This simulation was applied to caesium-137, used as a tracer in the radioactive plume during this
period. From the first day on (12 March) this simulation has been continuously carried out every
other hour and the results of this simulation are given in becquerels of caesium-137 per cubic metre
of air (Bq/m3). In addition the results are compared to the values measured in the vicinity of the
Chernobyl plant, just after the accident that occurred on 26 April 1986. The values exceeded
100,000 Bq/m and they were around 100 to 1000 Bq/m3 in countries seriously affected by the
radioactive plume (Ukraine and Belarus) in France, the values measured in the east were around 1
to 10 Bq/m3 (on 1 May 1986). A very low level of radioactive caesium-137 still remains in the air,
around 0.000001 Bq/m3.

Starvid, given the professional debates over the effects of low-level radiation, and the strong possibility that there remains much to learn, all in a climate of hiding data historically, it would be less arrogant of your position if you wouldn't deride people who may have differing views than you on the subject. I found your "run for the hills" comment full of hubris, given the circumstance, or perhaps damn insensitive.

Regarding the 0.000001 Bq/m3 still flying around, yes of course it's miniscule, but it's completely spread out around the entire globe, to a layer how high? Every single cubic meter, everywhere.

One thing is certain, it may take another 50 years before there's a real understanding of biological effects of radiation. did one ever consider that there are different effects from naturally occurring background than from what's cumulatively produced in a nuclear disaster. Could the disaster effects possibly differ from the carefully controlled medical versions?

Aside: it's the hubris that really gets me from so many participants in the nuclear debate. I really get irked when people cite that the technology has evolved so, that accidents which happen to archaic technology would never happen with the new technology.

Given that the exact same words were used when those plants were built.

You can criticize beliefs based upon false science, but you can't criticize fear of the unknown, especially when the history of the entire industry is one of deception.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin