
The Woman Who Ate Chernobyl's Apples - jonbaer
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-woman-who-ate-chernobyl-s-apples
======
danieldrehmer
I live in a city in Brazil where there was a very grave cesium leak, and two
people involved in the incident ended up eating a cesium sandwich, including a
little girl.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goiânia_accident#Ivo_and_his_da...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goiânia_accident#Ivo_and_his_daughter)

~~~
personlurking
I understood that the two people ate a sandwich and a little girl. I'm glad
that wasn't the case.

This part seemed quite crazy, though: "She was buried in a common cemetery in
Goiânia, in a special fiberglass coffin lined with lead to prevent the spread
of radiation. Despite these measures, there was still a riot in the cemetery
where over 2,000 people, fearing that her corpse would poison the surrounding
area, tried to prevent her burial by using stones and bricks to block the
cemetery roadway."

~~~
rustsucks
It seems hard to understand in our eyes, but you have to appreciate the lack
of education and superstition in Brazil. If you ever read the famous feedback
from Feynman about the standard of teaching in Brazil (shit) then you would
know why.

~~~
Ntrails
I think it's fairly patronising to blame poor education for mistrust of
government safety assurances with respect to radiation?

I'm not saying that the coffin was insufficient protection, but I know _I_
don't know enough to be sure. So the question is not "am I well informed
enough to judge the risk" (and in a country with good education standards and
having studied physics to 18 I probably have a relatively decent education)
but rather "do i believe that the person who made that judgement was".

~~~
kingkawn
A logical process that no doubt is a result of being well educated

------
anigbrowl
This lady reminds me of Tarkovsky's Stalker:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_(1979_film)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_\(1979_film\))

There was a very interesting documentary on PBS a month or two back about the
'Radioactive Wolves' of Chernobyl. Bottom line: they don't seem any more or
less healthy than other wolf populations in the region, but do well because
nobody hunts them.

~~~
Joona
I remember seeing a documentary like that on Finnish TV a couple of years
back, but it wasn't just about the wolves - it included other animals too.
They seem to be doing very well.

Do you happen to remember the name of the documentary? It sounds very
interesting.

~~~
chii
Perhaps they do well, because the radiation kills off the weak ones relatively
quickly (compared to other habitats), and thus the remaining population is
actually stronger over time. For humans, that doesn't happen because we try to
cure those afflicted which would've otherwise have been "naturally selected
out", and so weakens the gene pool over time.

~~~
iSnow
That does not make sense. If the radiation culled the weakest, then it would
also affect the stronger individuals. Essentially, radiation would make the
stronger weak and make the weak too unhealthy to survive.

~~~
saalweachter
More importantly, 'strong' and 'weak' only have meaning relative to a
particular evolutionary niche. Adding massive radiation changes the niche so
that strong means 'able to survive massive doses of radiation' and 'weak'
means 'not'. There is no reason to assume this definition of 'strong'
correlates with 'strong' outside a highly irradiated zone.

------
allendoerfer
My problem with nuclear disasters or really any kind of bigger scale
environmental damage is, that you have no control over other people's actions
and failures. You therefore can not argue, that the technology is fine as long
as we all use it securely, because you simply can not ensure that for
countries you have no control over.

And it is not only the small countries. We trust developed nations with
nuclear technology, when we really should not [0]. Fukushima happened, many
smaller scale incidents in the US happened [1] and in Germany the nuclear
waste is a constant issue [2].

Unfortunately when using a shared resource like "world security", the free
rider problem occurs, so everybody keeps using it. When you enlarge the time
period in which we use nuclear power/weapons long enough the probability, that
we mess things up on an even larger scale than Chernobyl or Fukushima
ultimately approaches 1.

While I hate, that people forget that nuclear power does run on fuel and we
have to handle the waste for generations to come, I am very thankful, that
they also forget to think of peak uranium [3], which in my mind as a layman
might solve the problem.

[0]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-
yF35g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g)

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States)

[2]: [http://www.dw.de/what-to-do-with-nuclear-
waste/a-16755844](http://www.dw.de/what-to-do-with-nuclear-waste/a-16755844)

[3]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#Peak_uranium_for_i...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#Peak_uranium_for_individual_nations)

~~~
jjoonathan
Administrative maturity does not reliably advance over time but technology
does and technology can compensate for a lack of administrative maturity. The
social challenges may be intractable but the compensating technological
challenges are not and reactor technology has come a long way in this regard.
If Fukushima had been built in 1971 instead of 1967, it would not have had the
flaw that caused the 2011 meltdown. The industry has learned even more in the
following 44 years.

Unfortunately, reactor designs are "frozen in" when built so we are in the
awkward position of simultaneously knowing how to build safe, robust reactors
and knowing that many of the reactors in service are not safe and not robust
to administrative incompetence. A timeline:

    
    
        date  age
        1956  00: Calder Hall, first commercial nuclear power
        1967  11: Fukushima built
        1971  15: Fukushima flaw discovered
        1990  34: U.S. NRC ranks Fukushima flaw most likely risk
        2004  48: Japanese NISA cites 1990 report
        2011  55: Fukushima meltdown
        2015  59: Today
    

Nuclear advocates propose closing down the old, dangerous reactors and
building new, safe reactors. Nuclear opponents propose shutting down old
reactors and not building new reactors -- but they haven't been able to find
viable economic alternatives to the old reactors so _effectively_ what happens
is they lobby to keep the old, dangerous reactors running while stopping the
construction of new, safe reactors that could otherwise have replaced them.
This is the worst possible policy outcome and thanks to their efforts it is
what has come to pass in the US. Ugh.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Nuclear opponents propose shutting down old reactors and not building new
> reactors -- but they haven't been able to find viable economic alternatives
> to the old reactors

To the extent this is true, neither have nuclear proponents or the nuclear
industry; the reason new nuclear reactors aren't built isn't because of
nuclear opponents, its because the nuclear _industry_ won't build them without
special liability protections. So, clearly, even new reactors aren't
economically viable alternatives, from the perspective of those who would pay
for and profit from them, to old reactors without socializing the risk while
privatizing the profits.

> so effectively what happens is they lobby to keep the old, dangerous
> reactors running while stopping the construction of new, safe reactors that
> could otherwise have replaced them.

Old reactors in the US continue to be decommissioned even though new ones
aren't being built. Objectively, the market _has_ found economically viable
alternatives to nuclear power.

~~~
jjoonathan
> its because the nuclear industry won't build them without special liability
> protections.

You say "liability protections" as if the dispute were over indemnification in
case of a meltdown or accident. That's not what has made nuclear reactors too
"risky" to be built in the US. The "risk" in question is that anti-nuclear
factions will be able to indefinitely stall construction by repeatedly coming
up with new "safety studies" to perform (e.g. environmental impact on squirrel
population). This strategy worked for them in the past and the nuclear
industry reckons it will work in the future unless they have legal protection
against it.

> Old reactors in the US continue to be decommissioned even though new ones
> aren't being built.

A few old reactors, yes. But we've been holding steady at ~750GW of nuclear
power for 15 years. "We have been keeping the old reactors running" is far,
far closer to the truth than "we have been shutting them down."

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/US_Electr...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/US_Electrical_Generation_1949-2011.png)

> Objectively, the market has found economically viable alternatives to
> nuclear power.

Yeah, coal, which is probably even worse on average than running old,
dangerous nuclear plants:

[http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-
ener...](http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-
sources.html)

Clean sources other than nuclear will eventually make this point moot but
it'll take decades and in the meantime we have been / will be running on an
unholy mix of unclean, nonrenewable power and power derived from old,
dangerous nuclear reactors when we could have switched to clean, safe nuclear
sources decades ago.

Yuck.

~~~
guscost
Not to mention that arguing about the degree of liability the owners face is
effectively the same as arguing about the cost of their liability insurance.
If the insurance is expensive enough to make it impossible to turn a profit,
that is just as effective as a regulator causing endless delays by fiat.

------
c0achmcguirk
Reminds me so much of the "kid of speed"'s quests through Chernobyl on her
motorcycle. She takes lots of pictures and explains the historical relevance
of different landmarks in that land stuck in time.

[http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html](http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html)

~~~
frik
_Top Gear_ (UK) was driving to Chernobyl in one of their recent specials. Some
of the camera crew waited outside the zone, for personal reasons.

~~~
jonah
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf6ON6pbDDA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf6ON6pbDDA)

------
anonymfus
My grandmother was 1957 Mayak disaster liquidator (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster)).
She said that some people in Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute ate and ever
brought home for their families fruits cultivated on contaminated soil just
because they were in deficit.

------
swamp40
Don't think I'd be quoting Madame Curie, if I were her.

~~~
precisioncoder
Why not? I'm assuming you're implying that Marie Curie's research shortened
her life. Marie Curie lived until age 66 in 1934. Life expectancy according to
this ([http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-
stati...](http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-
statistics/life-expectancy/)) random google search for 1935 in France was
58.09. This means that Marie Curie's life was 113% longer then usual for her
time. The current life expectancy in the USA is 78.74 according to the top
google result, so if it helps you can think of her as living to about 89 in
our terms. In other words despite her research she had a long fruitful life. I
wish I had the chance to make as great an impact on the world as she did.

~~~
antimagic
Life expectancy is a tricky statistic to use correctly, because it is
significantly dragged lower due to the high rate of death in birth / infancy (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy)
). Once that hurdle is gotten over, your life expectancy increases
dramatically, so it's not sure as to whether or not Curie actually lived a
long life compared to contemporary adults.

Considering that we know that Curie's death was caused by longterm exposure to
radiation (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie#Death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie#Death)
), you could reasonably expect her to have lived a much longer life without
such exposure.

~~~
maxerickson
This pdf has life tables for England (should not be ridiculously different
than France, good enough to illustrate the point either way):

[http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/Docs/DEIP_Gallop.pdf](http://www.osfi-
bsif.gc.ca/Eng/Docs/DEIP_Gallop.pdf)

In the 1930s, a 65 year old woman would expect to live an additional 12 or so
years.

~~~
precisioncoder
These are both excellent points about life expectancy, thank for for sharing
this information, looks like I got to learn something today. The overall point
however that Marie Curie did live a long fruitful life despite her research
and could be considered an excellent role model. There is often a
misconception that she died young due to her research, and often the subtext
of disapproval because of it. I think it's sad that it's common to belittle
someone for quoting her.

------
RK
Here's another interesting "radiation enthusiast", who visits nuclear sites
and collects radioactive memorabilia. He actually works as a nuclear engineer.

[http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/](http://carlwillis.wordpress.com/)

Highlights include Chernobyl trips, a trip to "Soviet Ground Zero", and a how-
to for DIY uranium chemistry.

~~~
unhammer
While we're onto nuclear enthusiasts, this is a great slightly-tongue-in-cheek
(or possibly entirely serious) blog about nuclear science and fashion and
stuff: [http://rose-blogg.blogspot.com/](http://rose-blogg.blogspot.com/)

I like the recipe posts the best: [http://rose-
blogg.blogspot.de/2013/05/oppskrift-pa-naturlig-...](http://rose-
blogg.blogspot.de/2013/05/oppskrift-pa-naturlig-helium.html) (
[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Frose-
blogg.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F05%2Foppskrift-pa-naturlig-helium.html&edit-text=)
)

------
tdicola
Awesome! I've been following bionerd23's youtube channel for a while and
really enjoy the videos she's done. Glad to see more folks being introduced to
her too!

~~~
grecy
Genuine question from someone that doesn't understand.

Is she exposing herself to more radiation than is safe?

Is there a very high likelihood she's going to make herself sick? I watched
this one
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kg4vVYKc90](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kg4vVYKc90)
and she seems to be pretty callous with that hot particle.

~~~
ehmmm
One her comments:

 _well, if its over 100 mSv /h, then acute radiation sickness begins after ~2
hours (noticable reduced blood cell count from 200 mSv acute dose onward,
though you'd only FEEL sick after another 3 or 4 hours). but yeah, as the
inverse square law applies, there's nothing to fear with this particle. and
yep, the spectrum was done by a HPGe, as usual. :)_

~~~
grecy
...and it was maxing out her meeter, which I think was showing 100 mSv/h,
wasn't it?

~~~
joshvm
Yes, but radiation sickness is caused by prolonged exposure - that is,
100mSv/h for two hours (dimensions are important here, dosage is in Sv).
Additionally that's for a full body dose and she was mostly irradiating her
fingers.

~~~
grecy
ahhh, Thankyou.

I thought it meant that if you're exposed to 100mSv/h, you'll get sick around
2 hours later... but what it means is a full body dose for 2 hours is enough
to make you sick.

Therefore 5 minutes to the fingers is probably OK.

------
chokolad
seriously, 6 foot long catfish is a radioactive freak now?

I lived in Uzbekistan from the time I was born (1976) till about 1990 and six
foot catfish was really big but not uncommon. I have a photo of my dad holding
5 feet one by the gills somewhere in my albums (dated before 1976 for sure).

I remember my dad buying smoked catfish slices about 5-7 inches across, those
definitely came from pretty damn big specimens. At the time there were no
nuclear power stations near Syr Darya or Amu Darya rivers.

~~~
jsprogrammer
If you watch the video, she says the size of the catfish is most likely due to
them having no predators.

~~~
minikites
You don't even have to watch the video, it's right there in the article.

------
fennecfoxen
As long we're talking about atomic fruits again, I'll leave this here in case
anyone missed it...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9408350](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9408350)

Atomic Gardens: Breeding Plants with Gamma Radiation (pruned.blogspot.com) 51
points by thret 1 day ago | 6 comments

~~~
swamp40
Someone should combine that with the upcoming marijuana legalization and make
their fortune selling irradiated seeds that might create a completely new
high.

~~~
Nav_Panel
This is actually extremely similar to the plot of an 80s movie called "Class
of Nuke 'Em High" \- it features two students buying irradiated cannabis
(sourced from the nuclear plant next to their high school) from a group of
thugs.

I stumbled upon it randomly on Netflix, thought it was terrible yet ended up
watching the entire thing anyway. Turns out it was an intentionally bad movie
- a parody of a 50s horror film - but I had difficulty separating the
intentional 50s cheese from the unintentionally-cheesy 80s context. A very
strange experience.

~~~
MrJagil
It's funny how you watched a Troma film without actually knowing what it was.
Trust me, they were very aware of their "cheesy 80s context". Nuke 'Em High is
one of their classics along with Toxic Avenger, which even spawned toys and a
children television show. But I understand you reaction. Even I, as a cult-
film guy, find their stuff hard to watch at times.

Their output is astounding though, and once in a while they launch great
careers (South Park, J.J. Abrams).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troma_Entertainment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troma_Entertainment)

------
m0skit0
I wonder, maybe someone can answer: why is Chernobyl still remembered while
nobody talks about Fukushima anymore?

~~~
gadders
Chernobyl was a lot more serious? Fukishima hasn't killed anyone [1] where as
Chernobyl killed at least 40 people directly [2].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disas...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties#Casualties)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_dis...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster)

~~~
m0skit0
One was in 1986 and the other in 2011, so I would expect the safety to be
better in the second one. Both were INES Level 7. And Fukushima hasn't killed
anyone... yet.

~~~
gadders
There was no "yet" with Chernobyl. People died within weeks.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
There is a "not yet" with Fukushima.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disas...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties)

As usual with long-term exposure, cause of death becomes a statistical and
actuarial question.

Incidentally, Chernobyl almost sterilised large areas of Europe and Russia.
One of the official documentaries explains what would have happened if the
initial suicide squad efforts had failed - it would have been far worse than
anything in history.

------
jdthomas
Sort of related to this post; I recently read _Atomic Accidents: A History of
Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters: From the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima_ [0]. I
was not expecting much from the book, but it turned out to be FANTASTIC, would
highly recommend if you have any interest in nuclear accidents or nuclear
energy in general; I learned a lot from reading it.

[0]
[http://www.amazon.com/dp/1605986801/](http://www.amazon.com/dp/1605986801/)

edit: formatting

------
panamafrank
Is Chernobyl the site of the worlds worst nuclear disaster or some "novel"
tourist attraction?

~~~
icebraining
Both.

------
rasz_pl
Hah, I knew it was about Bionerd when I saw the title :)

I remember subscribing to her YT channel around 2010 after
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIEO0lQV7rU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIEO0lQV7rU)

~~~
ghostberry
I thought exactly the same, though
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj0HDN82Pfo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj0HDN82Pfo)
is the video that got me to subscribe.

I love her channel.

------
kabouseng
Isn't she increasing her long term risk of cancer?

------
tempodox
Fascinating!

However, the name of the publication (“Atlas obscura”) seems grammatically
nonsensical. “Atlas obscurus” would look more credible.

~~~
saalweachter
Why not "Atlas kryptos"?

You could also interpret it as "Atlas, hide!"

~~~
tempodox
You could, but it doesn't make abundant sense.

------
ck2
If the 23 in her username is her age, she is going to get cancer before 50.

BTW did that radiation from Japan make it to California?

Because we all might be eating a little of that radiation if so.

Unless rain somehow filters radiation but I doubt that.

~~~
placeybordeaux
Why do you say she will have cancer before 50?

~~~
sjg007
exposure to ionizing radiation.

