4 ms·

Have you seen the actual numbers of this, and seen them put into perspective? I'd strongly recommend looking at http://xkcd.org/radiation/ http://xkcd.org/radi

by daeken 16y ago

Have you seen the actual numbers of this, and seen them put into perspective? I'd strongly recommend looking at http://xkcd.org/radiation/ http://xkcd.org/radiation/ -- he puts the data into an easy to relate to format.

waterlesscloud 16y ago
The biggest problem with that chart is that it mixes different time scales, which it only indicates in the text, not in the visual comparisons. Take one of the ones that measures an hour's exposure and multiply it by 24. Or a day and multiply it by 365. Suddenly the visual comparisons look much, much different.
- daeken 16y ago
  Yeah, this was one of my big complaints with that. However, it's not prevalent enough to disregard it. It's by no means scientific, but I think it gives a good high level orders-of-magnitude view, largely.
- stuhood 16y ago
  As mentioned in the BBC article though, doing that kind of math does not lead to an accurate result, due to the fact that your body is constantly healing. It's the bursts of radiation that are most damaging.
dkersten 16y ago
I would hardly count xkcd as a scientifically factual comic. Besides, as waterlesscloud said, he mixes up timescales (or in some cases uses simply uSv's, which, I hear, makes no sense without a timescale. Ie 5 uSv = wrong, 5 uSv/hour = ok).
- daeken 16y ago
  In this case, he gives sources for all his data. And while he does mix up timescales, he's really not far off. It can be better, but it's not bad.
  - dkersten 16y ago
    In that case, what were you referring to when posting the chart: Fukushima or Chernobyl? If Chernobyl, the article mentions only a small number of fatalities, but I've read in many places over the years that thousands of people (especially in Belarus, who got the worst of it) have since died from cancer and other radiation induced diseases. I've also seen documentaries about the many sick and deformed children that were born since, because of their parents high exposure to radiation. Finally, when I was growing up, I saw many affected children first hand, as a lot of families in my school at the time would host children affected by the accident during the summer. If you were referring to Fukushima, I agree that it doesn't come close to Chernobyl (that we know of, at least), but the linked article makes Chernobyl sound "not that bad" too, which I cannot agree with.
    - daeken 16y ago
      Fukushima -- Chernobyl, I believe, was misrepresented there. However, it's misrepresented everywhere.
      - dkersten 16y ago
        Ah, we are in agreement then.
callmevlad 16y ago
Yes, I mostly understand the scale of radiation we're currently dealing with in Japan, and it's mostly on the "safer" side. However, my issue is with taking an accident that deformed countless children, caused countless cases of cancer, and in general completely devastated the lives of (hundreds of) thousands of people - and essentially using it in a "How I Stopped Worrying and Love the Bomb" argument to get people to calm down. Yes, there is a level of overreaction any time a nuclear accident takes place (Japan, TMI come to mind), but I wish people wouldn't gloss over the suffering of so many people in order to make their point.
- ckuehne 16y ago
  It was a great tragedy. But neither was the the number of deformed children nor the number of cases of cancer "countless". There have been put numbers on it [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_the_disaster.27s_effects_on_human_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_th...
  - moe 16y ago
    And which number is the right one? According to your link: - UNSCEAR claims 6000 cases of cancer. - IAEA claims 4000 deaths - Greenpeace claims 200,000 deaths - IPPNW claims 10,000 - 50,000 cases of cancer - New York Academy of Sciences claims 985,000 deaths
- innes 16y ago
  Hang on, chernobyl deformed countless children? Countless as in "too many to count", or faultless as in "i can't help indulging in hyperbole".
  - callmevlad 16y ago
    Countless as in "we don't have the ability to accurately count" ... "immeasurable" would have been more accurate.
    - 16y ago

by daeken 16y ago

waterlesscloud 16y ago

The biggest problem with that chart is that it mixes different time scales, which it only indicates in the text, not in the visual comparisons. Take one of the ones that measures an hour's exposure and multiply it by 24. Or a day and multiply it by 365. Suddenly the visual comparisons look much, much different.

daeken 16y ago
Yeah, this was one of my big complaints with that. However, it's not prevalent enough to disregard it. It's by no means scientific, but I think it gives a good high level orders-of-magnitude view, largely.
stuhood 16y ago
As mentioned in the BBC article though, doing that kind of math does not lead to an accurate result, due to the fact that your body is constantly healing. It's the bursts of radiation that are most damaging.

dkersten 16y ago

I would hardly count xkcd as a scientifically factual comic. Besides, as waterlesscloud said, he mixes up timescales (or in some cases uses simply uSv's, which, I hear, makes no sense without a timescale. Ie 5 uSv = wrong, 5 uSv/hour = ok).

daeken 16y ago
In this case, he gives sources for all his data. And while he does mix up timescales, he's really not far off. It can be better, but it's not bad.
- dkersten 16y ago
  In that case, what were you referring to when posting the chart: Fukushima or Chernobyl? If Chernobyl, the article mentions only a small number of fatalities, but I've read in many places over the years that thousands of people (especially in Belarus, who got the worst of it) have since died from cancer and other radiation induced diseases. I've also seen documentaries about the many sick and deformed children that were born since, because of their parents high exposure to radiation. Finally, when I was growing up, I saw many affected children first hand, as a lot of families in my school at the time would host children affected by the accident during the summer. If you were referring to Fukushima, I agree that it doesn't come close to Chernobyl (that we know of, at least), but the linked article makes Chernobyl sound "not that bad" too, which I cannot agree with.
  - daeken 16y ago
    Fukushima -- Chernobyl, I believe, was misrepresented there. However, it's misrepresented everywhere.
    - dkersten 16y ago
      Ah, we are in agreement then.

callmevlad 16y ago

Yes, I mostly understand the scale of radiation we're currently dealing with in Japan, and it's mostly on the "safer" side. However, my issue is with taking an accident that deformed countless children, caused countless cases of cancer, and in general completely devastated the lives of (hundreds of) thousands of people - and essentially using it in a "How I Stopped Worrying and Love the Bomb" argument to get people to calm down. Yes, there is a level of overreaction any time a nuclear accident takes place (Japan, TMI come to mind), but I wish people wouldn't gloss over the suffering of so many people in order to make their point.

ckuehne 16y ago
It was a great tragedy. But neither was the the number of deformed children nor the number of cases of cancer "countless". There have been put numbers on it [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_the_disaster.27s_effects_on_human_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_th...
- moe 16y ago
  And which number is the right one? According to your link: - UNSCEAR claims 6000 cases of cancer. - IAEA claims 4000 deaths - Greenpeace claims 200,000 deaths - IPPNW claims 10,000 - 50,000 cases of cancer - New York Academy of Sciences claims 985,000 deaths
innes 16y ago
Hang on, chernobyl deformed countless children? Countless as in "too many to count", or faultless as in "i can't help indulging in hyperbole".
- callmevlad 16y ago
  Countless as in "we don't have the ability to accurately count" ... "immeasurable" would have been more accurate.
  - 16y ago