3 ms·
It's difficult to combine the various units of measurement they use in the article (combined with the difficulty in comparing point radiation readings with dose
by panacea 16y ago
It's difficult to combine the various units of measurement they use in the article (combined with the difficulty in comparing point radiation readings with doses over periods of time), but my understanding of the article is that the radiation detected is a fraction of 1 percent above what we normally receive as background radiation (anyone able to confirm or correct me)?
ie: Measurable but completely insignificant.
- Symmetry 16y agoThat actually overstates the danger. If the rainwater remains that radioactive for an entire year it will give people 1 percent above normal background radiation, but really I can't think of how the radioactive iodine levels could possibly remain that high so long. So more realistically the citizens of San Fransisco are looking at their yearly radiation dose going up by .1%.
- panacea 16y ago"but really I can't think of how the radioactive iodine levels could possibly remain that high so long" Erm... the reactors and spent fuel ponds keep leaking radiation and the half-life is way more than a year?