The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
One example of why i want to know: When building codes for passive solar were considered, radon gas was one driver.
Is this discussion even an issue? "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Hell no.
Is it location dependent? (Duh.)
As you say. There are rocks with lots of radioactive isotopes and ones with few. In connection with that, radon (a radioactive inert gas escaping from bedrock) is produced differently in different locations, and collects up in cloed rooms if you don't ventilate. Cosmic radiation reaching you depends on altitude (hence the airplane thingy, but it also makes a difference on high mountains).
Does it change over time
Yes. Part of background radiation is cosmic rays, that changes thanks to the Sun kicking the Earth's magnetic field and such. Volcanoes spew material with relatively high radioactive content. So do coal-fired power plants. And nuclear dumps and mines.
On global average, human addition is dwarfed by the natural and its variation. It gets troublesome if it gets concentrated at some places. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Strange that the per person levels for Japan are much lower, with medical radiation so much higher (that i understand, as compared with say Cote d'Ivoire.) In fact, what factors were used upon what data foundation to get a worldwide per person dose? "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
The then current level, I mean. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
※Fallout : the residual radiation hazard from a nuclear experiment
rather than dropping bombs on peoples countries? one would thought that it would be one thing that people in Japan might remember Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Whoops, were did it go? "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Radiation | Nuclear Radiation | Ionizing Radiation | Health Effects
Less than 1% of exposure is due to the fallout from past testing of nuclear weapons or the generation of electricity in nuclear, as well as coal and geothermal, power plants.
The nuclear fuel cycle does not give rise to significant radiation exposure for members of the public.
Tell that to the Navaho children who died from cancers caused by uranium mining. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
I was so angry my fingers got the better of my (non-working) brain. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
The German map is pretty well centered on one mS/yr.
Since there is no safe level of radiation exposure (well, the universe just isn't a safe place, you know?--or rather, literally, radiation damage has no threshold.) this is one end of your risk yardstick. At the other end lies short exposures (within a few days) of 1000 mS (likely radiation sickness) or 6000 mS (LD50, even with medical treatment).
In the middle: At radiation levels below 10 mS/yr cancer rates tend to drop into the noise of cancers due to earth background, above that level they become statistically measurable. The Fates are kind.
WHO | Radon and cancer
Radon is the second most important cause of lung cancer in many countries. Radon is estimated to cause between 3% and 14% of all lung cancers, depending on the average radon level in a country. Radon is much more likely to cause lung cancer in people who smoke, and is the primary cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. ...Significant health effects have been seen in uranium miners who are exposed to high levels of radon. However, studies in Europe, North America and China have confirmed that lower concentrations of radon - such as those found in homes - also confer health risks and contribute substantially to the occurrence of lung cancers worldwide [1, 2, 3]. The risk of lung cancer increases by 16% per 100 Bq/m3 increase in radon concentration. The dose-response relation is linear - i.e. the risk of lung cancer increases proportionally with increasing radon exposure. Radon is much more likely to cause lung cancer in people who smoke.
...Significant health effects have been seen in uranium miners who are exposed to high levels of radon. However, studies in Europe, North America and China have confirmed that lower concentrations of radon - such as those found in homes - also confer health risks and contribute substantially to the occurrence of lung cancers worldwide [1, 2, 3].
The risk of lung cancer increases by 16% per 100 Bq/m3 increase in radon concentration. The dose-response relation is linear - i.e. the risk of lung cancer increases proportionally with increasing radon exposure. Radon is much more likely to cause lung cancer in people who smoke.
I was made aware of the radon danger as a freshman physics student. Our professor told about an especially bad cluster west of Budapest: a coal mining town, where (1) natural radon emissions from the ground are high due to minerals with high radionuclide concentration, (2) homes were built in the sixties without proper ventilation, (3) buring locally mined (high radionuclide concentration) coal produces slag with even higher radioactivity (the fire leaves behind and thus concentrates heavy metals) which legally up to 1960 and illegally until much later was used as building material, (4) the building material produces more radon gas as breakdown product (radon-222 is the alpha decay product of radium-226). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
On the longer run, BTW, the problem is not radon itself with its short half-life but its (not inert gas) breakdown products, which stick to dust particles (and cigarette smoke, hence the enhanced cancer rate in combination IIRC). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by leaking out, I mean from the ground.
my point is really that the concentration of radon should be roughly uniform inside and outside, because it is being provided and decayed at the same rate.
I didn't realise the connection to cigarettes.
And as far as the higher density goes, it does increase the ground-level partial pressure (and thus the concentration per cubic meter) in equilibrium. But the troposphere is not in equilibrium - there is rather significant convection.
Ading to JakeS: you do mean atomic weight in the end (radon mass per unit volume at a given air pressure depends on concentration). But it is actually true that radon can concentrate in 'poodles' due to stratification of still air (in a basement or mine). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
A victim, yesterday.
I'll leave the poodles for LondonAnalytics.
Its most stable isotope, 222Rn, has a half-life of 3.8 days.
On global average, human addition is dwarfed by the natural and its variation.
With the caveat that open-air nuke tests are dirty. Back in the bad old days before the 1963 test ban treaty, background from nuke tests hit 7 % of natural background (and climbing - meaning that if we'd kept up atmospheric nuke tests at the same rate it would have stabilised considerably above 7 % of natural background).
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 2 4 comments
by gmoke - Sep 27
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 17
by Oui - Oct 7
by Oui - Oct 66 comments
by Oui - Oct 54 comments
by Oui - Oct 4
by Oui - Oct 41 comment
by Oui - Oct 31 comment
by Oui - Oct 24 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 24 comments
by Oui - Oct 214 comments
by Oui - Oct 120 comments
by Oui - Oct 124 comments
by Oui - Sep 30
by Oui - Sep 303 comments
by Oui - Sep 2819 comments
by Oui - Sep 28
by Oui - Sep 276 comments
by Oui - Sep 271 comment
by Oui - Sep 263 comments
by Oui - Sep 266 comments