Did you notice how the units on the graphs and pictures changed? some used Bq/m^3 some mBq/m^3 and some uBq/m^3. a Bq is a disintegration per sec, a very, very small amount of radioactivity. and a mBq is 1/1oooth smaller, uBq is 1 million time smaller. put a big number in front of a small unit nad it looks more ominus.
These numbers they are reporting, 1 million to 10 million time higher, are the differences from the observed to the MODELED. Their model was bad. The numbers in the 2 models they present do not agree, the best is off by a factor of 10. going by the worst case of 10000 Bq/m^3 in Tokyo; if they breathed that concentration for 1 week staight (which is highly unlikely that the plume would stay in 1 place for that long) a person would receive a dose of about 2.5 to 3 mrem. A chest x-ray give about 15 to 20 mrem a CT give 500 to 1500 mrem. So the actual risk from the CS-137 is negligable, ask any radiological physicist, which I am.
Please do not rain on the fear monger's doom and gloom the sky is always falling claptap, he will just find another left wing nut job cause to wring his hands about along with another progressive tin foil hat to wear.
I hope you can feel the light now.
one shot (translation): "It's OK, son. We will turn on the light and let you see that there is nothing under the bed."
Spike: "Daddy, leave the light off, I want to stay scared all night."
Fact is that radiation is a SLOW killer and we won't know the long term effects from Fukishima on US shores for a long time. Anyone who says otherwise is well...,FOS. This is why long term monitoring is an essential process in determining those effects.
please present your facts. I would really like to see them. Just saying they are facts do not make them so. Please present objective evidence while your at it.
Radiation induced cancer is a slow killer. You are familiar with cases of radiation induced cancer, are you not? I think the scientific evidence of that is clear. The scientific evidence that cumulative exposure to radiation sources can lead to disease and slow death are also evidence enough. There is good reason that shielding is used during x-rays, surely nothing to do with cumulative exposure risks, right?
Large doses of radiation exposure can lead to swift death. By and large, these types of exposures are rare.
Without long term monitoring of radiation levels and the effects of Fukishima on US shores, how else will these effects that may or may not manifest themselves be scientifically proven or disproven?
So where are these facts flawed?
I am well aware of what it takes to induce radiation induced cancer. It is not cut and dry, it’s a probability function where the probability goes up as the dose goes up, however it’s never is 100% curtain. By your statement, just mere exposure to radiation will result in the cancer developing slowly. The development of cancer is dependent on the cell type because once it starts it develops at the prescribed pace, whether it was induced by radiation or some other factor.
You’re a smart guy, please don’t parrot propaganda. Learn the facts and apply and apply them, because what you are saying is not entirely all wrong but enough to make you look ignorant of the facts. Plus you should not go around and telling half truths.
The only way you can believe that is if you think my comments were speaking to the veracity of the ZH article. I was not. I was speaking to the ignorance of the comments I read here. I didn't even read the article, as ZH articles on Fukushima I have read both past and present, contained some metrics that I have found suspect in the past. Those suspicions were raised by what I know to be true from my experience and training as a Radiation Safety Officer for two different employers whom used radiation sources for industrial applications.
I am not an anti-nuke energy disciple and in fact have family and friends involved in nuclear energy and nuclear arsenal work for many decades. A few of them have died from cancers suspected to be caused from careers in those fields. Those deaths didn't occur overnite.
IMO, there are 3 potential pathways for US populations to be effected by Fukushima. Ingestion, absorption and inhalation. The cumulative nature of those pathways and the duration of the exposures over time will determine to what extent Fukushima radiation exposure will or will not have on US population. This will not be a short term event and could take many years for any negative effects to manifest themselves in the form of health issues.
Look, I respect your experience and knowledge of nuclear medicine. I made no aberrant comments to suggest any of your comments were inaccurate.
My point and my concern is and will continue to be verifiable and reliable measurements of any and all of the eco systems involved that could possibly contribute to these 3 pathways. I would also prefer that those measures be monitored by independent, private sources over those of a disinterested or biased government source. For reasons that should be fairly obvious.
Narly, your solution is?
Give TEPCO all the help they say they don't need. Don't build reactors in tsunami and quake prone geographies.
