3 ms·

As much as I like Atlas Obscura, this short article is quite close to blog spam. The references are much more interesting. The amount of extra radiation the wo

As much as I like Atlas Obscura, this short article is quite close to blog spam. The references are much more interesting. The amount of extra radiation the workers receive seems quite low compared to the rest of the population [1], maybe about the same as living in Denver, CO? From 2012: https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20121113/bushwick/epa-starts-radiation-abatement-at-former-atomic-bomb-project-site/ https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20121113/bushwick/epa-start... > The level of radiation for a worker would fall at 120 millirem (the unit used to measure radiation's effect on the human body) per year, 20 percent more than the recommended 100 millirem per year for an average person. > “A cleanup is clearly warranted,” Brenner said. "But I can see why it might not be considered a super-high priority situation.” > A worker at Primo Auto Body, for instance, would raise his chance of contracting fatal cancer by 1 in 25,000, according to the information available. From 2013 https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131022/bushwick/businesses-at-former-atomic-bomb-site-hurt-by-work-limit-radiation/ https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20131022/bushwick/businesse...: > The agency is finishing construction of thick raised concrete and lead floors in both Terra Nova and its neighbor, Primo Auto Body Shop, to protect workers from the radiation. > "It's been a nightmare," said Silvio Hernandez, the owner of Terra Nova, which has a storage facility and office at the site. "We were out of business for three weeks." > The owner of Primo Auto Body said the construction had cost him significant business since only part of his space was functional. > ... > The shielding, which Daly said should be completed in December, has been to guard against gamma radiation, levels of which Daly said were not high enough to spur immediate health problems but were "high enough to do something" at the two businesses. > The EPA also tested a nearby daycare center and school but found no heightened radiation at those sites, Daly said. [1] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses

djmips 4y ago
Thanks!
porphyra 4y ago
I need the XKCD radiation chart to put this in context
- teddyh 4y ago
  https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/
  - ghayes 4y ago
    For context, at 1.2 mSv (120 millirem), it puts it about the same as the normal annual radiation number for the public (1.0 mSv) and less than a head CT scan (2.0 mSv). Direct risk of cancer or radiation poisoning in the comic is listed starting at 100-400 mSv.
    - QuarterReptile 4y ago
      For context on your context, the concern here is not acute dosage, but rather chronic low levels that can lead to significant accumulated dose. Occupational standards are done on a linear-no-threshold basis that assumes all radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer, despite areas of high background radiation often having comparable or even lower cancer incidence. It makes sense that you don't let employers say 'no, we made him cancer resistant with that exposure!' But, it leads to stuff like this. 1mSv is the limit for annual non-radiation worker occupational exposure, but that's because it's pretty feasible to set a really low number threshold, have almost no one reach those levels, and deal with exceptions as they come. Easy, from OSHA/EPA standards, but obviously not for these guys. Also, EPA figures suggest 6mSv annually, and I remember learning 3mSv. In any case, it's significantly less radiation than you get from smoking, which I find not to be too uncommon where I take my cars. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses
- praptak 4y ago
  When it comes to radiation I only understand banana per day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
  - tonetheman 4y ago
    [dead]

djmips 4y ago

Thanks!

porphyra 4y ago

I need the XKCD radiation chart to put this in context

teddyh 4y ago
https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/
- ghayes 4y ago
  For context, at 1.2 mSv (120 millirem), it puts it about the same as the normal annual radiation number for the public (1.0 mSv) and less than a head CT scan (2.0 mSv). Direct risk of cancer or radiation poisoning in the comic is listed starting at 100-400 mSv.
  - QuarterReptile 4y ago
    For context on your context, the concern here is not acute dosage, but rather chronic low levels that can lead to significant accumulated dose. Occupational standards are done on a linear-no-threshold basis that assumes all radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer, despite areas of high background radiation often having comparable or even lower cancer incidence. It makes sense that you don't let employers say 'no, we made him cancer resistant with that exposure!' But, it leads to stuff like this. 1mSv is the limit for annual non-radiation worker occupational exposure, but that's because it's pretty feasible to set a really low number threshold, have almost no one reach those levels, and deal with exceptions as they come. Easy, from OSHA/EPA standards, but obviously not for these guys. Also, EPA figures suggest 6mSv annually, and I remember learning 3mSv. In any case, it's significantly less radiation than you get from smoking, which I find not to be too uncommon where I take my cars. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses
praptak 4y ago
When it comes to radiation I only understand banana per day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
- tonetheman 4y ago
  [dead]