0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Abandon ship?
I was thinking that lead paint might be a way to supress radition on site and might even be a good form of protection if workers paint themselves, lead is toxic but I mean they paint themsleves with body paint undercoat.So any ideas?
Quote from: Wiybit on 23/03/2011 05:04:11I was thinking that lead paint might be a way to supress radition on site and might even be a good form of protection if workers paint themselves, lead is toxic but I mean they paint themsleves with body paint undercoat.So any ideas?I have an idea.Don't paint yourself with lead paint.It takes inches of lead to stop gamma rays but it doesn't take much to poison you.
The emergency back-up generators should have been in a building as safe as a bank vault. Were they in a shed? If lead paint is the best we can offer as a solution, then they are doomed.
"What are you saying Bored Chemist? Just let them go die? Why even bother thinking about finding a safer way for workers to fix plants having problems."Don't be silly, I didn't say anything like that.What I was saying was don't waste time pissing about with things that will never work and may lull people into a false sense of security causing even more harm than the lead.I'm happy to think of ways to improve the safety of the workers there.The way to do it doesn't start with gibberish like a coat of lead paint.Incidentally, it might include a use of ordinary paint.A layer of fresh paint will trap dust and therefore ensure that radiation isn't dispersed into the air.It's a strategy that works well with asbestos and it's worth thinking about in this case.In general, it's better to control hazards at source, rather than to try to wrap up individuals in PPE.
No doubt some of the workers pointed out that the back-up electrical supply was vulnerable. They were probably dissed for not being a "team player" and not contributing to the "consensus" and suspected of "politically incorrect" opinions. No science involved in these decisions.
Hi.Short time,,no solution,,, i think that must done same than Tsernobyl,,fukushima is losed,,i afraid.Long time future,,,only way is to get out nuclear-power,,how,,that is the question,,need many things,- less consumption- ground heat- sun-electric- flow-generator water-station- etcEarth-ball dont have resources to give life-properties todays consumption all it's peopple.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/03/2011 22:17:39"What are you saying Bored Chemist? Just let them go die? Why even bother thinking about finding a safer way for workers to fix plants having problems."Don't be silly, I didn't say anything like that.What I was saying was don't waste time pissing about with things that will never work and may lull people into a false sense of security causing even more harm than the lead.I'm happy to think of ways to improve the safety of the workers there.The way to do it doesn't start with gibberish like a coat of lead paint.Incidentally, it might include a use of ordinary paint.A layer of fresh paint will trap dust and therefore ensure that radiation isn't dispersed into the air.It's a strategy that works well with asbestos and it's worth thinking about in this case.In general, it's better to control hazards at source, rather than to try to wrap up individuals in PPE.My point about using lead is that it might do something, as you say stopping the dust would achieve something, I was looking to see if you had a lead based material paint would it not reduce some of the radioactivity of the dust. Might be tiny but tiny isn't nothing.
Quote from: Wiybit on 23/03/2011 23:12:25Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/03/2011 22:17:39"What are you saying Bored Chemist? Just let them go die? Why even bother thinking about finding a safer way for workers to fix plants having problems."Don't be silly, I didn't say anything like that.What I was saying was don't waste time pissing about with things that will never work and may lull people into a false sense of security causing even more harm than the lead.I'm happy to think of ways to improve the safety of the workers there.The way to do it doesn't start with gibberish like a coat of lead paint.Incidentally, it might include a use of ordinary paint.A layer of fresh paint will trap dust and therefore ensure that radiation isn't dispersed into the air.It's a strategy that works well with asbestos and it's worth thinking about in this case.In general, it's better to control hazards at source, rather than to try to wrap up individuals in PPE.My point about using lead is that it might do something, as you say stopping the dust would achieve something, I was looking to see if you had a lead based material paint would it not reduce some of the radioactivity of the dust. Might be tiny but tiny isn't nothing. Are you in some way constitutionally unable to understand that spending a lot of money (or other resources) on lead paint is a bad idea (because it simply won't work)and spending less money on something else is a better idea?Perhaps I can put in a different context for you.For a given thickness, gold is a rather better gamma ray shield than lead- and it's non toxic.Would you advocate coating the workers with gold leaf?
So, you don't realise it would be better to spend the money on, for example, a robot to do the work instead of people?
Wybit:Using lead paint could not, would not, work. Nor would gold leaf. That is all BC is saying here, and that is why it is being rubbished as an idea. It would not provide signficant protection against gamma rays (a thick enough coat to serve a useful purpose would be so heavy that the workers could not stand up, let alone achieve anything), and moreover lead is poisonous, so as well as providing no worthwhile protection it would actively cause harm to the workers. Time, and then some, to drop this one!