Question on Background Radiation | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Question on Background Radiation (none / 1)

Here is a diagram prepared by Japanese authorities. It clearly tries to suggest that nuclear is not dangerous and has stupid cartoons and even more stupid comparisons of daily and annual radiation exposures, but it can still give you an idea of the scale for various other sources.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Mar 30th, 2011 at 07:20:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question on Background Radiation (none / 0)

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." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 05:27:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question on Background Radiation (4.00 / 2)

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 ]

Re: Question on Background Radiation (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Question on Background Radiation (none / 0)

※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 ]

Re: Question on Background Radiation (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Question on Background Radiation (none / 0)

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." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 11:08:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question on Background Radiation (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Question on Background Radiation (none / 0)

There you go again, expecting me to be able to read all this stuff. '-)

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

by Crazy Horse on Fri Apr 1st, 2011 at 12:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Liars (4.00 / 3)

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 ]

Re: Liars (4.00 / 2)

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 ]

Re: Liars (none / 0)

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 ]

Question on Background Radiation | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Ireland 13 South Africa 8

UNGA: West Censors the South and East

EU VDL State of the Union -- Managing Decay

Rugby World Cup 2023 Week 1 review

Reactionary Visions and eNtiTiES

Sovereignty 2040

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - September 2023

Recent Diaries

Ireland 13 South Africa 8

UNGA: West Censors the South and East

A Tale by Benjamin Franklin

Fail in Democracy Return to Authoritarianism

Yemen From Ceasefire to Peace Talks?

Huge Cost Proxy War of Choice

EU VDL State of the Union -- Managing Decay

Reactionary Visions and eNtiTiES

Top Military War Planning Under Joe Biden - Ukraine

Rugby World Cup 2023 Week 1 review

Joe's Fuck the EU -- Showdown

Modi G20 One Earth, One Family, One Future

Conflict In Syria's Deir Ezzor Province

Sovereignty 2040

Some September Food/Ag Events

September 2023

The Leading International Pariah State

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - September 2023

BREAKING: The Free State of Gabon

Ukraine Halting China's BRI Project to EU

Occasional Series