View Full Version : Oh No!! Surely not Dunnet Beach as well?
I am saddened to see Dunnet beach contaminated with radioactive particles as well as Sandside. I always thought that it was strange that beaches east of Dounreay were not contaminated because of the drift of the Gulf stream west to east.
This means the particles have gone past Thurso Bay as well?
Where will the rabbit hole end?
No, it doesn't.
The notice says nothing about particles being found on the beach... it says 'a stone like object' has been removed for analysis.
Whilst it is probable that Dounreay is involved, I suppose it would be too much to suggest that we wait for the results of the analysis before packing our bags and running screaming for the hills? :roll:
Well the Groat says Radioactive Caesium 137 contamination has been found on Dunnet beach and the activity was 20,000 Bequerals from the 'stone like object'. I am not aware of Caesium 137 occurring naturally in the environment so I am probably right in assuming that it is anthropogenic in origin. I assume you were picking me up on my choice of words rather than the content.
I will rephrase.
Radioactive 'stone like objects' have been found on Dunnet beach.
Whilst I am not too perturbed about the radiological impact of the find, I am more concerned about the impact on the economy of our county.
Actually no: as Caesium-137 has been found in quite a few places (especially since Chernobyl) and was the main element in the fallout from atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons, I was picking you up on your assumption of source and not your choice of words.
I doubt if radioactivity from Chernobyl could be responsible for a 'stone like object' with an activity of 20kBq or even nuclear testing FTM.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Year... I know... but not always. ;)
Rubha_an_Tuir
04-Mar-05, 17:27
I doubt Dounreay could be responsible for a "stone like object" either. Unless someone carried it there. Could have been the oil guys back in the 60's when they were doing testing on Dunnet beach. It could have been planted by CAND, it could have fallen from a passing B52, it could be part of an old radiography machine, Aliens maybe?
At the end of the day the modern monitoring equipment has found a Caesium source. It could have got there in any number of ways, we'll probably never know for sure.
Unless the caesium particle is adhering to the surface of the stone and they just picked up the stone for purposes of handling?
I still point the finger at Dounreay but I do accept that there may be a 2.71282^3000000:1 chance of aliens being responsible. :eyes
Yeah! Because when Aliens come they're going to want to visit Dunnet!
Next you'll be telling me there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! :roll:
Yeah! Because when Aliens come they're going to want to visit Dunnet!
Next you'll be telling me there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! :roll:
Why shouldn't they visit Dunnet? It'a a beautiful beach, just right for a bit of Alien sun bathing.
Yeah! Because when Aliens come they're going to want to visit Dunnet!
They might, they could be from 'Dune'? :roll:
~~Tides~~
04-Mar-05, 18:24
Next you'll be telling me there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! :roll:
I take it Saddam hid them under sand dunes. Who said they would be in Iraq.
Just a quick thought, I guess the annual Dunnet Sands public volunteered litter pick-up will be cancelled this year?
Unless the caesium particle is adhering to the surface of the stone and they just picked up the stone for purposes of handling?
I still point the finger at Dounreay but I do accept that there may be a 2.71282^3000000:1 chance of aliens being responsible. :eyes
I assume you mean 2.718282^3000000:1? ;)
While I'm on the pedantry trail, isn't Cs the chemical symbol for Caesium? Yeah, I know Ce was used on a different thread, and by someone else, but a double dose of pedantry barely warrants one post, never mind two.
Ok, enough... ;)
I had a more serious point to make here, but I have forgotten what it was. I'll come back to it if and when I remember. :roll:
brokencross
09-Mar-05, 17:58
I realise this is a serious subject, but I heard an item on the news the other day, where an area in California was cordoned off for over an hour after a source of radiation was detected by a "nuclear alert detector" on a fire engine.
The source of the alert was found to be some poor chap on his way home from hospital after having had radiotherapy treatment at a local hospital.
That made me think; so my theory is that the "stone" or "particles" found on the beach could be the fossil of some radioactive jobbie or dandruff from some person having had radiotherapy.
Or, could it be that many years ago, 1968 I think it was, I lost my luminous watch on Dunnet beach. The metal would be nicely rusted away by now and the luminous dots and hands left there to confuse Tony Robinson and the Time Team an all Geiger counters.
Prove me wrong!
Mmmmm tell us all brokencross, what were you doin on Dunnet Beach that you lost your watch? ;) :lol:
Or, could it be that many years ago, 1968 I think it was, I lost my luminous watch on Dunnet beach. The metal would be nicely rusted away by now and the luminous dots and hands left there to confuse Tony Robinson and the Time Team an all Geiger counters.
Prove me wrong!
The article in the Groat stated that the particle or 'stone like object' was identified as being contaminated by Cs137 which is identified by using an analysis technique called Gamma Ray Spectroscopy. The spectra produced by this isotope will give 'fingerprint' signature peaks at certain channel numbers, 661keV being the main peak for Cs137 thus precluding the fact that it was the remnants of your watch.
Yes there are Gamma ray spectroscopists that are caithness.org forum members. ;)
Oh Doc, I did mean 2.71282^3000000:1 ..........honestly [para]
Have you seen the latest news "Suspected particle found on Dunnet Beach, Saturday 26th of March" ?
This could be a big blow to tourism in the Dunnet area.
I don't know if the locals will stop using the beach, but I think tourists will run a mile.
It is very sad and hopefully it will be dealt with swiftly and they won't find anymore.
No problem running a mile on Dunnet beach, they wont bump into anyone particles or no particles.
oh well what can we do :Razz , it won't stop me goin there :)
Perhaps conclusions were jumped to after all?
UKAEA’s low-level environmental laboratory confirmed the initial Caesium-137 result (2nd result 23,000 ± 2,600 Bq) and confirmed the presence of tiny traces of Niobium-94 (1.2 ± 0.3 Bq) and of Americium-241 (3.4 ± 0.6 Bq). The activity levels of these two minor isotopes, relative to the Caesium-137 present, are a factor of between about ten to one hundred times lower than typically found for DFR-derived material and on this basis does not match the signature for DFR particles from Dounreay. (http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/pdf/Dunnet_find_briefing_note_Mar05.pdf)
Caesium-137 is widely found in the environment as a result of fallout from weapons testing, the Chernobyl accident and discharges made under authorisation from the nuclear industry. Tests carried out so far by UKAEA would discount the activity arising on this object as being related to the Chernobyl accident. Caesium-137 is also used widely in sealed radioactive sources, which have many industrial uses. At present it is not possible to determine the source of the contamination on this object. (http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/pdf/Dunnet_find_briefing_note_Mar05.pdf)
A sealed source (Cs137) was lost at Dounreay in the 1990s........you may recall the furorwhen some amateur clairvoyant was called to atttempt to locate it :lol: Never been found to this day.....maybe I soudln't have said that, MI5/6 et al may now be on my case :roll:
Never been found to this day....
The clairvoyant or the source?
A sealed source (Cs137) was lost at Dounreay in the 1990s........you may recall the furorwhen some amateur clairvoyant was called to atttempt to locate it :lol: Never been found to this day.....maybe I soudln't have said that, MI5/6 et al may now be on my case :roll:
If it was the missing source of Caesium 137, how do you account for the americium-241 and the niobium-94 being present?
I could claim that the americium-241 was due to a disposed smoke detector (yes they do contain Am-241) but I would not be able to account for the Caesium 137 or the niobium-94.
My bet is that it comes from the reprocessing for plutonium
:lol: Source, not sure about the clairvoyant.
I was only using it as an example Rheghead as JJC had mentioned in his post that it is used for sealed sources, I am not suggesting that is it :lol: Also wanted to show the Concerned amongst us, that people who have worked at DOunreay have no problem talking without the might of the Official secrets act coming down on them.
Actually having looked at the analysisresults as detailed again I would discount the Am241 and Nb94 results............can't think where the Nb94 would come from anyway. :confused
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.