4 ms·
I'm very skeptical of the following question, but I found from a reputable reporter on Twitter, and seems like at least not an obvious fake website. But I don't
by dillondoyle 5y ago
I'm very skeptical of the following question, but I found from a reputable reporter on Twitter, and seems like at least not an obvious fake website. But I don't see how this can be true... Anyone smarter than me care to alleviate the following concerns:
Increased radiation. On this map some of the levels go from ~750 nsv/h to 10,200. one at the center went from 2,000 to 65,000 in the last day.
seems crazy and inconceivable?
https://www.saveecobot.com/en/radiation-maps#10/51.3619/30.1183/gamma/comp+cams+fire https://www.saveecobot.com/en/radiation-maps#10/51.3619/30.1...
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y agoNo, that actually seems extremely plausible. Thanks for posting actual numbers and units! Look at the units. That's NANOsieverts. So the old radiation level was ~2x of what https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ lists as the normal background level. Which m akes sense, because most of Chernobyl really isn't that bad nowadays. The new level is 65 microsieverts per hour. That's notable, but not some huge release of radiation, and it would still take days for you to hit the (annual) occupational hazard limit. The most plausible explanation, in my opinion, is that all the traffic kicked up a lot of contaminated dust. (Which is one of the reasons why you don't want to live there despite the "safe" radiation levels. The radiation level is only safe-ish as long as you don't breathe the dust.)
- dillondoyle 5y agoI just read that exact reason; Lots of tanks and movement kicking up top soil. Scary situation all around even if radiation is like 999 on a list of 1000 top concerns.