3 ms·
The numbers in your first paragraph are off by a factor of 1,000. The signs are in microsieverts per hour, not millisieverts. Only the author's peak reading of
by ggreer 11y ago
The numbers in your first paragraph are off by a factor of 1,000. The signs are in microsieverts per hour, not millisieverts. Only the author's peak reading of 6.8µSv/h would have exceeded the maximum for radiation workers, and only if he stood in that spot for a whole year. Even then, it would still be below the lowest dosage that is clearly linked to increased cancer risk (100mSv/year).
- e12e 11y agoYou're right of course. I didn't realize that was a greek letter on the sign in the photo. Still, ~43[1] mSv/year is pretty close to the "safe" limit (and it makes sense to set a safety limit well below what can be documented as being harmful) -- and that's just from irradiation. Who knows the effect of breathing in pollen, never mind eating local produce, over a period of ~50 years? Are there different safety levels for children/infants? If the 50mSv/year is set for workers, I assume they're for adults? [1] I accidentally dropped a significant digit when rounding off too. It comes to ~42924.0, not ~49...