Question for BRAWM, please

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2011-05-06 15:12

The accumulated fallout for Cesium in Vancouver is 54 bq/m3 according to EURAD. This is 4 times higher than LA. At this level do you see a risk or is this still to small?

‹ How can you be sure we are only getting the results of an xray? Thoughts on radioactive bombardment. ›

Yes, sorry I meant 54 bq/m2.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-06 16:04.

Yes, sorry I meant 54 bq/m2. Thanks for the correction.

Looks like 6.7 combined to

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-06 16:12.

Looks like 6.7 combined to me.

I emailed EURAD as I could

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-06 16:14.

I emailed EURAD as I could not read the figures - this was my response:

Dear Rebecca,

Prof. Ebel forwarded your e-mail to me for a response:
I agree, the numbers on the Figures for Vancouver are hard to read, because they
just overlay with the coastline: the number for dry deposition is 1.7 Bq/m² and
for wet deposition is 54 Bq/m². I have to state again, that these numbers are far
away from any risk to health.

best regards
Hermann

I stand corrected.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-06 16:16.

I stand corrected.

Accumulated fallout is not

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-06 15:59.

Accumulated fallout is not measure in cubic meters. You're reading it wrong.

anybody know the fallout for

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-05-06 15:25.

anybody know the fallout for Florida?