How harmful is nuclear radiation? It depends on the dose received.

  • Thread starter Thread starter kowalskil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear Radiation
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
36 replies · 9K views
Ironically, there was one Senator who actually was quoted as having said that THAT method was unreliable because the rate of cancer went up after 1950. He had no idea what caused the rate to go up. Hummmmm?

Brings to mind the California state legislator who refused to approve an appropriations bill for new earthquake schools and earthquake upgrades throughout the state because throughout California state history there was never an earthquake during school hours.

To think that people actually vote for people like that. And some even thing that they have to be smart if they were elected.

Perhaps the rates of cancer went up because of the advancement of medical science allowed them to diagnose more cases properly? Perhaps it was the longer lifespan?

As for the legislator, that guy is a moron.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Joe Neubarth said:
People die from accidents like this. They die in many ways. If the accident did not happen they would not be dead.

Okay. You're correct. But the title of this thread is "How harmful is radiation" and not "How harmful are the overall medical and psychological effects of a Fukushima class nuclear accident".
You may open a new thread... but as far as I can read, this thread is ONLY about radiation problems. Period.
 
Joe Neubarth said:
You annoy the **** out of people with comments like that. If they die from stress related to radiation they are still dead. If there was no radiation release they would not be dead. Period!

Will you people please make a new thread of your own.

This thread is about direct radiation dosage and nothing to do with deaths linked to the event.

Mentors either cleanup this non-sense, move it elsewhere or lock the thread.
 
this thread is OP posting incorrect data: 16 times under estimate of dose rate outside the zone, almost 2 times off 'typical mammography dose' , etc. see my earlier post here. No point even arguing anything when the numbers are so off.
 
Dmytry said:
this thread is OP posting incorrect data: 16 times under estimate of dose rate outside the zone, almost 2 times off 'typical mammography dose' , etc. see my earlier post here. No point even arguing anything when the numbers are so off.

Then correct him but don't go overboard with offtopic stuff such as psychological health impact of evacuation measures. Is that so hard to understand...?

Just because the OP made a mistake doesn't allow you going offtopic.
 
Dmytry said:
this thread is OP posting incorrect data: 16 times under estimate of dose rate outside the zone, almost 2 times off 'typical mammography dose' , etc. see my earlier post here. No point even arguing anything when the numbers are so off.

Dear Dmytry,

1) I agree on the "not worth arguing." No one expects radiation to be uniformly 0.25 mr/hr. In some places it can be much higher and in other it can be much lower. It depends on the time, rain, wind, etc.

2) Do you agree that quoted numbers--for the expected biological effects--are not significantly different from what is "well know"? Do you agree that such numbers can be very useful?

Have a good day.
 
I'm closing the thread pending moderation. :rolleyes: