• @lurker7141
    link
    English
    71 year ago

    So that guy definitely got a lethal dose of radiation, right? I thought a couple minutes near that thing meant certain death.

    • @BreadOven
      link
      English
      191 year ago

      According to an article posted in the comments, this was in '96 and it was emitting 10 times less radiation. It says over 500 seconds would be lethal.

      • Altima NEO
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

        Still, that close and without full face coverage. I certainly wouldn’t want to be there.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          131 year ago

          Do you think that the suit he’s wearing somehow protects against the gamma radiation and neutrons screaming through his body? It’s just to keep from tracking dust / tiny radioactive particles.

          • @Tangent5280
            link
            English
            21 year ago

            Isn’t there a suit that can protect from radioactivity? Whats the point of the suit if the user gets fucked either way?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              No, there’s nothing human+portable that will provide enough protection for it to be worthwhile:

              Unlike charged particles, a certain percentage of gammas will always make it through the absorber, and it is useful to consider the half-value thickness of a given absorbing material for the gamma ray energies of interest.

              https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/α-β-γ-penetration-and-shielding

              Neutrons require similar shielding.

              It’s possible to block alpha emissions with skin/paper and beta with a sheet of foil, gamma and neutron are scary

        • @BreadOven
          link
          English
          111 year ago

          Definitely agreed. The article said he just took a quick reading while the picture was taken. Apparently no long term effects would happen from the little exposure, but I’m not sure their reference for that.

          Either way, the further away to it from me, the better.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

      No; that photo is from 1996 (a decade after the incident) where the vast majority of short lived fission products are well into their decay chains.

      It’s not safe to be around it for a long period now (and it still wasn’t then), but it’d take at least a few minutes of getting up close and personal with it to see any short term effects.

      FWIW NYT interviewed him in 2014. He may have since passed (I didn’t look it up) but certainly not as a result of acute radiation exposure.

      Fun fact: the film had to be exposed for several seconds for each of the images in this series due to the low light levels, which contributes to the amount of radiation ‘fuzz’ in the images. Think 1800s camera levels of staying still for a photo, just in front of a giant radioactive chunk of corium.

      • @Tangent5280
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Why didn’t they just bring bigger lights I wonder? Space constraints? Is this sitting inside a collapsed basement?

    • HuddaBudda
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      That appears to be the Elephant’s foot in Chernobyl. When it was first discovered it apparently could cause radiation poisoning within 4 minutes.

      That being said, the half life decay of the elephant’s foot has been going on for awhile. Artur Korneyev, who took photographs appears to be alive to this day.