D. Chivers, quick question
D. Chivers or Team,
Do you know offhand if the radionuclides from the fallout can be directly absorbed into your skin from being out in the rain? My kids got stuck in the rain and took a shower a couple of hours later. I'm trying to get a sense if skin gets wet, do particles absorb into the skin immediately?
Thanks for providing such a great service to the public.
http://books.google.com/books
http://books.google.com/books?id=BkArAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=radionuc...
sorry cant paste this report so u have to go there its the data u requested...
D. Chivers and BRAWM
Is there a reason Team BRAWM chose not to add its credibility here?
Thanks so much for taking
Thanks so much for taking the time to do this...
Inhalation
Good find. Thank you.
It says Inhalation is the most "important route of entry."
Maybe it would be good to start wearing face masks when going outside.
I don't think it could hurt, especially if you're mowing the lawn, etc., where stuff can really kick up.
This is an absolutely excellent source of info.
If you scroll down to read the sections on radioactive strontium, cesium and iodine, you will begin to see a lot more of the big picture. One interesting finding they made as that it takes a week or two before the radiocesium gets metabolized by cows and then gets into their milk.
It also puts the annual background radiation at about 100 mrems (we now are getting something like 3-4 times that, since now the "background" includes all the radionuclides released since the beginning of the nuclear age and power plant emissions). Great. just Great!
Anyway, a very valuable find, this source and it has a lot of crazy info like how different radionuclides gets processed differently by the body and how kids are much more susceptible to certain radionuclides (up to age 15) because their bones are growing and they absorb the radionuclides into their bones where they STAY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES!
Thanks for this cite. It is a solid analysis by the National Academy of science from more than 50 years ago on health effects and biological impact of man made nuclear contaminants on fragile living beings.
This Paragraph From The Document Caught My Attention...
This Paragraph From The Document Caught My Attention...
Circa 1956...
“Recent accomplishments in nuclear physics and engineering have resulted in the production of large quantities of ‘unnatural’ radionuclides and have increased the radioactivity of the biosphere. It is not possible to eliminate all risk, since radioactive contamination is already present. Moreover, it is neither practicable nor sensible to try to eliminate all further sources of risk. Clearly, the hazards should be evaluated in terms of the scientific, social, and economic gains to be achieved. In preparing the 1956 report, we recognized this fact fully and considered the criteria that must be employed in evaluating small but widespread risks.”
It’s interesting that the stated background "unnatural" radionuclides were so much less back then, as Bill pointed out. Reading the sentence which said, "Clearly, the hazards should be evaluated in terms of the scientific, social, and economic gains to be achieved" was telling, I guess "economic gains to be achieved" won the day.
Can you blame people for
Can you blame people for loving money even if that love reigns supreme?
data on skin absorbtion
page 7.c
Report of the Subcommittee on Internal Emitters By National Res
page 13.d care to comment DR. chivers