According to a special I saw on the Discovery Channel, Coffee has 13 times more radiation than reactor cooling water. Apearently all things are radio active naturally including the coffee we drink.

Also, the average background radiation in Europe is 5 times higher than on Three Mile Island or whats considered safe in the U.S.

Just wondering what people thought of these statements?

------------------
Winner of the "peoples Choice award" for supreme advocate for the people!

I'm not "always right", it just seems that way

Spelling is for kids! I think you got the point!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,21015,00.html

------------------
Uh, what country is this??

Originally posted by Fordman50:
According to a special I saw on the Discovery Channel, Coffee has 13 times more radiation than reactor cooling water. Apearently all things are radio active naturally including the coffee we drink.

Also, the average background radiation in Europe is 5 times higher than on Three Mile Island or whats considered safe in the U.S.

Just wondering what people thought of these statements?


That's pretty wild about the coffee. My sisiter in-law is a Doctor of Oriental Medicine. She is quite good and actually heals people unlike western medicine where they just give you a pill. Anyway she is way against coffee and tries to get us to limit our consumption to a couple of cups a month. I do like one a day. My wife is of the chain. She is so serious about the negative effects of coffee she won't even try to heal you unless you give it up completely as a part of the treatment.



------------------
"Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them"
Martin Luther King Jr.

Maybe nuclear power isnt as bad as everyone thought. I always knew coffee was bad though.

It depends on the radiation in question. Radiation isn't always harmful.

I'm guessing that what was meant is that the coffee beans naturally absorb and concentrate a particular natural isotope or two, of which the clean reactor coolant has none. This isn't surprisning, because many plants readily absorb minerals -- radioactive or otherwise. Marigold and sunflower are good at absorbing heavy metals. In fact, some scientists have tried using sunflowers to decontaminate soil and water (containing plutonium, no less), with a good deal of success.

So yes, it's possible (not saying I believe it yet) that coffee could have some barely detectable levels of radiation, but so could a lot of plants.

And given the choice between drinking coffee and reactor coolant, which would you choose?

There is a big difference between nature and man-made. Its like suger in an apple, compared to sugar in a candy bar. Both have suger, really different though.

And I would rather have the coffee.

try http://www.uic.com.au/ral.htm

Mass for mass, coffee is 1/1000 as radioactive as 'low level' nuclear waste, 1/2 as radioactive as coal ash, and about the same as granite. That puts it in perspective.

Keep drinkin'.

Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's all crap: Even if energetic neutrons made it through the concrete jacket into the coolant water, and managed to interract with a nucleus, you would only end up with an isotope like deuterium or tritium (ie heavy water, which is not particularly radioactive). I don't know if there are any radioactive isotopes of oxygen, but I doubt they'd be to bad either. So of course reactor water wouldn't be seriously radioactive (unless a rod cracked and leaked).

[This message has been edited by Dilbert (edited 07-05-2001).]

Originally posted by Dilbert:
Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's all crap: Even if energetic neutrons made it through the concrete jacket into the coolant water, and managed to interract with a nucleus, you would only end up with an isotope like deuterium or tritium (ie heavy water, which is not particularly radioactive). I don't know if there are any radioactive isotopes of oxygen, but I doubt they'd be to bad either. So of course reactor water wouldn't be seriously radioactive (unless a rod cracked and leaked).

[This message has been edited by Dilbert (edited 07-05-2001).]


Just to clarify some things about nuclear waste... the more problems with nuclear waste that I know of are the control rods. After spending awhile in a reactor, they become highly radioactive and must be disposed of.

Also, about coolant water, I am not sure about the radioactivity specifically, but I do know that the products are radioactive. Perhaps, a neutron hits an oxygen nucleus and forms heavy oxygen, which then beta decays into Fluorine, which could be more radioactive. Along the same lines, tritium could beta decay into light helium 3, which would then essentially be a radioactive alpha particle, which is another form of radiation. I do not know for sure, but if there was deuterium in the water (which there is), then it could be hit by a neutron, become tritium, then beta decay into a beta paricle AND and alpha particle. I am not sure of the specifics, but it seems possible, and dangerous.

Nate

One more thing, there is water sitting in contact with the uranium in a reactor. This coolant water cools the uranium by becoming steam, which powers a turbine. This water is completely sealed from the coolant water runs the turbine, which is sealed from another coolant source, usually taken from a local river. Thus, there are 3 separate water systems, so radioactive water never has to leave the concrete casing. However, the water inside the reactor does need to be replaced, and the old water is highly radioactive.

Nate

Ok, so the 'coolant' water never goes near the core?

I think when people say coolant water being radioactive, I THINK that they are referring to the coolant that does touch the reactor core. That water becomes pressurized and heats a secondary water supply (which I do not think is called coolant). That water/steam spins a turbine. That system is cooled from river coolant water, which is dumped back into the river. So in my opinion, there are 2 completely separate systems of coolant water. The one at the river should not be radioactive at all since it is two systems removed from the core. So when people say radioactive water, they must be talking about the coolant that is in physical contact with the nuclear core. That is the water that must be stored safely when it is replaced.

Nate

Nate, kinda bothers me how mcuh you know about Nuclear Power plants :-)

------------------
Manu Narayan

It would bother you even more if I told you everything I know about nuclear weapons! And they teach me about those in school!

Nate

Hehehe, what he DIDN'T tell you is that water has a half-life of about 12 hours i.e. it's NOT going to be a threat for a significant period of time. http://discussanything.com/Ubb/smile.gif

If you want to see how safe a nuclear power plant is, go to China. DON'T LAUGH! They've got some of the crappiest, oldest, and worst maintained examples in the world, but they haven't had significant problems. That's not saying they W0N'T, but it DOES lead one to believe that nuclear power CAN be made available safely.

Thanks for having a number on that water half life. I couldnt find anything. Actually, always thought that the real danger for nuclear storage was the control rods when they need to be replaced, and also the pipes that carry the reactor coolant. Anyone know more details?

Nate

As far as I know, the fire which was burning after Chernobyl was fueled by the control rods (mostly graphite, yeah?). So there was a heap of very radioactive smoke pouring out for several days.

To me, I think the best thing to do with nuclear waste is to blast it into the sun . . . of course, the danger of that is a rocket mishap or the like. I'd hate to have that sucker dropping down to Earth with 3 or 4 tons of nuclear waste, ya' know?

::Puts on his cynical cap::

It probably happens all the time, and you never hear about it.....

LOL! Well, that would explain a lot!

I'm very serious. Low level spy satellites can't use solar pannels because of drag effects. Gerbles in wheels aren't good enough, so some sats use nuclear fuel. And if it crashes, are they going to tell you?

Could be . . . who would know?

Then again, how much radiation could that possibly be?

Well, for the last nuclear spacecraft the US launched, Casini, there was a sizeable amount of fuel. BUT, it was in special canisters that would avoid breaking even in the event of an explosion on launch. Now, that spacecraft is not exactly the same as a low level satellite, but I think that most of the equipment is probably pretty safe.

Nate