3 ms·

That is not what the XKCD chart seems to imply. It implies that in some spots the daily radiation was a twentieth of a level linked to increased cancer risk. So

by Tichy 16y ago

That is not what the XKCD chart seems to imply. It implies that in some spots the daily radiation was a twentieth of a level linked to increased cancer risk. So presumably after 20 days you would have reached a level that increased your cancer risk - if you live there, it seems likely that you'll be there 20 days. Yes, maybe the higher levels did not persist in one spot for for twenty days (we don't know). I don't find that very comforting, it still seems like a russian roulette style of living (there may be 20 days of higher exposure or not - you can not know unless you start carrying a radiation meter at all times). Btw according to the chart, a cross country flight is only a 150th fraction of the radiation at those spots 50km from Fukushima. Few people fly that often.

tptacek 16y ago
A single cross-country flight is a 40usv exposure; flight attendants make the equivalent of 20 of those flights on average every month. An hour maximally exposed to the highest recorded level of outdoor radiation 50km away from the plant is roughly equivalent to two round trips between LA and New York. If you want to call this "Russian Roulette", that's fine, as long as you're also never going to get into a car, never going to eat red meat, and never going to ride a bike down a city street. All three of those things are demonstrably more dangerous than standing at the gates of the Fukushima plant. I want to point out that we are talking about you misunderstanding risks at two different points: (1) You appear to perceive a spot outdoor measurement of 170usv as a significant amount of radiological exposure, when it is in fact a very minor exposure, equivalent to an amount of air travel common in western culture --- and this, despite a concomitant spent fuel pond fire at a nuclear reactor. (2) You appear to perceive a cumulative 100msv (note unit) exposure as a significant carcinogenic risk, when it is in fact the lowest level of exposure you can endure at which there is any measurable impact on cancer; the behaviors (such as eating red meat) that I am hammering you with produce what appear to be much higher levels of carcinogenesis.
- Tichy 16y ago
  "A single cross-country flight is a 40usv exposure; ... An hour maximally exposed to the highest recorded level of outdoor radiation 50km away from the plant is roughly equivalent to two round trips between LA and New York." Well that is not what the XKCD chart says. I was merely counting blocks (not converting units). According to XKCD, one flight is two green blocks. So two round trips LA/NY would be 8 green blocks. According to XKCD the 50km radiation was 180 green blocks, or 22 times the round trip (in a shorter amount of time). Blame XKCD if his chart is wrong, not me. Also XKCD says "CLEARLY linked to increased risk in cancer". Again maybe blame XKCD if his chart is misleading. If Fukushima is so harmless, why did they evacuate a 50km radius? Because of the media?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Because all else being equal if you can avoid an exposure of 10's of msv, you do, just like if you are getting over a bad cold you avoid driving if you can because you might get lightheaded and run off the road, but you almost certainly won't. And because in the very epicenter of a crisis, you can't predict exactly what's going to happen next and so you act conservatively. The funny thing about your logic is, it's how the people in charge of Chernobyl thought too. They couldn't simply work out the likely exposures and take action accordingly --- at least, not at first. So they spent zillions of dollars on cleanup and mitigation but didn't tell farmers not to pass unchecked milk on to children, who subsequently contracted thyroid cancer because of the uptake of radioactive iodine. You are illustrating the point. "If they evacuate", you think, "there must be some gigantic risk they aren't telling us about".
    - Tichy 16y ago
      Oh, now I get it - radiation does not kill people. Anti nuclear power people kill people. Your example shows one aspect of why people dislike nuclear power: it's easy to see how to avoid getting into a car accident, but apparently less easy to see how to react in case of a nuclear disaster. Normal people wouldn't know that they should check the milk. Also I don't want to live in a world where I have to check everything for radiation before I consume it. As for your other question: so now I am a troll, just because I disagree with you? Or because the comments are indented more than x levels? And yes, I have several issues with this discussion. Not the least I dislike emotional argumentation, and I think in this case it is the pro nuclear power people who are actually emotional: they feel that the other side is emotional, and react emotionally to that. I also dislike mindless herds "oh it is XKCD, so it must be cool. I want to be on the side of XKCD" (not that I accuse you of this, but if you remember, I merely took issue with the XKCD chart). What I get from HN is that nuclear power is also a thing for elitist people, who look down on the stupid people who can't understand physics well enough.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        I hope you're not a troll. But asking things like "so why don't we evacuate a 50km radius around cigarettes" is trollish. And you should read more. This stuff isn't that complicated. Watch the video at the top of the thread (you clearly haven't, or you wouldn't be talking about plutonium exposure in Japan).

by Tichy 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

A single cross-country flight is a 40usv exposure; flight attendants make the equivalent of 20 of those flights on average every month. An hour maximally exposed to the highest recorded level of outdoor radiation 50km away from the plant is roughly equivalent to two round trips between LA and New York. If you want to call this "Russian Roulette", that's fine, as long as you're also never going to get into a car, never going to eat red meat, and never going to ride a bike down a city street. All three of those things are demonstrably more dangerous than standing at the gates of the Fukushima plant. I want to point out that we are talking about you misunderstanding risks at two different points: (1) You appear to perceive a spot outdoor measurement of 170usv as a significant amount of radiological exposure, when it is in fact a very minor exposure, equivalent to an amount of air travel common in western culture --- and this, despite a concomitant spent fuel pond fire at a nuclear reactor. (2) You appear to perceive a cumulative 100msv (note unit) exposure as a significant carcinogenic risk, when it is in fact the lowest level of exposure you can endure at which there is any measurable impact on cancer; the behaviors (such as eating red meat) that I am hammering you with produce what appear to be much higher levels of carcinogenesis.

Tichy 16y ago
"A single cross-country flight is a 40usv exposure; ... An hour maximally exposed to the highest recorded level of outdoor radiation 50km away from the plant is roughly equivalent to two round trips between LA and New York." Well that is not what the XKCD chart says. I was merely counting blocks (not converting units). According to XKCD, one flight is two green blocks. So two round trips LA/NY would be 8 green blocks. According to XKCD the 50km radiation was 180 green blocks, or 22 times the round trip (in a shorter amount of time). Blame XKCD if his chart is wrong, not me. Also XKCD says "CLEARLY linked to increased risk in cancer". Again maybe blame XKCD if his chart is misleading. If Fukushima is so harmless, why did they evacuate a 50km radius? Because of the media?
- tptacek 16y ago
  Because all else being equal if you can avoid an exposure of 10's of msv, you do, just like if you are getting over a bad cold you avoid driving if you can because you might get lightheaded and run off the road, but you almost certainly won't. And because in the very epicenter of a crisis, you can't predict exactly what's going to happen next and so you act conservatively. The funny thing about your logic is, it's how the people in charge of Chernobyl thought too. They couldn't simply work out the likely exposures and take action accordingly --- at least, not at first. So they spent zillions of dollars on cleanup and mitigation but didn't tell farmers not to pass unchecked milk on to children, who subsequently contracted thyroid cancer because of the uptake of radioactive iodine. You are illustrating the point. "If they evacuate", you think, "there must be some gigantic risk they aren't telling us about".
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Oh, now I get it - radiation does not kill people. Anti nuclear power people kill people. Your example shows one aspect of why people dislike nuclear power: it's easy to see how to avoid getting into a car accident, but apparently less easy to see how to react in case of a nuclear disaster. Normal people wouldn't know that they should check the milk. Also I don't want to live in a world where I have to check everything for radiation before I consume it. As for your other question: so now I am a troll, just because I disagree with you? Or because the comments are indented more than x levels? And yes, I have several issues with this discussion. Not the least I dislike emotional argumentation, and I think in this case it is the pro nuclear power people who are actually emotional: they feel that the other side is emotional, and react emotionally to that. I also dislike mindless herds "oh it is XKCD, so it must be cool. I want to be on the side of XKCD" (not that I accuse you of this, but if you remember, I merely took issue with the XKCD chart). What I get from HN is that nuclear power is also a thing for elitist people, who look down on the stupid people who can't understand physics well enough.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I hope you're not a troll. But asking things like "so why don't we evacuate a 50km radius around cigarettes" is trollish. And you should read more. This stuff isn't that complicated. Watch the video at the top of the thread (you clearly haven't, or you wouldn't be talking about plutonium exposure in Japan).