Posted on 03/20/2011 9:56:26 PM PDT by TonyfromOz
This radiation dose chart places into perspective some of the doses you may, or may not be exposed to, and it covers nearly every arising. It shows that the EPA has a maximum limit of one milliSievert per year, and that's one thousandth of a Sievert. However, normal everyday life sees the average person exposed to almost 4 times that much. One Chest X ray is 6 times that EPA limit, and even a Mammogram exposes you to three times the limit. This chart puts radiation levels into some sort of perspective. It also shows that you are exposed to more radiation living near a coal fired power plant than near a nuclear power plant, all lower than the EPA limit by a factor of almost one thousand.
BTTT
yah...no kidding, I have absolutely no idea what any of the dosage rates really mean anymore, because there have been so many different ways of recording and reporting radiation levels, what you do hear sounds terrifying until you do the complicated conversion math and find out the CAT scan you just had gave you more radiation than a whole meal of spinach that was grown 10 miles from a Japanese nuclear reactor...
It’s hard to judge who is more hysterical these days, people raving about radiation dangers or those raving about Obammy finally kicking Kadaffy’s ass...
I never get my MDR of radiation. I don’t like diets and I just can’t stick with any regimen of pills.
The chart was a bit hard to read for its size but I did see that a person would get twice as much radiation eating a banana as sleeping next to someone assuming that someone was not a monkey, I guess.
So since I really like bananas my mate has to sleep in the guest room. “Sorry dear, it was you or the bananas and I like them a bunch more. Get it? Bunch more?”
I hope there’s not much radiation in an unheated garage. I might have to give up bananas.
What the heck is a sievert? What happened to roentgens?
Please, at least have the decency to give credit where credit is due. A lot of hard work -- none of it yours, as far as I know -- went into this chart.
Shame...
umbagi,
thanks for pointing that out to me. I have now included some text at the top of the Post informing of its origin with a link back to their site, a link to the Post, and also to the Chart itself, and I have added a ‘trackback’ to their Post. Again, many thanks for pointing out the origin.
Sieverts is a measure of biological effect. This varies with the isotope and with the body part involved. Typically an average is made for the overall effect on a body, but the isotope should be taken into account for the measurement to mean anything.
Thanks — good on ya’!
Until one of the power plant that does not burn coal melts down. Do you really not understand the concerns regarding nuclear or are you purposely distorting the issue? The concern is not the level of radiation while the plant is in normal operation. You must know that.
You mean they don't call them Rems or Rads?
Thanks for the link but I had one interesting observation. The very first item I saw was the amount received while sleeping next to someone.
Does that take into account WHO your sleeping next to and WHAT they ate earlier that day?
Just curious...
Thanks
Sievert replaced rem’s. Roentgen’s are still around for educational purposes.
1 sievert = 100 rems
Listen to the media much? Sounds like you’ve had a taste of kool-aid.
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.