How much nuclear radiation do you NORMALLY get?

[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 , 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 , 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/...50460b2bd45b43

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.