3 ms·

I remember learning that when they started testing atomic bombs (I think?) the nuclear debris in the air spread basically throughout the whole united states and

• PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  I remember that video; the long story short was that a manufacturer of films for photography noticed that their films had spots on them, they initially thought it was defects, but because they had samples prior to testing, they saw an uptick. But maybe I remember wrong. Edit: the video in question is [1] and the conpany was Kodak. [1] https://youtu.be/7pSqk-XV2QM https://youtu.be/7pSqk-XV2QM
  • 23B1 3y ago
    Not sure about camera film, but there's certainly a need for 'low-background steel' for several applications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
    • PartiallyTyped 3y ago
      Speaking of, one way we verify old wine is through background radiation!
      • philistine 3y ago
        Sounds like the way Columbo would have caught one of the killers on the show.
        • PartiallyTyped 3y ago
          It was used in "White-Collar" to create a scam!
• db48x 3y ago
  The thing to remember about that is that we can measure tiny amounts of radiation very cheaply, and tiny amounts are harmless. In fact we are bathed in a constant, but tiny, background level of radiation all the time. Thousands of nuclear weapons were tested all across the world, in the United States, in the Soviet Union, on Pacific Islands, etc, etc. The radiation from that certainly caused a small uptick in the background level of radiation, but it hasn’t actually harmed people. The main reason that the US was secretive about it was that nuclear weapons were a secret, not because there was a shameful health problem to hide. Incidentally, the best way to reduce your exposure to radiation is to move away from the mountains and go live at the beach. Mountains are mostly made of granite, and granite always contains small amounts of uranium and thorium which decay to radon gas. Also, live as far away from coal power plants as possible, those things are horrifying.
  • 7952 3y ago
    Background radiation may be unlikely to give an individual cancer whilst still causing cancer across a population. It just isn't possible to attribute the cause. Surely the same is true of fallout from testing and estimates would back that up. It may not be something we worry about as individuals. But it is something that nasa should worry about.
  • Loquebantur 3y ago
    Background radiation is categorically different than ingesting/inhaling radioactive substances with the latter many orders of magnitude more dangerous. The claim, nuclear testing related increases in radiation exposure not being relevant for public health is probably false. There are only very few studies with dubious reliability. The lifetime increase due to that nuclear testing is estimated to be 4.4 Millisieverts. It would have risen continuously with more surface tests, which got abolished accordingly. The idea, beaches were a sanctum against radiation is wrong again. Sand is ground down mountains in case you wondered. Some are highly radioactive. But of course, UV light is harmful radiation as well.
    • db48x 3y ago
      We eat bananas all of the time. Bananas are delicious and nutritious, and they are known for containing lots of potassium. Well, some of that potassium is radioactive! It’s not very much radioactivity though. It is an amount which is easily measured, but which is not harmful enough to make eating bananas dangerous. This is true even though the potassium will be used to strengthen your bones and teeth. It will also be distributed to your muscles, red blood cells, skin, etc, etc.
• WalterBright 3y ago
  There's a difference between a lump of uranium metal falling back to earth and a lump of uranium that's been turned into plasma.