okay, intensity is P/A[W/m^{2}]. What is the radius of a cell? Okay, cells have a size of about 1 µm. Thus, we need to find out what intensity destroys the bindings of the chemical compounds? Therefore the binding energy of the compound has to be determined.
the DNA-hydrogen bond is about 1 to 40 kcal/mol. I had to find the conversion factor for cal into joule. That is: 1 kcal is 4184 J. One mol is 6x10^{23} atoms, molecule
So about 160 kJ/mol is 1.6x10^{5}/6x10^{23}~10^{-18}J, that is ~1 eV. The power of gamma rays is dhnu/dt/m^{2}, nu=c/lambda=3x10^{8}/10^{-15}=3x10^{23}Hz. hnu=1.8x10^{-33}x10^{23}=1.8x10^{-10}J/∂tt/10^{-12}m^{2}=1.8x10^{2}/∂t. So this depends all on ∂t. What is ∂t? It is the frequency of the impact of the radiation.
So during an impact like Fukushima, ∂t is very short, but how short?
Okay, we don't know this exactly I guess, but what is more important right now is how about ∂t in normal radiation out there?
well, Ceasium life time is 30 years, thus it's frequency is 1.x10^{-9} Hz. Thus I~2x10^{-7} [W/m^{2}]. Is this small. Remember I took into the calculation the most dangerous natural photon radiation, gamma rays on the area of a DNA hydrogen bond break down energy that causes destruction of the DNA. The parameter 1/∂t of caesium. "The maximum power flux density 0.45 μW/cm2, at a distance 115 m is many times smaller than the permitted level according to normative – 20.0 μW/cm2. In this case absence of sanitary protection zone takes place and electromagnetic radiation of radar antenna is not dangerous for population in all area around the radar. If the antenna phase centre is higher – at 14 m – the maximum power flux density reaches only 0.06 μW/cm2 and is farther from the antenna – at distance 500 m" (http://www.tandfonline.com/.../1648-7788.2008.12.57-60) So this is not dangerous. However, this is nothing more than a first gues. Now I will compute the velocity of a He kernel, which is an alpha particle, which would lead to a harzadly impact.
Okay, we don't know this exactly I guess, but what is more important right now is how about ∂t in normal radiation out there?
well, Ceasium life time is 30 years, thus it's frequency is 1.x10^{-9} Hz. Thus I~2x10^{-7} [W/m^{2}]. Is this small. Remember I took into the calculation the most dangerous natural photon radiation, gamma rays on the area of a DNA hydrogen bond break down energy that causes destruction of the DNA. The parameter 1/∂t of caesium. "The maximum power flux density 0.45 μW/cm2, at a distance 115 m is many times smaller than the permitted level according to normative – 20.0 μW/cm2. In this case absence of sanitary protection zone takes place and electromagnetic radiation of radar antenna is not dangerous for population in all area around the radar. If the antenna phase centre is higher – at 14 m – the maximum power flux density reaches only 0.06 μW/cm2 and is farther from the antenna – at distance 500 m" (http://www.tandfonline.com/.../1648-7788.2008.12.57-60) So this is not dangerous. However, this is nothing more than a first gues. Now I will compute the velocity of a He kernel, which is an alpha particle, which would lead to a harzadly impact.
mass is 4x10^{-27}kg, again the damage is done at 5x10^{-19}J/∂t. Americum is the (a) natural alpha source. It has a half life of 433 yrs. Thus the velocity of He2+ that causes damage that destroys DNA is v=sqrt(1x10^{-18}/4x10^{-27}))=sqrt(2x10^{10})~1x10^{5}[m/s]. The velocity that causes ionisation according to literature(http://www.citycollegiate.com/atomic_structureXIf.htm)is ~10^{6} to 10^{7} [m/s]. This is higher, what is wrong here? Okay, but what is really interesting us is I~5x10^{-19}x7x10^{-11}=3.5x10^{-29}[W/m^{2}]. This is much more smaller than that intensity of gamma radiation of Cs. Okay, I'll try to find out what source causes such an intensity. Ultrasound (https://books.google.de/books?id=sSPnBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA18...) has such a frequency. So according to this guess, natural radiation of alpha sources is harmless. Did I make something wrong? This sounds all so easy and harmless. Hmm. Okay nuclear waste has an increased intensity. I look if I find useful information.
Now, the intensity of Fukushima incidents are typical higher may I get informations about this. This repot(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956155/) says something about ~2mSv/y 1 Sv =1 [m^{2}/s^{2}[=1 [J/kg]. Okay the velocity of gamma rays is not computable, since it has no mass. We cannot convert 0.5mv^{2}into hnu. But we can compute J per kg mass of a human, that is not reasonable. It is not said what kind of mass it refers to. We make the most worse case and say it is applicable to a single DNA helix. This has mass of about let's say 10^{-26}kg. Thus our destruction energy is 5x10^{4}J/10^{-26}Kg=5x10^{-21}Sv=5x10^{-18}mSv per year that is 5x10^{-18}mSv/3600x24x365~1.6x10^{-25}mSv/yr. This appears small. Very small. But remember that is the impact energy on a single helix and this can be repaired. So what does this really say? If we compare this with the impact on a woman of 60 kg we have to multiply with ~10^{27}. That means we receive ~100 mSv/yr. That means the dose is actual lower than what has been measured after the impact. The factor is 5 times higher than estimated by the people. Where does this come from? Well, ionised radiation is according to what people believe given by 10^{-11}m. That is different from the wavelength I put in, which is 10^{-6}m. people say, that the wavelength, that is dangerous has a smaller wavelength and thus higher energy. But they say the measured level of impact of 2mSv/yr is dangerous, causes cancer. There's a contradiction. I put in energies that are lower than what they put into their calculation and I receive a impact level that is about the factor 5 higher than what they computed. So according to my calculation the impact level of 2012 is by no means dangerous anymore, because it is not able to break down any hydrogen bond of a single DNA or they compute with a different unit of kg, means they take into account? Okay, they talk about Organ doses, but an organ measures about 1 kg, so this would yield to ~100 mSv/yr. This is even more unlikely to cause any damage. Okay they talk about the energy doses per kg, which has a factor of 34 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiedosis). What does mean? I have to multiply the formula with 34 on the first view, I receive I~6x10^{-25}x10^{27}~600 mSv/yr. This is not reasonable, if we take into account that it is an organ of 1kg, than we receive I~60 mSv/yr. This much higher than what people measured in Fukushima in 2012, what was I~2mSv/yr. This all has to be reconsidered.
okay, I see I made a mistake, I had to start from I~5x10^{-19}Wx34= 2x10^{-17}W/kg. This is ~2x10^{-7}J/kg, with the half life of Cs. And this is 2x10^{-4}mSv and is 7x2x10^{-15}mSv/kg=1.4x 10^{-14}mSv/yr. This is nothing. Something really mysterious is going on? Did I made a serious error? I computed the Intensity of an hazardly impact of gamma rays on a hydrogen bond a single DNA. That is 5x10^{-19}J/30x3600x24x365=5x10^{-28}W. I think you have to compute the Intensity per kg to get a real good approximation, because only the power is too small to get an effect. Thus (I/1kg)34~1.75x10^{-26}[W/m^{2}kg] and this is very small. Okay take the ionised energy wavelength, that is 10^{-11}m Thus E = 1.8x10^{-14}Jx10^{-9}W=1.8x10^{-25}W. This is even smaller than the power of a hydrogen bond break down. This is therefore even more harmless. The factor 10^{5} smaller than the case above, so the impact would be ~1.4x10^{-19}mSv/yr. Is that all wrong what I have computed here? I mean what did I make wrong. I don't see a computational error right now and here. I have to think about it and get now some distance...
People are only concerned about the lifetime of nuclear waste. The intensity cannot be changed by processing them. It is a natural process, that cannot be manipulated. Thus the most problematic waste is Strontium which has a life time of 28 years, but this close to Cs ~30 years. So the intensity is comparable and also ~same as an em-radio antenna. So this whole thing appears to be no problem on this first view. But I will think about this, if I made a logical error.
Take care
Kay
No comments:
Post a Comment