A GIANT WTF!!!? I IRRADIATE PEOPLE FOR A LIVING. I am actually trained in radiation exposure (xpost)

[bananas]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=659565&mesg_id=659565

PCIntern (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-16-11 04:45 AM
Original message

A GIANT WTF!!!?

I can't fricking believe that wherever I go, whatever I do, whomever is speaking, all I'm hearing about is that radiation is not as bad for you as you think it is.

Now, I IRRADIATE PEOPLE FOR A LIVING. I am actually trained in radiation exposure and limits and allowables and all that other stuff which these 'experts' are casually espousing and downplaying, and I'm gonna tell you right here, right now, that if a population is exposed to a given dose of radiation which is not the norm, not the background amount, then we are going to see, if not today, then 20, 30, or 50 years from now, increased morbidity and mortality. It's a statistical certainty. Much of the disease which occurs normally is due to ionizing radiation which is unavoidable: it's part of living and a shame but more or less inescapable. When you dose people, you're going to get illnesses which may manifest later, birth defects which may manifest later, anomalies which may manifest later, and these SCUM who say, "There's no provable blah blah blah" in the same manner in which they did it for cigarette smoking, will be out there saying that just because your child was born with this that and the other thing, and that you lived downwind of TMI or flew over Japan, or worked in a lab which processed plutonium, is no indication AT ALL WHATSOEVER that radiation caused this.

To quote the great Clint Eastwood: do you feel lucky? Because you had best better if you get exposed to this 'harmless' radiation. It's just maddening...

[tabatha]

1. wrong thread - how did that happen?

[Tikki]

2. Thank you for posting this truth....

It still breaks my heart to see people in so much denial.
Growing up in a Nuclear wasteland, I know the havoc it has played on people's long term health.


Tikki

[hlthe2b]

3. People deny what they fear and can not face....

I think it is as simple as that...

[FBaggins]

9. Actually. People over-exaggerate what they fear and cannot face.

It's called paranoia.

Interstate bridge collapses unexpectedly? People all across the country drive miles out of their way to avoid bridges.

All while never realizing that, statistically speaking, the extra time in the car is more likely to kill them than a bridge collapse.

And a fear of something invisible that you can't sense? Why... that's the perfect source of fear for someone prone to paranoia.

[hlthe2b]

10. In actuality there are two extremes...

As we've undoubtedly observed around us, some have denied from the start that there would be any significant problem to come from Japan's impacted nuclear reactors and how safe nuclear power is.... With the extreme and obvious facts now staring them in the face, they still cling to the denial of any real harm likely to occur (even to those Japanese in proximity) or at least underestimate it and rely on the "chicken little" accusations towards others to reassure themselves.

At the other extreme are those who are reacting purely instinctively by fear (and yes, paranoia)--ready to evacuate the West Coast at the mere mention of the word "plume".

Fortunately, most who educate themselves and manage to find reliable information sources, are able to find a middle ground.

[kestrel91316]

4. Like I explained to my assistant yesterday - it's no big deal if you are exposed to radiation

for 6 hours that gives you a full year of background level radiation. But do the math. If you are exposed to that level for a year (if the source continues to pump out those harmless little particles at that teensy harmless level), you have been exposed to 1360 years' worth of background level. IN ONE YEAR.

Anyone who thinkes there will be no consequences to that needs their head examined.

[bananas]

6. Yup. nt

[ClarkUSA]

5. A chest x-ray exposes a person to a radiation dose of 100 microsieverts.

TOKYO (Dow Jones)--Radiation levels in the Tokyo area were around typical background levels on Friday afternoon, while in areas close to the quake-damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant they remained high but still below levels that would pose a threat to human health, officials said.

In a separate move, the International Atomic Energy Agency will begin measuring radiation levels, staring with Tokyo, as early as Friday night, said Yukiya Amano, director general of IAEA.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Government said Friday on its website that radiation levels in downtown Tokyo stood at 0.047 microsievert an hour around 1000 GMT. That compares with the 0.035 microsievert an hour a person would typically be exposed to in Shinjuku district of downtown Tokyo due to background radiation... A chest X-ray typically exposes the patient to a radiation dose of around 100 microsieverts, according to the Radiological Society of North America. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sets the annual occupational dosage limit for workers who deal with radiation at 50,000 microsieverts and the limit per nuclear event at 10,000 microsieverts. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advises that a dose of 500,000 microsieverts can cause nausea, while 4 million microsieverts can be fatal without major medical care.

Separately, Fukushima Prefecture said on its website that it measured radiation of 10.80 microsieverts around 1100 GMT Friday in Fukushima City, about 60 kilometers northwest of the plant. It said it detected 2.46 microsieverts an hour in Koriyama City, around 60 kilometers west of the plant, and 1.00 in Iwaki City, about 40 kilometers southwest of the plant, around 1100 GMT. Normal levels at these locations range between 0.04 and 0.06 microsieverts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110318-708293.html

Today, the IAEA began to take independent readings in Japan, beginning with Tokyo.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Yerah, and the XRAY TECHNICIAN Hides in a LEAD BOOTH While Administering the X-Ray

:nuke::hide:

[FBaggins]

7. Lol. Sounds like someone needs some additional training.

gonna tell you right here, right now, that if a population is exposed to a given dose of radiation which is not the norm, not the background amount

Right. background amount = good... background amount + .000001% = BAD.

Got it.

On edit... another big lol. He really understands radiation... he's a dentist. :)

[SpoonFed]

11. what is the name of that...

psychological condition where the patient exists in an extreme state of denial because
the prognosis is so bad that they are unable to process the situation correctly.

Dementia?

I'm no more a psychologist than our friend here is a nuclear safety expert.