| Blogs > ETisME |
|
renoB
United States170 Posts
On January 16 2014 15:12 lichter wrote: This chart is also pretty good at showing how ridiculous most of our 'radiation' concerns are + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/radiation.png) That chart is amazing. I can confirm, just having gone to Japan, that Godzilla is not running rampant through fukushima. ..but there was snow monsters in zao... | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
I have seen spectrometer analysis of such a sample, not only a geiger reading. The video with only the geiger reading was what was making me fearful. The video that includes spectrometer analysis of a different sample explains that there are potentially very low (trace) levels of Cs137 present in Virginia. This is not to say Fukushima is not a disaster, but that its effects, both in California and Virginia, are currently much smaller than many youtube commenters and video publishers claim. According to the new source providing the spectrometer analysis, anyway. I just wanted to share this information I have found with anyone who might be reading and becoming scared by watching too many youtube videos. It has certainly made me more serious in developing a critical analysis of information purporting to be serious. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On January 16 2014 20:16 BoggieMan wrote: The radiation from Chernobyl reached Finland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Norway, Ukraine etc... Yeah, Chernobyl was a far more global disaster than fukushima. The fact that it spills into the ocean is not even close to a big of a deal as people make it seem. Yes, it might be scientifically possible to detect changes in radiation outside of Japan, but we are talking levels so low that there's probably a bigger change in radiation between your house and the outside of your house. The vast majority of the waste falls to the bottom of the ocean just outside the leakage, where it's actually harmful. Chernobyl on the other hand threw massive amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere where the weather spread it over a huge part of central/eastern europe. In fact, the Chernobyl disaster was detected in Sweden first (unusual readings at a swedish nuclear powerplant), which is what uncovered the disaster because Sovjet did not let anyone know about the accident until Sweden harassed them about the heightened radiation levels. | ||
|
Zavior
Finland753 Posts
| ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On January 16 2014 15:12 lichter wrote: This chart is also pretty good at showing how ridiculous most of our 'radiation' concerns are This chart is extremely misleading. It's using random examples which are absolutely incomparable. Why do they compare one year of normal exposure to 2 weeks in the Fukushima exclusion zone? Why does the normal exposure figure include all radiation sources including food, travel and medical examinations while the Fukushima figure only accounts for radiation in the environment? Is the mammogram figure right next to the "2 weeks at Fukushima exclusion zone" figure supposed to tell me that staying at the contaminated environment is just as safe or as dangerous as this medical exam? Is the reader supposed to know that the benefit of mammograms does not outweigh the risks in women under 40? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammography) Are all the medical scans mentioned in the chart even comparable to living in a contaminated area, considering that most people are scanned rarely (not at all), while living in an irradiated zone means constant exposure? Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of any explanation and comparison of the different dangers associated with the different radioactive elements released in Fukushima. For example, you can be fine living next to a relatively large quantity of Caesium-137 as long as you keep a distance of say 10m all the time. You'll barely be able to measure any radiation from it unless you place it right on top of your Geiger counter. However, already miniscule amounts of Caesium-137 in your body can lead to cancer. Such exposure can occur e.g. from food. Since it has been released in Fukushima, there is a very valid concern that contaminated food might pose a serious health risk to the population. Pretty much the same applies Strontium-90. Also, the chart fails to demonstrate what kind of effect even a small increase in health risk has on a large population. Let's say, there is an incidence of cancer related to increased radiation of 0.5%. For a single person, the danger is barely increased. In a population of 1 million however, there would be 5000 cases of cancer due to this radiation. Overall, this chart is completely useless to anyone who has no previous knowledge about radiation. Additionally, it is very misleading for assessing the dangers of the radiation released in Fukushima since it completely omits the danger from short-to-medium-lifetime fission products, which are the most accute health concern | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 18 2014 02:40 ggrrg wrote: This chart is extremely misleading. It's using random examples which are absolutely incomparable. Why do they compare one year of normal exposure to 2 weeks in the Fukushima exclusion zone? Why does the normal exposure figure include all radiation sources including food, travel and medical examinations while the Fukushima figure only accounts for radiation in the environment? Is the mammogram figure right next to the "2 weeks at Fukushima exclusion zone" figure supposed to tell me that staying at the contaminated environment is just as safe or as dangerous as this medical exam? Is the reader supposed to know that the benefit of mammograms does not outweigh the risks in women under 40? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammography) Are all the medical scans mentioned in the chart even comparable to living in a contaminated area, considering that most people are scanned rarely (not at all), while living in an irradiated zone means constant exposure? Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of any explanation and comparison of the different dangers associated with the different radioactive elements released in Fukushima. For example, you can be fine living next to a relatively large quantity of Caesium-137 as long as you keep a distance of say 10m all the time. You'll barely be able to measure any radiation from it unless you place it right on top of your Geiger counter. However, already miniscule amounts of Caesium-137 in your body can lead to cancer. Such exposure can occur e.g. from food. Since it has been released in Fukushima, there is a very valid concern that contaminated food might pose a serious health risk to the population. Pretty much the same applies Strontium-90. Also, the chart fails to demonstrate what kind of effect even a small increase in health risk has on a large population. Let's say, there is an incidence of cancer related to increased radiation of 0.5%. For a single person, the danger is barely increased. In a population of 1 million however, there would be 5000 cases of cancer due to this radiation. Overall, this chart is completely useless to anyone who has no previous knowledge about radiation. Additionally, it is very misleading for assessing the dangers of the radiation released in Fukushima since it completely omits the danger from short-to-medium-lifetime fission products, which are the most accute health concern There's a disclaimer at the bottom that you should take the time to read. It's for reference and gives an idea of scale. | ||
|
ETisME
12741 Posts
She is an anti nuclear activist but also is a runner for for Nobel prize So she isn't some random talker | ||
|
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
Is there an official japanese stat for deformed births we could compare to other nations'? | ||
|
Cele
Germany4016 Posts
On January 16 2014 15:44 GeckoXp wrote: what User was warned for this post: please use more than one word to make a point I used to use memes, but then I took an arrow in the knee User was temp banned for this post. lulz, that ban is strange. | ||
| ||
|
|
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
