'same as an airplane flight' AND Bq/l conversion to bq/m^3 AND safe level
Thank you for posting your results! Under your rain water chart, this is posted ***'you get the same radiation as an airplane flight etc'; which I believe is in regards to Be7, which one is exposed to when flying. But Be7 (a creation of the Big Bang), doesn't pose the same threat as Cs-137 & I-131, so why is the 'airplane flight' comparison used? What is a SAFE cph level for Cs-137 & I-131, etc. By safe I mean a level that will not make me ill if I am exposed to it everyday, all day, for 30 years. Also, how do I convert Bq/l to bq measured per cubic meter? Rocketing away now, happy computing :-)
unit conversion
Is it possible to convert Bq/m-2 to microsieverts or cph? if so please show how. Thank you
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
You don't ingest or inhale the radiation source from x-rays. An x-ray lasts for a millisecond. Fallout lingers in the website-link body tissue and bones for decades .'
==========================
Evidently you don't understand that it ALL becomes internal exposure. If you ingest or inhale a radionuclide, in order for it to do damage to you; it has to radiate and deposit energy. That's what an external source of radiation does too - it deposits energy.
When BRAWM cites a "dose" - they are giving you the TOTAL energy per unit mass that is deposited in tissues. Now you get "X" mSv from an X-ray, that energy gets deposited over a small time, as you say. If you get "X" mSv from an ingested radionuclide, it will deposit its energy over time. However, depositing the energy over a short time is WORSE than the time release.
Suppose your doctor prescribes that you take 2 aspirin every day for the next 20 years. That's about 4 bottles of 200 aspirin per year for 20 years or 80 bottles total.
Let's say we are going to have 2 people consume 80 bottles of aspirin. One is going to consume the 80 bottles in the course of a 4 hour airline flight. The other is going to take 2 aspirin a day for the next 20 years.
Now your argument says there will be less damage to the former person. The analog of your argument is that the airline flight only lasts 4 hours so there will be less biological damage to the person that takes the 80 bottles during the 4 hour airline flight.
The person taking the 2 aspirin / day is taking aspirin for DECADES ( 2 in fact ) so the biological damage to him is greater because the exposure time is so much greater than just that 4 hours in an airliner.
The point that you are TOTALLY MISSING is that we are comparing equal doses. How does "X" mSv delivered all at once in a blast from an X-ray compare to "X" mSv delivered over the course of decades by a slowly decaying radionuclide.
Can you not see that for a given TOTAL dose "X" mSv; that it is actually WORSE to get that dose all at once from an X-ray machine, than it is to have the dose delivered time-release from a radionuclide?
Conversion from Bq/L to Bq/m^3
Just noticed one of your original questions was not answered -- since 1 m^3 = 1000 L, multiply by 1000 to convert from Bq/L to Bq/m^3.
A point about Be-7
Just a quick point about Be-7... Be-7 was indeed produced during the Big Bang, but since it has a half-life of 53 days, none of that original Be-7 remains. Its presence in the atmosphere is due to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are constantly impacting the Earth's atmosphere, and some reactions they have with carbon and nitrogen high in the atmosphere produce Be-7.
This isnt a long term event
If you are curious you can read the effluent concentration limits that nuclear facilities are allowed to release in 10 CFR 20 appendix B here . These limits are very conservative though so they don't correspond directly to a level that if exceeded could be tied to negative health affects even over a lifetime of exposure. These don't really apply to this because the duration of this event is not expected to be more than about a month at worst. While Cs-137 has a long half live it is also relatively quickly diluted in the local aquifer.
I agree. Wouldn't it be
I agree. Wouldn't it be better to compare this the NRCs Annual Limit on Intake (ALI)? We are talking about internal exposure not external, right?
dose is dose(at least in this case)
If you read the information on how the dose is calculated it is done using the ALI from 10 CFR 20 appendix B table 2. That said whole body dose is whole body dose, from a radiation health effects point of view internal dose at these levels is the same as external dose.
dancing around
Radionuclides in fallout are incorporated into our bodies (tissue, bones). Most of the radiation from cosmic rays is external.'
'You don't ingest or inhale the radiation source from x-rays. An x-ray lasts for a millisecond. Fallout lingers in body tissue and bones for decades .'
'You don't ingest or inhale the Americium-241 from smoke alarms. You're talking about the small gamma component of Am-241. That's external exposure.'
ALI
But, if I get my ALI from iodine, which gets a thyroid, it can't be the same affect as when one's getting their ALI from Cs-137, which gets the bones & muscles.
I can't believe an airplane flight will have the same affect on my health as Cs-137.
If it is so, that would mean if I fly everyday for a year, my bones & muscles are toast.
It is not the same in that
It is not the same in that sense. Yes, the ALI for iodine is weighted toward the thyroid and the plane flight is whole-body dose. However, the the dose number is weighted not just by one organ but all organs with specific weighting factors that attempt to quantify the radiation stochastic effects. At the core, this stochastic effect represents the probability of of cancer (5.5% per Sv) and genetic heritable effects (0.2% per Sv). This does not differentiate where the effect occurs.
Fascinating.
Fascinating.
Utilizing this method, whenever 'one' runs into a variable which has not been previously considered, or even an ‘uncontrolled variable’, is it standard practice to just create additional ‘weighting factors’ as needed ad infinitum, in order to ‘move on’ under the premise that all variables are accounted for?
Could such a scientific method possibly be ‘prone’ to misuse?
Such a method certainly makes sense of the following statement:
"Yes, our understanding of dose can be wrong, but until we see evidence that it is wrong, we will not change the theory. That is how science works."
For in utilizing such a method, 'misuse of weighting factors' allows any evidence of flaws to be perpetually 'postponed'...(but only on paper, of course).
Girls! THIS is the ‘Weighting Factor’ department!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ASDJKbiI24&feature=related
_______________
On a sidenote-
A curious thought:
Let’s hypothetically say that an entire industry got ‘caught with it’s pants down’.
Let’s also hypothetically say that ‘said industry’ quickly went into a ‘creative PR Campaign mode’ in order to cover it’s own ‘rear end’, devising the continued ‘misuse of a scientific method’, in order to ‘distract all response’ from the concerned public.
But let us also assume that said industry needed trustworthy outlets from which to launch such a 'PR campaign'.
Fast Forward (Hypothetically) one year into the future (8 months from now).
Let us assume that the hypothetical ‘cover up’ by ‘said industry’ is all over the news. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/01/huhne-fukushima-emails-criticism
Let us also assume that the public has caught on to ‘the lie’ or ‘the exaggeration’ or ‘the miscalculation’, (whatever hat one prefers to wear in terms of descriptor).
Is it REMOTELY POSSIBLE that ‘said industry PR talking heads’, might wish to lay the blame of said ‘misuse of science’ at the feet of ‘anonymous students’, etc… and perhaps a specific Team of scientists, by stating:
(Hypothetically)
"If the ‘Liberals’ at UC Berkeley were broadcasting such science, how can you possibly point the finger at us? Wasn't that your 'liberal science' talking? You want to blame us? Ha!"
(Hypothetically)
Could such an act possibly tarnish one of the most prestigious institutions in the nation which we all love and cherish, such as UC Berkeley?
In order to avoid such soiling of reputation, wouldn’t that same University be blameless and in fact somewhat ‘righteous’, if said University Students ‘caught on’ and exposed the misuse of science?
(Think of this as an ‘exercise’ in attempting to ‘account’ for some of the uncontrolled variables.)
Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.
I LOVE UC Berkeley.
Happy July 4th everyone.
Leo- We would all be much
Leo-
We would all be much more in the dark than we are if not for these folks at BRAWM.
If they are liars, or a psy-op, (which I doubt very much), then we are likely screwed.
Myself, I see no deceit. BRAWM, thank you. I am counting on you guys for what little insight there is into the complexities of this situation.
BC
Uncontrolled Variables
Does BRAWM even know they will be used to tarnish UC Berkeley?
Who knows?
Not 'relevant' to me, but a good question, curiosity-wise.
Happy Independence Day.
They ignore it
They ignore it.
you are very right Leo, I
you are very right Leo, I wish you a happy 4th of July and really hope that your point you made changes some of the methods being used here
It will take more than a change of methods.
Change of 'culture' is required.
Lots of 'uncontrolled variables'.
We will watch it unfold together.
Happy Independence Day-
P*E*A*C*E*
"Never Can Tell".
"Never Can Tell".
-Jack Burton played by Kurt Russell in 'Big Trouble In Little China'
Dchivers: Thank you for
Dchivers: Thank you for these incredibly informative posts. So...should I make out my tuition check to BRAWM?