I enjoy the blog, and also because I talked about the nuclear (indeed, I have not finished talking about) to address one thing that annoys me a long time (21 years actually): the problem of the effects of the Chernobyl disaster on Europe and France.
Apparently almost nobody thought the next thing, which is nevertheless the domain of the most blindingly obvious, the first something we should think, since the dispersion of uranium was carried out on the whole of Europe (including seas), it would be so diluted that, except near the plant, the impact of being almost zero in terms of increased radioactivity.
Now, we have 70 tons of fuel in a power plant. The density of uranium is 19 tonnes per m3. So 70 tons are a volume of 3.6 m3. Say 4 m3 to simplify calculations. Apparently, at least half the fuel melted and remained in the Chernobyl plant. So it would only be 2 m3 who escaped from the plant by air. Apparently, part of the 2 m3 fell near the station and around a little further away. Suppose there were only 1 m3. It would mean a cube of 1 m3 would have contaminated the whole of Europe. This is totally ridiculous.
It would the equivalent of a bag of 1 m3 of uranium powder (and other radioactive elements) that was dispersed over 10 million km2 (the size of Europe) and it would have increased in enormous proportions radioactivity and that would have endangered the people who have eaten the plants harvested at that time. At the outset, we say that is nonsense. But do the math.
To get to cover the equivalent of 10 million square kilometers (10 trillion sq since a square mile equals one million square meters) with a cube of 1m3, it would take 10 trillion square 1m2 and 1 / 100 000 000 th of a millimeter thick, 10 picometers (10 x 10-12 meters). So, on every square meter of europe, there would deposit a film thickness of 10 picometers uranium and other radioactive elements.
In terms of weight, it is therefore (since 1 m3 of uranium weighs about 20 tons), 20 tonnes divided by 10 trillion, or 2 millionths grams per m2. However, in granitic and sedimentary rocks, the proportion of uranium is 3 grams per ton of rock. Therefore, the increase in radioactivity was necessarily ridiculous.
According to Wikipedia, a garden square of side 20 meters (400 square meters) contains about 10 meters deep, 24 kg of uranium. So, 400 times 2 millionths of a gram, that is 800 millionths of grams of added to the garden, or 0.000003%. Of course, there is more surface. Therefore, calculate a meter, it is 0.00003% of radioactivity and more. 0.0003% and 10 centimeters. In short, it is in the background.
Given that there are as uranium in concrete in the rock (since the concrete is composed of rocks), and considering the thickness of 10 cm, so an individual receives from him 3,000 times more radiation per year because of the ground and walls of his apartment only because of Chernobyl. If he goes for a single half-day on the mountain, where often there are two times more radioactivity than plain, he will receive more radioactivity than that caused by additional one year by the Chernobyl cloud.
Although it was slightly more concentrated in streams, it remained the domain of background noise. Moreover, the Rhone single-handedly carries 100 tons of uranium per year (see Wikipedia), or 5 times as much as 20 tons distributed throughout Europe. And there
3mg of uranium per cubic meter of seawater is 1000 times more uranium than the amount that was deposited on 1 m 2 of ground because of Chernobyl. So when you bathe in the sea, assuming that the duration of the holiday, we stayed 24 hours in, we take 2.7 (1000 divided by 365) times the radioactivity taken over one year because of the disaster Chernobyl. And certainly many more, since we are mostly in apartments, therefore, areas or dust in question is not returned, be returned, but was quickly removed from the initial vacuum.
And besides, France, the cloud was at an end. It was supposed to have gotten rid of most of its radioactive dust. So we can safely rely on a quantity 10 times less radioactive material.
I do not know, but it's really the first thing that comes to mind when we speak of a dispersion on this scale. Is the volume set is not too small to be completely diluted? Because, even when we talk about Europe as a whole, not a few kilometers squares.
Instead of making these reflections based in France, everyone focuses on the fact that the cloud had crossed the border, contrary to what the government said, believing themselves very smart (like us, we do we did not).
And that's where everyone was distraught at the time.
In fact, believe that uranium has contaminated the Chernobyl across Europe at enormous rate, is like believing that one or a few bags of fertilizer could fertilize all agricultural land in Europe. Anyone would react immediately and say that it is anything, it's ridiculous. But with Chernobyl, no.
Apparently almost nobody thought the next thing, which is nevertheless the domain of the most blindingly obvious, the first something we should think, since the dispersion of uranium was carried out on the whole of Europe (including seas), it would be so diluted that, except near the plant, the impact of being almost zero in terms of increased radioactivity.
Now, we have 70 tons of fuel in a power plant. The density of uranium is 19 tonnes per m3. So 70 tons are a volume of 3.6 m3. Say 4 m3 to simplify calculations. Apparently, at least half the fuel melted and remained in the Chernobyl plant. So it would only be 2 m3 who escaped from the plant by air. Apparently, part of the 2 m3 fell near the station and around a little further away. Suppose there were only 1 m3. It would mean a cube of 1 m3 would have contaminated the whole of Europe. This is totally ridiculous.
It would the equivalent of a bag of 1 m3 of uranium powder (and other radioactive elements) that was dispersed over 10 million km2 (the size of Europe) and it would have increased in enormous proportions radioactivity and that would have endangered the people who have eaten the plants harvested at that time. At the outset, we say that is nonsense. But do the math.
To get to cover the equivalent of 10 million square kilometers (10 trillion sq since a square mile equals one million square meters) with a cube of 1m3, it would take 10 trillion square 1m2 and 1 / 100 000 000 th of a millimeter thick, 10 picometers (10 x 10-12 meters). So, on every square meter of europe, there would deposit a film thickness of 10 picometers uranium and other radioactive elements.
In terms of weight, it is therefore (since 1 m3 of uranium weighs about 20 tons), 20 tonnes divided by 10 trillion, or 2 millionths grams per m2. However, in granitic and sedimentary rocks, the proportion of uranium is 3 grams per ton of rock. Therefore, the increase in radioactivity was necessarily ridiculous.
According to Wikipedia, a garden square of side 20 meters (400 square meters) contains about 10 meters deep, 24 kg of uranium. So, 400 times 2 millionths of a gram, that is 800 millionths of grams of added to the garden, or 0.000003%. Of course, there is more surface. Therefore, calculate a meter, it is 0.00003% of radioactivity and more. 0.0003% and 10 centimeters. In short, it is in the background.
Given that there are as uranium in concrete in the rock (since the concrete is composed of rocks), and considering the thickness of 10 cm, so an individual receives from him 3,000 times more radiation per year because of the ground and walls of his apartment only because of Chernobyl. If he goes for a single half-day on the mountain, where often there are two times more radioactivity than plain, he will receive more radioactivity than that caused by additional one year by the Chernobyl cloud.
Although it was slightly more concentrated in streams, it remained the domain of background noise. Moreover, the Rhone single-handedly carries 100 tons of uranium per year (see Wikipedia), or 5 times as much as 20 tons distributed throughout Europe. And there
3mg of uranium per cubic meter of seawater is 1000 times more uranium than the amount that was deposited on 1 m 2 of ground because of Chernobyl. So when you bathe in the sea, assuming that the duration of the holiday, we stayed 24 hours in, we take 2.7 (1000 divided by 365) times the radioactivity taken over one year because of the disaster Chernobyl. And certainly many more, since we are mostly in apartments, therefore, areas or dust in question is not returned, be returned, but was quickly removed from the initial vacuum.
And besides, France, the cloud was at an end. It was supposed to have gotten rid of most of its radioactive dust. So we can safely rely on a quantity 10 times less radioactive material.
I do not know, but it's really the first thing that comes to mind when we speak of a dispersion on this scale. Is the volume set is not too small to be completely diluted? Because, even when we talk about Europe as a whole, not a few kilometers squares.
Instead of making these reflections based in France, everyone focuses on the fact that the cloud had crossed the border, contrary to what the government said, believing themselves very smart (like us, we do we did not).
And that's where everyone was distraught at the time.
In fact, believe that uranium has contaminated the Chernobyl across Europe at enormous rate, is like believing that one or a few bags of fertilizer could fertilize all agricultural land in Europe. Anyone would react immediately and say that it is anything, it's ridiculous. But with Chernobyl, no.
