It depends on the difference between relative and absolute measurements. Natural exposures vary enormously due to mere geography, using relative measurements, due to radon from thorium in granite. Areas with really rocky ground and lots of basements can even have biologically significant exposures. Areas with alluvial soils don’t have this problem at all.
Doomies emit alarm, mismeasurements, lies and ignorance concerning anything nuclear.
______________________________
I understand the differences between absolute and relative measurements. I understand the different exposures people receive due to variations in natural sources, types of strata. I understand that basements can have biologically significant exposures. Geology plays a role in background sources - yes.
Do you understand how Fukushima is unrelated to these variations? For example - do you understand the differences between radon in a basement and exposure to radioactive wastes distributed en masse daily from Fukushima? Further, threads like these are not lamenting exposure to natural sources. Threads like these lament the incompetence of the nuke industry which is damaging the health of the human population and lying about it.
Supposedly nuclear experts would have at their disposal accurate information to share with the public. Fukushima has shown me that nuclear types routinely excuse incompetent mismanagement and deception by citing false or unrelated information about radiation as if they were knowledgeable on the subject. The dosimetry calculations that nuke engineers have thrown in my face while demanding I perform the calculations and post them and “show my work” don’t even take into account the way in which potassium in bananas differs from radioactive cesium from Fukushima.
Incompetence, ignorance and lies from the nuke industry and they have no clue that the calculations they are using are not accurate even if the numbers falsely (obviously) indicate that radioactive cesium is less harmful than the natural radiation in bananas. I mean where is the “professional development” on the part of the nuclear industry if I am the one that has to point out that radon is not relevant to this discussion? Why don’t their employees and supporters know anything about how radiation damages human tissues and how one source of radiation can cause such different damage compared with other sources of radiation?
Doomies? Is that the new name nuke apologists like to call people who have bothered to study the issue and understand the medical effects and long term ramifications of what’s going on in Fukushima and are sharing this information with the public? No one is panicking here.
I was very likely familiar with these matters before you were born, and have ruined careers over radiological matters.
Nuke power is dangerous. More so than coal. The trick is to manage the risk. But as with all risk management, that comes with a cost. At some point the ones writing the check will tell you to stop spending money on risk management.
My plant has a lot of chemicals that fall under the “dangerous” heading. But the likelihood of anything impressive happening is slight, so we don't try to manage every known risk. For instance, the building would not survive a jumbo jet hitting it.
For us, worst case is we vent ammonia, and make a big sticky mess. For a nuke plant, you have a melt down (much more impressive).