Why is there no health expert on the Brawn team?
Fist, thank you for your hard work.
But if you are serious about the health effects of radiation you need to present a more rounded view than just repeating "low levels" and what the EPA has said before. Most of science of radiobiology is very controversial and if you are serious about your "experiment" and considering the university you belong to, you own it to the public to have another view point here in the forum. So why not find a health expert that can present this issue. Could UCSF have an expert you can borrow if UCB can't find one? I believe to really address the health issue you need to have someone commenting who disagrees with the EPA/FDA. In health issues it is always best to have a "second opinion". Also you are on the campus of free speech, please live up to that history and find a credible source as there are many other scientists and medical doctors who could provide an alternative view point, and I think that is what we are looking for here.
Again thanks for finding the radiation, you've done your job very well.
Tom Voorhees
Hi Tom, Our team is made up
Hi Tom,
Our team is made up mainly with expertise in making nuclear radiation measurements. We are consulting some of the most respected public health researchers in the world at Berkeley including Prof. Tom McKone, who has helped us ensure our methods and approaches are sound. We are trying not to place ourselves as health professionals but we are also trying to provide context the best we understand it. We continue to invite professionals to comment on this forum but to do so in a responsible way by trying to back up claims by peer-reviewed articles. These issues are too important to be left to purely opinion since bias will always creep in.
Please continue to keep us honest and if any of the BRAWM team provides claims without references, please call us on it.
Where can he be contacted?
Where can he be contacted?
Thank you for responding!
Thank you BRAWN team. I'm seeing what a huge responsibility you've undertaken, so thank you for your specific response.
Tom
Tom's question
Tom, just yesterday an MD offered her opinion about animals absorbing radiation, and she was back-bitten and shot down by a pro-nuke poster; she ended up leaving in disgust (see current thread:Is anyone avoiding beef, chicken and eggs? other than vegans, vegatarians etc). So there is your reason why we don't have an independent minded biologist on board.
ucb needs
they need an airplane too to collect data!anyone.
This was just done by one of
This was just done by one of our colleagues flying to and from Japan with a handheld:
Berkeley: 0.11 microSeiverts/hr
Tokyo: 0.12, microSeiverts/hr
Sendai: 0.12 microSeiverts/hr
60 km west of the NPP at Fukushima: 0.22 microSeiverts/hr
Plane at altitude: 2.75 microcSeiverts/hr.
What does this tell us
What does this tell us dchivers? Need average Joe terms. Thx.
Real exposure calculator
So since radiation is all the same and flying seems to be the biggest risk not nuclear meltdowns phew.use this medical calculator to examine your exposure risks it's super easy to use.
http://www.xrayrisk.com/calculator/calculator.php
Thank you and (dumb?) question
If 0.11 microSeiverts/hr was measured in the air for one entire day (24 hours), does that mean someone receives 0.11 microSeiverts/hr multiplied by 24 for that day ?
I'm trying to understand accumulation.
Looks like pilots avg 2.2Msv
Looks like pilots avg 2.2Msv year.On a seven hour plane ride u get a .02msv exposure.
Multiple chart
Frequently used SI multiples are the millisievert (1 mSv = 0.001 Sv) and microsievert (1 ?Sv = 0.000001 Sv).
An older unit for the equivalent dose, is the rem,[3] still often used in the United States. One sievert is equal to 100 rem:
1 rem = 0.01 Sv = 10 mSv
1 mrem = 0.01 mSv = 10 ?Sv
1 Sv = 100 rem
1 mSv = 100 mrem = 0.1 rem
1 ?Sv = 0.1 mrem
The conventional units for its time derivative is mSv/h.