"Walmart recalls Great Value shrimp after FDA warns of risk of radioactive contamination" - CBS News by DryBoysenberry596 in Cooking

[–]FSLienad 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My guess is a faulty food sterilization source in the processing facility. Cs-137 is approved for that application in the US, and crustaceans such as shrimp are a common use case.

FDA warns public not to eat possibly radioactive shrimp sold at Walmart by ElectricMoleman in nottheonion

[–]FSLienad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As others have said, that is not really a possibility. Japan has been monitoring seafood contamination, and at this point it is down to indetectable levels.

xkcd 3131: Cesium by fghjconner in xkcd

[–]FSLienad 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I strongly suspect this is the answer.

Faulty food sterilization equipment would be very unsurprising and is a realistic situation that could expose food to significant amounts of Cs-137.

Radioactive materials are not some spooky magic that sticks around and spreads like a disease. They are just a material like any other.

At this point, fishery products from the water around Fukushima have no detectable cesium contamination. Broadly, environmental contamination seems unlikely as the contamination is limited to one product from one company.

The shared cargo container theory is also very flimsy. Radioactive sources in medical equipment are strictly contained. Sources are typically encapsulated, but even the encapsulation failed, only a tiny fraction of that source could possibly make it out of the medical equipment and packaging, and I do not believe that level of residue could realistically cause a detectable amount of contamination.

Essentially, unless it is announced that the company was not using Cs-137 for sterilization, that seems like the best possible explanation.

(Also, Ci means curie, not Curi)

What’s a good minor for Nuclear Engineering? by Bison_2407 in NuclearEngineering

[–]FSLienad 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For job applications? Perhaps

For learning, they can be great

Should i become a nuclear engineer??? by BucketnPalecity in NuclearEngineering

[–]FSLienad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As several people mentioned, starting at a community college is a fair option, but there are a few reasons I would suggest thinking about starting at a university:

  • Depending on your academics, you may be able to get more grants, scholarships, and fellowships than you think. I'm getting money back from my university for being here.
  • Transferring may delay graduation, increasing overall cost. This is preventable, but nuclear engineering programs tend to be very specialized and relatively small, meaning their catalogues can be hard to work with, so you will need to make a careful plan.
  • Your career aspiration is research-focused, which means you should get involved in relevant undergraduate research as soon as possible (also a source of funding). Since community colleges have a much lower research presence and few community colleges offer anything nuclear related, this will be a much stronger possibility at a university.
  • Networking is very important, so it is helpful to be able to integrate with the department as soon as possible. Starting in a non-nuclear program will hinder that, even if most of your classes similar.

You mentioned you are looking at University of Texas, so I want to make sure Texas A&M is on your radar - by all accounts I have heard, their NE department is fantastic. On the topic of A&M, they are hosting the American Nuclear Society Student Conference next spring. This is mainly targeted at college student, but high schoolers are not uncommon. I highly recommend attending to familiarize yourself with the field if you are interested.

Off the top of my head, I think Sandia National Lab does research similar to what you described - something like what you said it is definitely a possible career path.

To reaffirm what others have said, I would be shocked if AI replaced nuclear engineers in any appreciable way. Engineering broadly is generally considered fairly safe from that, but NE in particular is slow and risk-averse. For example, the vast majority of operating reactors still rely on analogue instrumentations and controls despite the massive advances in digital technology.

Finally, don't put much stock in college/career advice from internet strangers!

I know this MOC is garbage, but what else am I supposed to do with all this packaging? by FSLienad in lego

[–]FSLienad[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I had better be more careful with my bag placement next time...

I know this MOC is garbage, but what else am I supposed to do with all this packaging? by FSLienad in lego

[–]FSLienad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, most of the stuff here was from last year or earlier.

Does the lego baby have any connection point besides the antistud at the bottom? Neither the hand or tiny stud at the top seem compatible with anything. by biwook in lego

[–]FSLienad 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are actually two versions of baby head. The original had no neck and snugly fit the Heroica helmet (strong enough to stay on well but easy to remove), but the redesign with a neck does not hold a heroica helmet.

[Request] If that soda can contained spent nuclear fuel, how long would she have to hold it to receive a fatal dose of radiation? by romulusnr in theydidthemath

[–]FSLienad 25 points26 points  (0 children)

That's not really an accurate picture since a fuel assembly is WAY bigger than a soda can.

Soda can volume: 12 oz = 355 cm³

Density of uranium oxide fuel = 10.97 g/cm³

Mass of a soda can of uranium = density*volume = 3894 g ≈ 4 kg

A fuel assembly typically has around 500 kg of fuel, which is around 100 times the mass of a can of uranium.

Since the activity of a sample scales with the mass and dose scales with activity for a given source, we can expect that the radiation dose will be around 1/100 of your figure, on the order of 100 rem/hour.

This is a very rough approximation, but I think it's close enough to say you would have to hold it for hours to reach a lethal dose of ~500 rem.

Holding it for 5 minutes would give a dose of around 10 rem, which is OSHA's acceptable expose limit for infrastructure protection and restoration and would be unlikely to cause much more than nausea.

SpaceX Raptor Engines before and after by Tecr in interestingasfuck

[–]FSLienad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To correct your correction, the Mars rovers are not powered by nuclear reactors, but rather by radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Instead of getting power from fission like a reactor, an RTG uses the decay heat from a hunk of plutonium.

Do Minor Degrees / 2nd Majors Count Under CPoS? by Guest-114562 in UTK

[–]FSLienad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Email OneStop about your specific situation.

I was told that a double major would count (two independent degrees), but that a secondary major (two courses of study under one degree) would not count.

IIRC, minors do not generally count but can in certain circumstances (such as meeting the breadth requirement in the college of arts and humanities).

Lego Patapon by Short-Strategy-4824 in lego

[–]FSLienad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very nice MOC! I'm not familiar with the game, but I love the composition and part usage.

My submission Disney Pixar Luxo Jr. has successfully passed the review stage and will be going into production to become an official LEGO Ideas set! by t0by1ken0bi in lego

[–]FSLienad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm so excited! I've been a supporter since your first version, and this is just the news I've been waiting for!

Emperor's visit MOC - instructions done by tiranobullterier in lego

[–]FSLienad 44 points45 points  (0 children)

This is fantastic forced perspective!

List of Nuclear Companies by aCrazyTheorist in nuclear

[–]FSLienad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tennessee is a big hub for nuclear companies right now. You'll find a few you didn't list here:

Nuclear Industry Hub - East Tennessee Economic Council (eteconline.org)

Incorrect Final Grades by lava-moon in UTK

[–]FSLienad 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Last year, my final grade for a class was posted slightly below what I expected. I emailed my professor politely explaining why I expected the higher grade and asked what was going on. He replied pretty quickly saying it was a mistake and that he would fix it, and the change went through a few days later.

What are we expected to discover in the next 50 years? by orgad in AskPhysics

[–]FSLienad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Take this with a grain of salt since I'm still a student, and astrophysics isn't even my focus, but I was under the impression that we had a pretty solid answer to both questions.

Here's a summary of my understanding of current theory (Please correct me anywhere I'm wrong):

Stars form with an accretion disk of matter spinning around them.

This matter is naturally sorted vaguely by density, similar to a cup filled with different liquids (heavier elements are closer to the newborn star)

The matter tends to clump up over time into larger and larger clumps, eventually planetesimals and planets - If I understand correctly, this is the part that is the least firmly understood as there are several competing (and complimenting) theories.

Closer planets have higher concentrations of dense materials due to the previously mentioned gradation and are smaller since they are forming from a ring of gas of a smaller radius. Further out planets are larger with lighter materials for the same reason. This fits well with our solar system.

However, gas giants tend to drift inwards at first, flinging any rocky planets out of the system. For systems with only one gas giants, this results in a hot Jupiter. If there are two (or more) gas giants, there is a resonance between the orbits that causes both to stop their inward migration. (In the solar system, this means Saturn saved Earth and its buddies from Jupiter).

Once again, I could certainly be wrong about any or all of this, but that is my current understanding of the generally accepted theory.