Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-21 19:22.
Would like to know of radiation monitor sites for the state of Washington.My meter reads .4 millirads today,double what it was a few days ago,but I need other monitors and an explanaton of what these radiation amounts will do to us.I pass on warnings to many others...Art
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 14:03.
Does anyone actually disagree that *internal* exposure is different
than *external*? I think that even the BRAWM team would agree that
the two exposure types are different. But, what we are talking about
here is the *risk* it poses. These types of "interviews" keep stating
the obvious. Yes, if you inhale or ingest radioactive particles, what-
ever remains in the body will continually interact with whatever tissue
is near by it. And that's definately different from an airline flight.
However, the inhaled or ingested particles are only a threat to the
tissue they are near. Which, in itself limits the risk. And is NOT
a sure thing that you will get cancer from that. It's an increased
risk to that tissue. Now, compare that to an airline flight. Where
your entire body is exposed to many times normal background radiation,
regardless of what background levels are in your area. As the BRAWM
team has said in their FAQ (I believe it was in the FAQ), some of
that radiation penetrates your body. How does that whole body risk
compare to particles that are only in a very small fraction of your
body (at the cell level)?
And, while some would like to dismiss normal background radiation,
radon, uranium and other isotopes are naturally occuring. And we
inhale, drink and eat those every day. So, when it's said that the
levels from Fukushima are "tiny" by comparison, it could very well
be true. We are NOT just inhaling/ingesting radiation from Fukushima.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 19:28.
I was looking for some info to quantify my statment about
us drinking radiation every day :-) I found the following
from the "California Environmental Protection Agency":
"The average amount of uranium in drinking water in the U.S. is 2 pCi/L. Of 59,812 community drinking water supplies in the U.S., 25 to 650 exceeded a uranium concentration of 20 pCi/L; 100 to 2,000 exceeded 10 pCi/L; and 2,500 to 5,000 exceeded 5 pCi/L (Cothern and Lappenbusch, 1983. Assuming a 0.9 p Ci/?g conversion factor, the number of community water systems predicted to have concentrations greater than 20 ?g/L is 790 (U.S. EPA, 2000)"
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 19:34.
And just for the record, the various isotopes of uranium have a half life
from 68.9 years to 4.5 billion years. So, I think we can safely say that
they are with you your entire life. Unless you are drinking from the
fountain of youth :-)
Submitted by Red Mercury (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-03 22:50.
Every isotope has unique chemical, biochemical and if unstable radiological properties. For instance some isotopes of Uranium tend to be eliminated pretty efficiently without measurable permanent effect when ingested in very small quantities. Inhalation is another matter. Experiencing a cocktail of radionuclides and larger molecules containing them is yet another. And of course everyone is different. My personal theory is that cellular life evolved systems, strategies and structure to efficiently avoid and or repair from the sources of radiation AND levels of radiation in the natural world. I guess we kiss that natural world thing goodbye for a FEW THOUSAND GENERATIONS now. What doesn't kill us outright may make us stronger or at least mutant. What fun.
Research for medical applications aside, the truth is that comparatively little real world, the nuke blew up type radio-biological research we have now was done in 'the early days' and was mostly of the accidental, often of a blunt force nature and is STILL often classified. Once they found out how potentially frightening (and world-changing) the byproducts of a reactor are the technology got the full monty in terms of obfuscation and PR.
So the answer to so much of this is a well-dressed best guess.
Submitted by Percy (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 18:17.
Very well put, and since the BRAWM Team agrees with your summary, I feel better about trying to explain this to friends. I haven't bought into the "internal emitters" paranoia because of the information provided here by the BRAWM Team, but I've still had trouble trying to articulate it to others. Considering the fact that particles will be likely be spread far and wide in our atmosphere, how realistic is it to try to avoid inhaling or ingesting them? I think people will do themselves a great disservice by avoiding fresh fruits and vegetables in favor of canned, frozen, or preserved foods. Fresh fruits and vegetables are full of the antioxidants proven to optimize your health.
--Angela
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-07-03 19:24.
There is no dilution factor for radioactive isotopes. The amount that creates 1000 cancers will create the same number of cancers no matter how large of a population is exposed. It will still create 1000 cancers in 10,000 people or 1 million.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 16:40.
Radiation from an xray doesn't stop at the skin (or we wouldn't get an xray picture). Radiation goes into the body and the energy is absorbed by the tissues of the body. The dose to the thyroid from dental x rays is around 10mrem. And that would be to the whole thyroid. I believe the calculations from the radioiodine exposure show total amounts to the thyroid as less than this. So if you or your children get routine dental x rays, you aren't adding much to that total from the iodine in the environment.
Submitted by Percy (not verified) on Thu, 2011-05-05 18:46.
Your average N95 face mask is not going to do a thing to prevent you from inhaling radioactive particles--they are not air tight. You would need a respirator. They are pretty uncomfortable to wear.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-03 11:15.
Thank you. It is obvious they are trying to educate the public and answer questions. I commend them for this. I wonder if the grad student will make his findings public? I hope so.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-03 16:54.
I like how Mr. Kaltofen says that the public has to be informed on a timely manner and then he gives no concrete info about when, where or how his data was obtained. I know he is just an individual researcher, but still...
Radiation monitor in Washington State
Would like to know of radiation monitor sites for the state of Washington.My meter reads .4 millirads today,double what it was a few days ago,but I need other monitors and an explanaton of what these radiation amounts will do to us.I pass on warnings to many others...Art
Is it raining?
Is it raining?
Scratch that, 0.4 millirads
Scratch that, 0.4 millirads is too high to be related to rain. You're dead, man. And your kids too.
Why do we keep going over this?
Does anyone actually disagree that *internal* exposure is different
than *external*? I think that even the BRAWM team would agree that
the two exposure types are different. But, what we are talking about
here is the *risk* it poses. These types of "interviews" keep stating
the obvious. Yes, if you inhale or ingest radioactive particles, what-
ever remains in the body will continually interact with whatever tissue
is near by it. And that's definately different from an airline flight.
However, the inhaled or ingested particles are only a threat to the
tissue they are near. Which, in itself limits the risk. And is NOT
a sure thing that you will get cancer from that. It's an increased
risk to that tissue. Now, compare that to an airline flight. Where
your entire body is exposed to many times normal background radiation,
regardless of what background levels are in your area. As the BRAWM
team has said in their FAQ (I believe it was in the FAQ), some of
that radiation penetrates your body. How does that whole body risk
compare to particles that are only in a very small fraction of your
body (at the cell level)?
And, while some would like to dismiss normal background radiation,
radon, uranium and other isotopes are naturally occuring. And we
inhale, drink and eat those every day. So, when it's said that the
levels from Fukushima are "tiny" by comparison, it could very well
be true. We are NOT just inhaling/ingesting radiation from Fukushima.
Uranium In Drinking Water
I was looking for some info to quantify my statment about
us drinking radiation every day :-) I found the following
from the "California Environmental Protection Agency":
"The average amount of uranium in drinking water in the U.S. is 2 pCi/L. Of 59,812 community drinking water supplies in the U.S., 25 to 650 exceeded a uranium concentration of 20 pCi/L; 100 to 2,000 exceeded 10 pCi/L; and 2,500 to 5,000 exceeded 5 pCi/L (Cothern and Lappenbusch, 1983. Assuming a 0.9 p Ci/?g conversion factor, the number of community water systems predicted to have concentrations greater than 20 ?g/L is 790 (U.S. EPA, 2000)"
http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/uranium801.pdf
Uranium Half Life
And just for the record, the various isotopes of uranium have a half life
from 68.9 years to 4.5 billion years. So, I think we can safely say that
they are with you your entire life. Unless you are drinking from the
fountain of youth :-)
toxicity
Every isotope has unique chemical, biochemical and if unstable radiological properties. For instance some isotopes of Uranium tend to be eliminated pretty efficiently without measurable permanent effect when ingested in very small quantities. Inhalation is another matter. Experiencing a cocktail of radionuclides and larger molecules containing them is yet another. And of course everyone is different. My personal theory is that cellular life evolved systems, strategies and structure to efficiently avoid and or repair from the sources of radiation AND levels of radiation in the natural world. I guess we kiss that natural world thing goodbye for a FEW THOUSAND GENERATIONS now. What doesn't kill us outright may make us stronger or at least mutant. What fun.
Research for medical applications aside, the truth is that comparatively little real world, the nuke blew up type radio-biological research we have now was done in 'the early days' and was mostly of the accidental, often of a blunt force nature and is STILL often classified. Once they found out how potentially frightening (and world-changing) the byproducts of a reactor are the technology got the full monty in terms of obfuscation and PR.
So the answer to so much of this is a well-dressed best guess.
thanks
Very well put, and since the BRAWM Team agrees with your summary, I feel better about trying to explain this to friends. I haven't bought into the "internal emitters" paranoia because of the information provided here by the BRAWM Team, but I've still had trouble trying to articulate it to others. Considering the fact that particles will be likely be spread far and wide in our atmosphere, how realistic is it to try to avoid inhaling or ingesting them? I think people will do themselves a great disservice by avoiding fresh fruits and vegetables in favor of canned, frozen, or preserved foods. Fresh fruits and vegetables are full of the antioxidants proven to optimize your health.
--Angela
As they used to say: "The
As they used to say:
"The solution to pollution is dilution"
No Dilution for radioisotopes
There is no dilution factor for radioactive isotopes. The amount that creates 1000 cancers will create the same number of cancers no matter how large of a population is exposed. It will still create 1000 cancers in 10,000 people or 1 million.
Good one :-)
Let's just hope we don't have to continue relying on dilution
to save our bacon.....
Radiation from an xray
Radiation from an xray doesn't stop at the skin (or we wouldn't get an xray picture). Radiation goes into the body and the energy is absorbed by the tissues of the body. The dose to the thyroid from dental x rays is around 10mrem. And that would be to the whole thyroid. I believe the calculations from the radioiodine exposure show total amounts to the thyroid as less than this. So if you or your children get routine dental x rays, you aren't adding much to that total from the iodine in the environment.
You have articulated this very well.
You have articulated this very well.
The FAQ you are referring to is probably "http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2044#dosecompare".
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Everyone should watch this video
_____________________
It discusses the radioactive dust we can be inhaling.
Face masks are beginning to look like a common sense idea due to the "dusty fallout" of radioactive particulates here in the U.S.
facemasks
Your average N95 face mask is not going to do a thing to prevent you from inhaling radioactive particles--they are not air tight. You would need a respirator. They are pretty uncomfortable to wear.
it may not prevent it
it may not prevent it totally but certainly diminish it.
Thank you. It is obvious
Thank you. It is obvious they are trying to educate the public and answer questions. I commend them for this. I wonder if the grad student will make his findings public? I hope so.
I like how Mr. Kaltofen says
I like how Mr. Kaltofen says that the public has to be informed on a timely manner and then he gives no concrete info about when, where or how his data was obtained. I know he is just an individual researcher, but still...
I feel someone from UCB
I feel someone from UCB should get an advanced copy of the raw data and check it for alpha and beta products.
If this researcher us correct, then heavy particle fallout made it across the US and there are reports of these elements reaching France.
BRAWM, given the poor gain from the Alpha spectoscopy testing, wouldn't it be prudent to try to secure some other research findings for corroboration?