3 ms·
If 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 accepta
by bayesian_horse 4y ago
If 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...