3 ms·

Okay dude. Go live in Fukushima for a year and tell me how much the media overreacted when your hair starts falling out. Obviously fossil fuels are not regulat

• kikoreis 7y ago
  While I have not been there myself the consensus is that the effective radiation dose in the area was low. Wikipedia has 5 citations backing this statement: Risks from ionizing radiation Although people in the incident's worst affected areas have a slightly higher risk of developing certain cancers such as leukemia, solid cancers, thyroid cancer, and breast cancer, very few cancers would be expected as a result of accumulated radiation exposures.
• TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Sure, why not? According to data from Wikipedia and e.g. this[0] compared to the handy reference chart[1], I should expect 2-3 times the background radiation, and at worst (at ~110 mSv/year), I'm barely hitting the lowest rate linked to increased cancer risk. Assuming I avoid the hottest spots, I should be entirely fine. (That does not take into account the possibility of suffering extra radiation damage and chemical poisoning from ingesting radioactive elements, but this becomes manageable through thoroughly washing the living area and possibly not growing any food on contaminated soil.) -- [0] - http://www.marklynas.org/2011/08/how-dangerous-is-the-fukushima-exclusion-zone/ http://www.marklynas.org/2011/08/how-dangerous-is-the-fukush..., 2011 [1] - https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/
• gilbetron 7y ago
  With all seriousness, if someone footed the bill, I'd happily do it to disprove the hysteria. This coming from a guy that once swallowed a pill of radioactive iodine :)