the human body."

What a meaningless statement the government and nuclear industry keep repeating.
Even 5 Sieverts/hr has no immediate effect on the body.
Illness and death by radiation of any level are rarely immediate.

In this case the car shipment was stopped at the port in Kawasaki.
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/10/radioactive-used-car-2038.html

I have to assume the translation from Japanese is accurate, but i doubt the credibility of the source itself since it's a blog and not any agency. 20 uSv/hr exceeds any IAEA, ICRP or NCRP recommendation (as well as NRC requirement) for unrestricted areas. As for "the government and nuclear industry" saying it has no immediate effect, no one with any sense of radiation science will make such an erroneous statement. The blog post mentioned Kawasaki City, so I doubt it was by anyone with any type of authority (and if it was, they have no idea what they're talking about - while it's true it has no "immediate effect" that's detectable, it can have long term stochastic effects).

 

[QuantumPion]

while it's true it has no "immediate effect" that's detectable, it can have long term stochastic effects).

Is there any scientific basis for this statement? I was unaware of any statistical analysis showing this to be the case. As far as I am aware, it is only assumed to be true for the purposes of worst-case scenario in risk analysis.

 

[QuantumPion]

Good article here: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/news.2011.206.html

 

[daveb]

Low dose studies are very difficult to analyze, which is why I used the word "can", meaning, "possibly" in this case (not "can" as "will in some and won't in another" - the difficulty with multiple definitions).

 

[zapperzero]

Hello,

Since the Fukushima incident I have wondered if goods manufactured in Japan could be contaminated by radiation. Before posting this thread I have found scattered mentions to this subject in Fukushima threads but I didn't find any clear conclusion on this. I hope not to question about something already discussed.

I would like to know the chances that exports could be contaminated. I'm not talking about food, I'm considering also cars, watches, electronics, etc... is metal more likely to be contaminated? Are there radiation level controls on goods? are they reliable?

Sorry about my ignorance on this subject...

Thanks a lot,

East River

It would have been be really nice if you had posted in the "contamination and consequences" thread :P

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=501637

 

[swl]

I have to assume the translation from Japanese is accurate, but i doubt the credibility of the source itself since it's a blog and not any agency.

Sankei Shinbun is a major daily newspaper affiliated with Fuji Television. Their daily circulation is over 2.8 million copies. The translation is accurate.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/news/111017/dst11101722200035-n1.htm

20 uSv/hr exceeds any IAEA, ICRP or NCRP recommendation (as well as NRC requirement) for unrestricted areas. As for "the government and nuclear industry" saying it has no immediate effect, no one with any sense of radiation science will make such an erroneous statement.

This statement ("That level of radiation does not have an immediate effect on the human body.") has been repeated numerous times by the highest level officials from the government and nuclear industry, as well as the msm. Please let me know if you have never noticed, and I'll use google to find examples for you.

 

[daveb]

Nope. Haven't noticed. And as I said, it has no "immediate effect". It can have long term stochastic effects. Those are completely different.

 

[swl]

Radioactive cars for sale in Japan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...apanese-dealers-selling-radioactive-cars.html

 

[QuantumPion]

Radioactive cars for sale in Japan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...apanese-dealers-selling-radioactive-cars.html

Sweet, I want a radioactive car. No one will want to park next to me and if someone steals it, it will be easy to trace!

 

[zapperzero]

Sweet, I want a radioactive car. No one will want to park next to me and if someone steals it, it will be easy to trace!

Get one! I'll track it down, park my junkiest bike next to it for a month to get it activated, then sue for a gazillion dollars. I'll just claim I didn't know what the huge trefoil on the hood means.

 

[QuantumPion]

Get one! I'll track it down, park my junkiest bike next to it for a month to get it activated, then sue for a gazillion dollars. I'll just claim I didn't know what the huge trefoil on the hood means.

You can't get activated no matter how long you stand next to it. And unless you wear a dosimeter, there is no way to determine how much dose you received from my car. And even if you did have a dosimeter, you would have to prove that it was professionally calibrated, and that all the dose received was due to my car. Then I would ask the court to dismiss your case with prejudice, since you obviously knew my car was radioactive before filing the suit by the fact that you got a calibrated dosimeter set up to only read the dose from my car.

 

[zapperzero]

You can't get activated no matter how long you stand next to it. And unless you wear a dosimeter, there is no way to determine how much dose you received from my car. And even if you did have a dosimeter, you would have to prove that it was professionally calibrated, and that all the dose received was due to my car. Then I would ask the court to dismiss your case with prejudice, since you obviously knew my car was radioactive before filing the suit by the fact that you got a calibrated dosimeter set up to only read the dose from my car.

I CAN get it activated if it's a neutron emitter that contaminated your car. Plus you'd be on the hook for reckless endangerment either way (because you left the damn thing out in the open to begin with) and the justice system is unlikely to look down upon you with benevolence when I bring my civil suit.

So there.

On a more serious note, I would NOT buy such a car.

Many big tunnels and bridges are set up with detectors. Now, if those detectors are to have a hope in hell of detecting a dirty bomb or even a loose nuke, they have to be set up with a VERY low detection threshold. Crossing into Manhattan might net you a one-way, all expenses paid trip to sunny Guantanamo, Cuba...

 

[QuantumPion]

I CAN get it activated if it's a neutron emitter that contaminated your car. Plus you'd be on the hook for reckless endangerment either way (because you left the damn thing out in the open to begin with) and the justice system is unlikely to look down upon you with benevolence when I bring my civil suit.

So there.

On a more serious note, I would NOT buy such a car.

Many big tunnels and bridges are set up with detectors. Now, if those detectors are to have a hope in hell of detecting a dirty bomb or even a loose nuke, they have to be set up with a VERY low detection threshold. Crossing into Manhattan might net you a one-way, all expenses paid trip to sunny Guantanamo, Cuba...

There's not going to be any neutron emitting contaminants unless the car was parked at the Chernobyl parking lot at the time of that accident and had actual fuel particles landing on it.

And no, there is no reckless endangerment because there is no endangerment. No more so is the guy that built my house out of brick recklessly endangering me with background radiation.

I assume you are just being silly with your last statement so I won't comment on that.

 

[daveb]

Many big tunnels and bridges are set up with detectors. Now, if those detectors are to have a hope in hell of detecting a dirty bomb or even a loose nuke, they have to be set up with a VERY low detection threshold. Crossing into Manhattan might net you a one-way, all expenses paid trip to sunny Guantanamo, Cuba...

A number of police vehicles are also equipped with detectors, and have been known to detect radioiodine in patients as they drive down the freeway (can't find any links, though, so it may be an urban myth). This was one of the reasons why patient release letters are now standard issue following radioiodine treatments for diseases such as Graves.

 

[zapperzero]

There's not going to be any neutron emitting contaminants unless the car was parked at the Chernobyl parking lot at the time of that accident and had actual fuel particles landing on it.

And no, there is no reckless endangerment because there is no endangerment. No more so is the guy that built my house out of brick recklessly endangering me with background radiation.

I assume you are just being silly with your last statement so I won't comment on that.

My last statement was in dead earnest. If you plan on traveling with sources, make sure people know who you are and where you are going and carry any and all relevant documentation.

 

[QuantumPion]

My last statement was in dead earnest. If you plan on traveling with sources, make sure people know who you are and where you are going and carry any and all relevant documentation.

That is not necessary unless you are transporting material requiring a license to own/transport e.g. medical equipment, geology scanners, etc. There is no requirement to document low level sources. The police cannot arrest you because you are emitting low level background radiation. If you honest believe the government is going to throw you in Guantanamo bay because of that, well then we can't really have a serious discussion here because you are out of touch with reality.

 

[zapperzero]

That is not necessary unless you are transporting material requiring a license to own/transport e.g. medical equipment, geology scanners, etc. There is no requirement to document low level sources. The police cannot arrest you because you are emitting low level background radiation. If you honest believe the government is going to throw you in Guantanamo bay because of that, well then we can't really have a serious discussion here because you are out of touch with reality.

You are making qualifications here, then using them to argue a point that I did not make. This is called a straw man argument. What's worse, you are not arguing with, well, arguments, but simply by stating your belief.

By definition a source, any source, will emit above the natural background. It should have been obvious to you that I was not talking about traveling with bananas.

Here's a something on (portable) detectors in use by LEOs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triborough_Bridge_and_Tunnel_Authority_Police
Portal-type scintillation detectors at ports of entry
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/gao-unimpressed-new-radiation-detectors
and so on and so forth, do your own Googling.

 

[daveb]

That is not necessary unless you are transporting material requiring a license to own/transport e.g. medical equipment, geology scanners, etc. There is no requirement to document low level sources. The police cannot arrest you because you are emitting low level background radiation. If you honest believe the government is going to throw you in Guantanamo bay because of that, well then we can't really have a serious discussion here because you are out of touch with reality.

Not quite true. Even low level sources must adhere to specific DOT regulations, though they are usually classified as LQS (Limited Quantity Shipments) or LSA (Low Specific Activity) shipments.