OK. I’ll dispense with civility and say it more bluntly. Those who insist there is no problem, nothing to see here are flat out lying and I wonder why.
I don’t care if you don’t take me seriously. Don’t. Care. I post to clarify because people like you intentionally mislead.
There, fixed that for you.
The total radiation detected on the West Coast was on the order of 5-6 Bq/m3. That means the natural background radiation due to Cs-137 is larger than the amount added by the reactor leak. The EPA standard (way lower than even most scientists would say was a safe dosage) for cesium-137 in drinking water is 3700 Bq/m3. That's for continuous use as drinking water. So you either have no clue what you are talking about, or you are lying for some agenda. Which is it?
And your proof of that is?
Sheesh. You're just like the idiots who blew hard over the bioconcentration of pesticides farce.
I post to clarify because people like you intentionally mislead.
I haven't misled anyone on this thread because I am not stupid enough to have posted a strident opinion on it. If you are admittedly unsure of the magnitude of relative risk, when it has been shown to be small compared to others that are known and significant, then STFU until you are more certain.
And no, I'm not involved in any industry in any way affected by nuclear power.