Radiation levels in most of the region were quite low compared with the average excess dose that people happily live with in Denver.
Posted on 08/25/2012 1:11:51 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Denver has particularly high natural radioactivity. It comes primarily from radioactive radon gas, emitted from tiny concentrations of uranium found in local granite. If you live there, you get, on average, an extra dose of .3 rem of radiation per year (on top of the .62 rem that the average American absorbs annually from various sources). A rem is the unit of measure used to gauge radiation damage to human tissue.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends evacuation of a locality whenever the excess radiation dose exceeds .1 rem per year. But that's one-third of what I call the "Denver dose." Applied strictly, the ICRP standard would seem to require the immediate evacuation of Denver.
It is worth noting that, despite its high radiation levels, Denver generally has a lower cancer rate than the rest of the United States. Some scientists interpret this as evidence that low levels of radiation induce cancer resistance; I think it is more likely that lifestyle differences account for the disparity.
Now consider the most famous victim of the March 2011 tsunami in Japan: the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Two workers at the reactor were killed by the tsunami, which is believed to have been 50 feet high at the site.
But over the following weeks and months, the fear grew that the ultimate victims of this damaged nuke would number in the thousands or tens of thousands. The "hot spots" in Japan that frightened many people showed radiation at the level of .1 rem, a number quite small compared with the average excess dose that people happily live with in Denver.
What explains the disparity? Why this enormous difference in what is considered an acceptable level of exposure to radiation?
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I've been busy lately, haven't kept us with the news, did this happen already? Did I miss the paper that day?
The health effects have most definitely been overstated. But that’s okay, it’s nuclear power. /s
Like a lot of issues (AGW, energy, etc.), facts are lost and propaganda has been inserted. Cases like this are criminal. But don’t get me started on Dr. Mann.
Very over estimated, in reality only one in three will grow an extra eye where anyone can see it and only one in seven will grow a tail.
West Coast - Kalifornia, Oregone, Washington - all Blue States; Let’s look for the silver lining.
And to think that Angela Merkel, whom I generally admire, shut down the entire German nuclear power system in an hysterical reaction to Fukushima.
bfl
I knew a Navy Captain who had occasion to bring his nuclear-powered Cruiser to Antarctica several times back in the day. He said that when he first visited the Station, it ran on a nuclear reactor and the place was pristine. Then, Antarctica became a “nuclear-free zone” and the nuke was pulled and replaced by a coal and oil power plant. The next time he went, he said the whole place was a blackened dump with piles of coal and fuel oil and smoke debris everywhere.
Merkel wouldn't know hysteria if it hit her in her face. She used Fukushima as a calculated excuse.
I’m still not sure either way.
The Pacific is huge, but the amount of radioactive material draining into it is unprecedented.
I took my calibrated radiation survey meter to the grocery store. Fruits and veggies were OK. No readings anywhere. Everything read zero until I went to the shelves of tuna.
The meter read .05 rad per hour. How can that be? Are there radioactive particles in some of the cans? What happens to people who ingest those particles?
Would the government and media lie to us? OK, THAT question I know the answer to.
I want to see more data.
“The first published study that measured the radiation within a large number of residents reassured health experts because the numbers reported imply only negligible health risks. The threat appeared to be considerably lower than in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, the experts agreed.
“Exposure levels were much lower than those reported in studies even several years after the Chernobyl incident,” said Masaharu Tsubokura of the University of Toyko”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/first-study-reports-very-low-internal-radioactivity-after-fukushima-disaster/2012/08/14/aadd1dc2-e628-11e1-8741-940e3f6dbf48_story.html
Everyone is lying...
Fukushima Residents With Exposures As High As Chernobyl Areas
Fukushima Governor Requested TEPCO to Say "No Health Worries" After Reactor 3 Explosion
Shipment restriction of fish extended to Aomori, 380km from Fukushima plant
Oh yeah, those are much better sources than scientific journals!
They know what’s really going on.
The scientists that did that study in the “Journal of the American Medical Association. “ may not have been bought off though. Since they had to come to Japan to do the study they could have had pods put next to them during the night-
pods that replicate a person using evil nuclear energy. Then they’d return and write what the evil nuclear industry wanted them to and no one would be the wiser.
No one except the internet sites you go to of course.
Next time try actually reading the links and their referenced material. You will note that link #1 references the same expert you referenced. Only they did not lie or obfuscate about what the expert (Dr. Tsubokura) actually discovered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
