How much nuclear radiation do you NORMALLY get?

[Little-Acorn]

Amidst all the hype and hysteria over "nuclear disasters", it's helpful to consider some actual numbers and effects.

"Nuclear radiation" is nothing new. We get it from many natural sources every day (sun, rocks, cosmic rays etc.), and have for all our lives. So did Mozart, George Washington, Julius Caesar, Emperor Chin, and Alley Oop the cave man.

Keep the following numbers in mind next time you hear hysterical reports of Japanese citizens being exposed to a whopping 20 microseiverts of radiation from the damaged nuclear plant.

-------------------------------

http://www.fox6now.com/news/la-fg-radiation-comparison-20110315,0,386338.story

You're being exposed to radiation -- but it's the amount that counts

6:50 a.m. CDT, March 15, 2011

Everyone is exposed to some radiation. It's the level of exposure that determines whether there's any harmful effect.

But how much radiation is a lot? Here are a few numbers for comparison.

(A microsievert is a unit that measures the biological effects of radiation.)

* One year's worth of exposure to natural radiation from soil, cosmic rays and other sources: 3,000 microsieverts

* One chest X-ray: 100 microsieverts

* One dental X-ray: 40-150 microsieverts

* One mammogram: 700 microsieverts

* CT scan (abdomen): 8,000 microsieverts

* Full-body airport X-ray scanner: 0.0148 microsieverts

* Airplane flight from New York to Los Angeles: 30-40 microsieverts

* Smoking a pack a day for one year: 80,000 microsieverts

* Average dose to people living within 10 miles of 1979 Three Mile Island accident: 80 microsieverts

* Average radiation dose to evacuees from areas highly contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster: 33,000 microsieverts (Of 600,000 of the most-affected people, cancer risk went up by a few percentage points -- perhaps eventually representing an extra 4,000 fatal cancers on top of the 100,000 fatal cancers otherwise expected.)

* Limit on whole-body exposure for a radiation worker for one year: 50,000 microsieverts

Sources: TSA (APL report); CDC; FDA; NRC; ANS; IAEA; Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio
Copyright © 2011, The Los Angeles Times

[logroller]

It all adds up though! It's not a "well it didn't kill me today so I'm fine" kinda deal. Cumulative exposure is especially damaging in high doses, ie increased free-radicals. Many things succumb to this kind of damage; aluminum, a major componant of airframes is subject to cumulative stress fatigue.http://avstop.com/news/243.jpg

Alcohol consumption in small doses is good for the body, but too much is a bad thing. Exposure to UVB sunlight produces vitamin d, but overexposure causes cancer. I'll get a CT scan when I need it, but I wouldn't say its necessary to do just in case. Nor would I expose myself to radiation from a nuke plant, just because its not that bad, by itself anyways. There's a saying in industry prone to radiation exposure: ALARA -- As Low As Reasonably Acheivable. Living in areas around nuclear plants may be reasonable to some, but not to others.

[pete311]

As logroller points out it's a cumulative problem. It adds up over time. Once your cells are damaged enough then pops up cancer.

The situation in Japan is no joke. It has turned very serious.


I see on Twitter that the US Embassy in Japan is now advising US citizens within 80k to evacuate area.


The IAEA is reporting:

- core damage at units 1 and 3, situation "very serious"
- fuels rods exposed in units 4,5 and 6
- total of 4 units have core damage
- radiation levels rising

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200

[Nukeman]

As logroller points out it's a cumulative problem. It adds up over time. Once your cells are damaged enough then pops up cancer.
The situation in Japan is no joke. It has turned very serious.





http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200
I actually chuckled at this!!!!!! The cumulative dose adds up if it is continual!! Which means you have to maintain the dose your recieving to do damage (unless it is a massive enough dose to harm the bone marrow). think of it this way. If you go for radiation treatment of your cancer you don't go once a year you go about the life span of the cells your attempting to kill. In fact most radiation treatment if given all at once are a "lethal dose at 50"!!!!! since they are spread out the damage is done to the weaker cells (cancer) and the healthy cells are left intact.


the average person walking down the street will receive about 620 millirems a year (100 rem = 1 sievert). What you should be worried about is the number of Grays you recieve since that is absorbed dose..

yes the mess in Japan is not a joke and is very serious but the vast majority of the radiation WILL be contained, what the reporters indicate as a significant amount of radiation exposre is less than you would receive if you were in a car accident and went to the ER and had a number of x-rays and CT's. You don't hear everyone complaining about that do you yet God forbid we mention "nuclear power" than its the devil!!!!

You will NOT have a nuclear explosion, the worst that can happen is the build up of gasses that will cause an explosion that will throw radioactive particles in the air and you get contamination that way, as long as your not breathing it and ingesting it you can wash most if not all off your skin.

[pete311]

this story has turned very very serious
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/extremely-high-radiation-as-water-in-reactor-runs-out-20110317-1bxm8.html

[Gaffer]

this story has turned very very serious
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/extremely-high-radiation-as-water-in-reactor-runs-out-20110317-1bxm8.html

This is a politics issue so the greenies have something to pull out in their never ending battle to cripple the world through reducing energy. The real and serious story is the 10's of thousands that were killed by the tsunami. Very little is being said about that They haven't even got a full body count yet. All the media reports on is the fucking nuke reactor and all the what ifs.

[Kathianne]

This is a politics issue so the greenies have something to pull out in their never ending battle to cripple the world through reducing energy. The real and serious story is the 10's of thousands that were killed by the tsunami. Very little is being said about that They haven't even got a full body count yet. All the media reports on is the fucking nuke reactor and all the what ifs.

I must concur. While no one can say how the nuclear issue will turn out, I for one from everything I've read since it started and what I knew before, will be shocked if the number effected comes to a significant percentage of those actually killed by the earthquake and tsunami after effects.

[pete311]

This is a politics issue so the greenies have something to pull out in their never ending battle to cripple the world through reducing energy. The real and serious story is the 10's of thousands that were killed by the tsunami. Very little is being said about that They haven't even got a full body count yet. All the media reports on is the fucking nuke reactor and all the what ifs.

who cares, they are already dead. let's try to save those who are currently living.

[Kathianne]

who cares, they are already dead. let's try to save those who are currently living.

You don't care about what happens, but what will happen. Kill nuclear energy, right?

[pete311]

You don't care about what happens, but what will happen. Kill nuclear energy, right?

I am strongly in support of nuclear energy in the states. what does that have to do with anything i've said.

[Kathianne]

I am strongly in support of nuclear energy in the states. what does that have to do with anything i've said.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your posts. It appears to me that you are joining with many others in using this incident, which hasn't even been evaluated yet to scare others regarding nuclear power.

[Gaffer]

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your posts. It appears to me that you are joining with many others in using this incident, which hasn't even been evaluated yet to scare others regarding nuclear power.

That's what I took from his post too.

[Gaffer]

who cares, they are already dead. let's try to save those who are currently living.

The dead can't even be cremated fast enough. There are many thousands more homeless and no food, water or other necessities. What's being done to aid them? I haven't seen a single ad for money to aid the people of northern Japan. All the media is doing is speculating about the nuke plants. When haiti was hit by a quake the media was all over it. Now all they talk about is the nuke plant and who might be to blame for something that was an act of nature.

[pete311]

Now all they talk about is the nuke plant and who might be to blame for something that was an act of nature.

I don't think it's that simple. I have a nuclear scientist friend who is chief of some american nuclear association and he is livid with how the crisis has been handled.

btw, I see tons of ads for donating to aid agencies. I've personally sent $200.

The media is useless in this matter. Lots of misinformation. Check this thread for updates from experts
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200

[Kathianne]

or this, that most of us can understand, concluding paragraphs:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/how-worried-should-we-be-about-radiation-from-japans-nuclear-plant-5408019?click=pm_latest


...
It could be weeks until scientists know for sure exactly what types of radioactive nuclides have been released and where they have gone. So far, Classic says, people outside the evacuation zone should not have been exposed to serious health hazards. However, low but abnormal levels of radiation have been detected. The Department of Defense issued a statement Monday that a Navy vessel 100 miles from Fukushima detected contamination equivalent to about a month of natural radiation exposure.

But for now, the main risk to human health is for those still inside the evacuation zone, within a 20-mile radius from the plant (though the U.S. embassy is now recommending Americans to stay at least 50 miles away from the plant). That’s especially true for the skeleton crew that remains at the plant to try to fight off the worst-case scenario. Even without a complete nuclear meltdown, the situation is dire near the reactors, Classic says: “People exposed to that level for many hours are going to have some health effects.” As of March 16, the reading around Fukushima reactor 1 was 3,391 microsieverts, or 339 millirem. That is near the average amount of radiation exposure the average person gets in an entire year, according to the EPA.

[trobinett]

Well boys, and girls, the wife and me live about 20 miles from Arkansas nuclear one. Its a great source of power, has little to no effect on our local habitat, and I, nor my wife don't get our pants in a wad about it.

The Japanese will handle this problem, JHC, give them a chance to get their shit together. PAY NO ATTENTION to the MSM, they ARE THE MOST UNINFORMED segment of our society. They run around screaming, that the sky is falling on a constant basis, is it a wonder NO ONE pays no attention to them?

Kick back, have a cup of coffee :coffee:, its all good.

[logroller]

I actually chuckled at this!!!!!! The cumulative dose adds up if it is continual!! Which means you have to maintain the dose your recieving to do damage (unless it is a massive enough dose to harm the bone marrow). think of it this way. If you go for radiation treatment of your cancer you don't go once a year you go about the life span of the cells your attempting to kill. In fact most radiation treatment if given all at once are a "lethal dose at 50"!!!!! since they are spread out the damage is done to the weaker cells (cancer) and the healthy cells are left intact.


the average person walking down the street will receive about 620 millirems a year (100 rem = 1 sievert). What you should be worried about is the number of Grays you recieve since that is absorbed dose..

yes the mess in Japan is not a joke and is very serious but the vast majority of the radiation WILL be contained, what the reporters indicate as a significant amount of radiation exposre is less than you would receive if you were in a car accident and went to the ER and had a number of x-rays and CT's. You don't hear everyone complaining about that do you yet God forbid we mention "nuclear power" than its the devil!!!!

You will NOT have a nuclear explosion, the worst that can happen is the build up of gasses that will cause an explosion that will throw radioactive particles in the air and you get contamination that way, as long as your not breathing it and ingesting it you can wash most if not all off your skin.

I'm not saying we should head for the bunkers, but I believe your understanding of cumulative dosing is incorrect. The training I have received regarding industrial exposure accounts for background radiation, and increased risk associated with any and all increases in ionizing radiation. this from wikipedia, I haven't read the report internally referenced yet, but it would appear industry and regulatory boards would agree.


Studies of occupational workers exposed to chronic low levels of radiation, above normal background, have provided mixed evidence regarding cancer and transgenerational effects. Cancer results, although uncertain, are consistent with estimates of risk based on atomic bomb survivors and suggest that these workers do face a small increase in the probability of developing leukemia and other cancers. One of the most recent and extensive studies of workers was published by Cardis, et al. in 2005 .[16]

The linear dose-response model suggests that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk. The linear no-threshold model (LNT) hypothesis is accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the EPA and its validity has been reaffirmed by a National Academy of Sciences Committee (see the BEIR VII report, summarized in [3]). Under this model, about 1% of a population would develop cancer in their lifetime as a result of ionizing radiation from background levels of natural and man-made sources.

Ionizing radiation damages tissue by causing ionization, which disrupts molecules directly and also produces highly reactive free radicals, which attack nearby cells. The net effect is that biological molecules suffer local disruption; this may exceed the body's capacity to repair the damage and may also cause mutations in cells currently undergoing replication.


Admittedly 1% seems small, unless you're in it!

[Nukeman]

I'm not saying we should head for the bunkers, but I believe your understanding of cumulative dosing is incorrect. The training I have received regarding industrial exposure accounts for background radiation, and increased risk associated with any and all increases in ionizing radiation. this from wikipedia, I haven't read the report internally referenced yet, but it would appear industry and regulatory boards would agree.



Admittedly 1% seems small, unless you're in it!You know I live and breath ionizing radiation EVERY DAY.. That being said ANY increase in ANYTHING can be harmful.

The point most are attempting to make is that this is NOT the EVIL that our media would have us believe. We (humans) have a very good tolerance for radiation in moderate doses. our cell structure is such that by the time radiation can affect and manipulate the DNA/RNA than the cell is at the end of its life. High doses that damage the marrow are the most problematic for humans!!

Your reference is full of "may", and "possibley". Not a good reference in my book. You will also note that
1% of a population would develop cancer in their lifetime as a result of ionizing radiation from background levels of natural and man-made sources.

They couldn't differentiate between the two becasue the differnce in occurence is so minute they couldn't measure it.

[logroller]

Well boys, and girls, the wife and me live about 20 miles from Arkansas nuclear one. Its a great source of power, has little to no effect on our local habitat, and I, nor my wife don't get our pants in a wad about it.

The Japanese will handle this problem, JHC, give them a chance to get their shit together. PAY NO ATTENTION to the MSM, they ARE THE MOST UNINFORMED segment of our society. They run around screaming, that the sky is falling on a constant basis, is it a wonder NO ONE pays no attention to them?

Kick back, have a cup of coffee :coffee:, its all good.

I'll have a cigarette with that cup o joe, cancer be damned...

[logroller]

You know I live and breath ionizing radiation EVERY DAY.. That being said ANY increase in ANYTHING can be harmful.

The point most are attempting to make is that this is NOT the EVIL that our media would have us believe. We (humans) have a very good tolerance for radiation in moderate doses. our cell structure is such that by the time radiation can affect and manipulate the DNA/RNA than the cell is at the end of its life. High doses that damage the marrow are the most problematic for humans!!

Your reference is full of "may", and "possibley". Not a good reference in my book. You will also note that

They couldn't differentiate between the two becasue the differnce in occurence is so minute they couldn't measure it.

I think we're on the same page here nuke. I dont dispute the everpresent ionization radiation we a re exposed to. I'd premise even further that mutation is a biological need to create differences which can lead to greater success of the organism/species. So far as challenges to source, ie credibility, I believe there was also such reference to cigarettes possibly and may cause cancer and other health probs. That's how research begins, with a hypothesis, which can be refuted or proven wrong- but this isn't to mean it is wrong or uncertain. truth is its very individual, some people can incur larger amounts of raditation exposure without any health effects, while others would be adversely affected by much less. However I can believe that minimizing exposure should be pursued with reason. With this in mind people should consider all the sources which could be averted, based on frequency and intensity of exposure; nuke plants are pretty low on this list- except when you're near a plant during a "meltdown." Perhaps one the most frequent exposures most people are unaware of of is benzene, a carcinogen that is in most all gasoline. Everytime you smell gas-- its an exposure, not necessarliy a dose, but that doesn't sell advertisements for news does it? so they don't report on that exposure. Again reason plays a big part in this debate, and we're likely on the more-informed side of the spectrum. The problem,IMO, isn't the risk of meltdown, but disposal of radioactive waste, which as I understand it, is actually what is causing the problems in Japan, not the reactor itself.

[logroller]

this on fallout reaching socal today.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJiwkDIyXLSPOKVBHiLGpF0g5GNw?docId=8a62b6951 6cd4ca79150460b2bd45b43


Initial readings are "about a billion times beneath levels that would be health threatening," the diplomat told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because the CTBTO does not make its findings public.