Is it true the fallout at Chernoybl over Europe was measured in KILO Bqs?

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2011-04-19 13:30

People here have cited info on low-level radiation being harmful from data from Chernobyl. Though a few days ago someone showed me a map of the fallout from Chernobyl over Europe(I forgot the web address) and it seemed that much of the fallout was measurable in kBqs, which are at least a thousand times higher than what BRAWN or any other groups are measuring in the US. This contaminated Germany, France, Netherlands, UK, etc, and even still now sheep in the U.K are measured for radioactivity before slaughtered and sold as meat.

And yet not even a half-life of Cs-137 has passed since then and Europe boasts a very healthy population.

‹ Fallout zone fuku levels are in line with those found after a nuclear bomb test, Potatoes may be more dangerous than other vegetables. (May 29th) ›

"very healthy population"?...

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-31 06:50.

er, well, cancer incidence rates in much of europe are high and increasing year by year. it seems odd that anyone would just assert that we have a very healthy population.

Kilo Bqs In Europe Seems To Have Been The Case

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 22:03.

You can look up the European country of your choice in the following link:

http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad7b.html

For example, Paris had a ground reading of 1,537 Bq/m2

Thanks. I think this needs

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-04-22 23:14.

Thanks.

I think this needs to be taken into consideration when comparing Chernobyl to Fukushima, in terms of fallout coming over long distances.

Maybe the Ceseium is good

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-19 17:03.

Maybe the Ceseium is good for them.

I know this is sarcasm, but

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 00:23.

I know this is sarcasm, but there are some ideas to suggest that radiocesium isn't as carcinogenic as we might think.

The reason for this is two-fold:

* Cesium is an analog to Potassium in the body. If you are low on Potassium and your body is presented with Cesium, it will uptake. But, animal life that depends on Potassium already makes accomodations for the fact that a small percentage of Potassium is naturally radioactive K-40. Some speculate that the body's repair mechanisms are well equipped to deal with radiation from where Potassium is an important nutrient, and where Cesium might uptake.

* Cesium tends to accumulate in muscles. Because of this it tends to be excreted from the body quickly, and muscle isn't a typically wellknown location for cancer in the body.

There are some studies to show radiocesium gets into the brain, but even longterm European studies are inconclusive to the effects of radiocesium on cancer rates.

Where are these

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 02:39.

Where are these studies?

Also according to Wikipedia, Cs-137 has a biological half-life of 70 days.

70 days is quick compared to

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 09:12.

70 days is quick compared to strontium.

Here are two studies by the

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 09:10.

Here are two studies by the NIH on radiocesium in the heart and brain, and the most cited link on Cesium-cancer links that found 36-56 extra cancers per 100,000 in Sweeden. However, the second report is not conclusive as it did not study all potential cancer causes.

* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1841443

* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15547062

According to the davistown

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-27 03:20.

According to the davistown museum site, there were only a few extra cancers in young children and the elderly in the U.S six years after Chernobyl dumped levels of radiation 5-20 times higher than what is being detected now.