3 ms·
There is no meaningful difference between measurable and hazardous radiation. You never know where the stuff builds up. Some isotopes get enriched in some orga
by bayesian_horse 4y ago
There is no meaningful difference between measurable and hazardous radiation.
You never know where the stuff builds up. Some isotopes get enriched in some organs and do damage over a long time. Depending on what the material actually is, it can get into unfortunate places and stay there for a few years, irradiating someone. It can get into the food supply doing some more damage than anticipated.
None of that is calculateable, so it is better to treat every radiation as a risk. You also forget that workers may be wearing a dosimeter, but average people don't. They'd never know. You can easily reach the 20x increase if you have a contaminated object in your home or car or whatever, even if that contamination isn't that strong.
- acidburnNSA 4y agoThis might be a good read for you. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_final.pdf https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/11340/beir_vii_fi...
- bayesian_horse 4y agoIf you think this disproves my point, it doesn't. They say there is no minimum dose level for damage, even though the "damage" at common doses may sound acceptable. The biggest problem people forget is time: If people stay in contact with contaminated material, especially if they ingest some, then it really doesn't matter that much how low the radiation is. That's why radioactive material is treated the way it is. As long as you have dosimeters and geiger counters and hazmat suits you have a calculateable risk. With even some of those assumptions broken, there is no calculation.
- acidburnNSA 4y agoHere's the overall radiological impact of Chernobyl. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h...