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

  • Thread starter Thread starter kowalskil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear Radiation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the harmfulness of nuclear radiation, particularly in the context of the Fukushima disaster. Participants explore the relationship between radiation dose and its effects on health, while also addressing the broader implications of radiation exposure on communities and the environment. The conversation includes quantitative assessments of radiation doses and their potential health impacts, as well as qualitative concerns regarding the aftermath of the Fukushima incident.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants emphasize that the harmfulness of nuclear radiation is dose-dependent, citing specific dose levels and their associated risks, such as the potential for death at doses of 2 Sv or higher.
  • Others challenge the assertion that no deaths due to radiation have been reported in Japan, highlighting the significant social and psychological impacts on evacuees and questioning the adequacy of dosimeter availability for workers.
  • A participant points out that the impact of radiation should be considered in the context of the direct damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami, suggesting that the latter had a more immediate effect on the population.
  • Concerns are raised about the accuracy of the original post's data, with some participants providing alternative sources and calculations regarding radiation levels and their implications.
  • There is a call for a balanced discussion that avoids extreme pro- or anti-nuclear rhetoric, with a focus on technical and objective analysis of the situation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement on the interpretation of radiation's harmfulness, the adequacy of safety measures, and the broader consequences of the Fukushima disaster. There is no consensus on the extent of harm caused by radiation or the adequacy of responses to the disaster.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about radiation doses and their effects are contested, with participants providing differing data and interpretations. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about the impact of radiation on health and the environment, as well as the social implications for affected communities.

  • #31
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.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
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.
 
  • #33
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.
 
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
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.
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
I'm closing the thread pending moderation. :rolleyes:
 

Similar threads

Graduate Larger X-ray dose in traditional X-ray of head vs. Head CT?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Is Your Friend's Radiation Exposure in Guarapari Safe Compared to UK Standards?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
How Do Radiation Weighting Factors Affect Equivalent Dose Calculations?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Chernobyl How did this worker approach this fuel mass at Chernobyl?
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
343K
How Close Did Windscale Come to a Major Nuclear Disaster?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Death toll from radiation exposure wrt. Chernobyl?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Graduate Radiation-Monitoring Reveals Interesting Data
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Graduate What is the Difference Between Becquerel and Sievert in Measuring Radioactivity?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
High School Few questions about radioactivity/radiation
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Why can’t decay heat be harnessed to safely shutdown a nuclear reactor?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
10K