Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Danke DoDo, at least one of my questions is answered. The presentation shows anthropogenic fallout worldwide at 3.8%, based upon stats from 1992, (Adapted from UNSCEAR Report 1992,and Life environmental
radiation」Former Science and Technology Agency ( Japan), but of course who knows the accuracy of the stats.)

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." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 05:27:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That 0.11 mSv/year figure was the peak value in 1963. Says so the 2008 UNSCEAR report (page 4), which puts the global average residual contribution of atmospheric testing at 0.005 mSv/year, and that of dispersed Chernobyl fallout at 0.002 mSv/year (reduced from 0.04 mSv/year in 1986).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 05:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
which puts the global average residual contribution of atmospheric testing

The then current level, I mean.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 05:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
※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.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 11:34:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A case can be made that the only recorded dropping of nuclear bombs on other people's countries were, in fact, live-fire experiments more than they were acts of war.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 09:21:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And here's a different version, compiled by the World Nuclear Association:

Whoops, were did it go?

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

by Crazy Horse on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 11:08:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In the accompanying text, they have this:

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.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 11:30:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There you go again, expecting me to be able to read all this stuff. '-)

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 12:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
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

by ATinNM on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 01:14:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's from heavy metal poisoning, not radiation. But yeah, to say that the fuel cycle is safe after the fuckup in Fukishima is asinine.

Economics is politics by other means
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 01:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ack the correction.

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

by ATinNM on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 01:27:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series