20 ms·

TFA says: “The individual was decontaminated by radiation protection personnel but had 300 counts per minute detected in their hair. At 1632 EDT they were sent

by layer8 1y ago

TFA says: “The individual was decontaminated by radiation protection personnel but had 300 counts per minute detected in their hair. At 1632 EDT they were sent off site to seek medical attention.” Apparently they do have concerns.

sandworm101 1y ago
300 counts per minute is nothing, almost indistinguishable from standing in a grocery store.
- sponaugle 1y ago
  Not only that, but CPM (Counts per min) is measurement device specific. Using a very sensitive pancake probe will generate much higher CPM than a geiger tube from the same source. You have to look at calibrated units (usV/hr for example). Of course uSv has it own problems given the exposure model.. but better than CPM!
- michaelmrose 1y ago
  CPM isn't a actual measure without the service in question being specified.
arcticbull 1y ago
300 counts per minute is significantly less than you’d get from a banana. Wish they’d use uSv though.
refulgentis 1y ago
[flagged]
- kortilla 1y ago
  His comment is gray because it’s still pearl clutching over facts the commenter doesn’t even understand. The worker was not sent for radiation because 300/min is background radiation levels you get from everyday things.
  - refulgentis 1y ago
    I love when people confidently state what is in someone else's head in service of explaining why that someone else is "wrong". Talk about telling on yourself. (tl;dr: we do know this, but thanks!)
    - kortilla 1y ago
      Not sure what you’re going on about. I’m telling you why I downvoted it.
      - refulgentis 1y ago
        You're stealing my bit, Kortilla.
- kelnos 1y ago
  I think both "sides" aren't looking great here. On one side you have someone quoting the article with a fact that doesn't mean what they think it means (the level of radiation reported is safe; the person in question is being sent for medical attention more for process's sake and an overabundance of caution), and the other side is being incredibly uncharitable and rude when it comes to calling people out for being ignorant of how this stuff works.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    If we're talking broader "sides" the mistaken one does look pretty bad. Fantasising doom based on facts someone doesn't understand while having those facts clarified is a bad look. It'd be like me going through a thread politely hyperventilating about trace dihydrogen monoxide contamination the man was exposed to after this event was all over. One hand there is no reason to be rude about that sort of mistake, but on the other it is kind of a ... why the comment based on a very terse paragraph that they have to know they don't understand? When there are a lot of comments pointing out that there is no evidence to believe this report is a problem. The paragraph says 300 CPM and the dude took a non-emergency trip to a medical centre. If someone doesn't know what 300 CPM means or what a non-emergency trip to a medical centre from an industrial site implies, the best message to be given is "don't comment or form an opinion, leave it to the people who are happy to look up CPM on Wikipedia before deciding to panic, people who've worked on industrial sites or maybe even experts". Not encouraging them to talk more.
    - refulgentis 1y ago
      Relax.
ErroneousBosh 1y ago
> Apparently they do have concerns. Well yeah. If someone falls in water at work, you get them checked out at the hospital. The paltry amount of radiation is kind of the least of your worries if there's even the smallest risk you got some water in your lungs. People can drown on dry land from about a tablespoon of water getting into their lungs.
- haskellshill 1y ago
  > People can drown on dry land from about a tablespoon of water getting into their lungs. Well, I don't think there's such a big risk of that. Falling into a pool is something most of us have probably done. Being pushed by a friend as a kid for example. The risk of drowning is probably pretty comparable to the risk from the radiation (negligible).
  - quantumcotton 1y ago
    I didn't expect this level of ignorance here. Maybe reddit but this is crazy.
    - haskellshill 1y ago
      I didn't expect this level of unfounded ignorant hysteria here. Have you really never gone swimming and inhaled some water? Did you go to the hospital? > In the past, these terms were used to try to explain that some fatal drowning victims had very little water in their lungs at autopsy. Now it is understood that little water enters the lungs during drowning. Moreover, when water enters the lungs, it is rapidly absorbed when breathing starts again. The amount of water that enters the lung does not determine the amount of injury or determine the treatment of drowning. The amount of injury from drowning is due to how long the victim is without oxygen. Source: Red Cross
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      Maybe the common factor isn't "everybody else".
  - ErroneousBosh 1y ago
rcruzeiro 1y ago
Nuclear plants follow a strict “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle. Any intake of reactor water or radiation exposure must be reported and evaluated no matter how small.
potato3732842 1y ago
>Apparently they do have concerns. More like "send 'em to the ER, my ass is covered".

by layer8 1y ago

sandworm101 1y ago

300 counts per minute is nothing, almost indistinguishable from standing in a grocery store.

sponaugle 1y ago
Not only that, but CPM (Counts per min) is measurement device specific. Using a very sensitive pancake probe will generate much higher CPM than a geiger tube from the same source. You have to look at calibrated units (usV/hr for example). Of course uSv has it own problems given the exposure model.. but better than CPM!
michaelmrose 1y ago
CPM isn't a actual measure without the service in question being specified.

arcticbull 1y ago

300 counts per minute is significantly less than you’d get from a banana. Wish they’d use uSv though.

refulgentis 1y ago

[flagged]

kortilla 1y ago
His comment is gray because it’s still pearl clutching over facts the commenter doesn’t even understand. The worker was not sent for radiation because 300/min is background radiation levels you get from everyday things.
- refulgentis 1y ago
  I love when people confidently state what is in someone else's head in service of explaining why that someone else is "wrong". Talk about telling on yourself. (tl;dr: we do know this, but thanks!)
  - kortilla 1y ago
    Not sure what you’re going on about. I’m telling you why I downvoted it.
    - refulgentis 1y ago
      You're stealing my bit, Kortilla.
kelnos 1y ago
I think both "sides" aren't looking great here. On one side you have someone quoting the article with a fact that doesn't mean what they think it means (the level of radiation reported is safe; the person in question is being sent for medical attention more for process's sake and an overabundance of caution), and the other side is being incredibly uncharitable and rude when it comes to calling people out for being ignorant of how this stuff works.
- roenxi 1y ago
  If we're talking broader "sides" the mistaken one does look pretty bad. Fantasising doom based on facts someone doesn't understand while having those facts clarified is a bad look. It'd be like me going through a thread politely hyperventilating about trace dihydrogen monoxide contamination the man was exposed to after this event was all over. One hand there is no reason to be rude about that sort of mistake, but on the other it is kind of a ... why the comment based on a very terse paragraph that they have to know they don't understand? When there are a lot of comments pointing out that there is no evidence to believe this report is a problem. The paragraph says 300 CPM and the dude took a non-emergency trip to a medical centre. If someone doesn't know what 300 CPM means or what a non-emergency trip to a medical centre from an industrial site implies, the best message to be given is "don't comment or form an opinion, leave it to the people who are happy to look up CPM on Wikipedia before deciding to panic, people who've worked on industrial sites or maybe even experts". Not encouraging them to talk more.
  - refulgentis 1y ago
    Relax.

ErroneousBosh 1y ago

> Apparently they do have concerns. Well yeah. If someone falls in water at work, you get them checked out at the hospital. The paltry amount of radiation is kind of the least of your worries if there's even the smallest risk you got some water in your lungs. People can drown on dry land from about a tablespoon of water getting into their lungs.

haskellshill 1y ago
> People can drown on dry land from about a tablespoon of water getting into their lungs. Well, I don't think there's such a big risk of that. Falling into a pool is something most of us have probably done. Being pushed by a friend as a kid for example. The risk of drowning is probably pretty comparable to the risk from the radiation (negligible).
- quantumcotton 1y ago
  I didn't expect this level of ignorance here. Maybe reddit but this is crazy.
  - haskellshill 1y ago
    I didn't expect this level of unfounded ignorant hysteria here. Have you really never gone swimming and inhaled some water? Did you go to the hospital? > In the past, these terms were used to try to explain that some fatal drowning victims had very little water in their lungs at autopsy. Now it is understood that little water enters the lungs during drowning. Moreover, when water enters the lungs, it is rapidly absorbed when breathing starts again. The amount of water that enters the lung does not determine the amount of injury or determine the treatment of drowning. The amount of injury from drowning is due to how long the victim is without oxygen. Source: Red Cross
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Maybe the common factor isn't "everybody else".
- ErroneousBosh 1y ago

rcruzeiro 1y ago

Nuclear plants follow a strict “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principle. Any intake of reactor water or radiation exposure must be reported and evaluated no matter how small.

potato3732842 1y ago

>Apparently they do have concerns. More like "send 'em to the ER, my ass is covered".