Fukushima disaster

haxar

Re: Fukushima disaster
« Reply #125,  »
Stan said in a video that unstable radioactive Uranium, and its isotopes, has to be in a stable state for it not to be ionizing. No known method exists.

Unstable monatomic hydrogen can yield a higher thermal explosive energy. Stable, not so much.

Matt Watts

Re: Fukushima disaster
« Reply #126,  »Last edited
Here we go with more of this.  Let's run the numbers and see if I should be concerned or not.

120 CPM is about equal to 1 uSv/hr for CS137.  That's 97.7 uSv/hr here in Colorado Springs.  But we don't know the exact gamma energies used in Bob Nichols report, so the ratio could be different.

So we're not up to even 1 mSv/hr as of yet.  Seems like much to do about nothing at the moment.  When the exposure rate gets to 10 mSv/hr, then I'll start being concerned.

I'm also not convinced about the whole "cumulative effect" of radiation.  To me it all comes down to biological repair rate.  If your body's immune system gets destroyed and can no longer make repairs faster than things are getting damaged, then yes, you have a problem, but as long as repair stays on the plus side, biological creatures should be resistant to ionizing radiation.  They were designed that way.  If you ask me, there is a lot of hype out there.  Time to separate fact from fiction.

Lynx

Re: Fukushima disaster
« Reply #127,  »
Quote from Matt Watts on March 8th, 2017, 12:26 PM
If you ask me, there is a lot of hype out there.  Time to separate fact from fiction.
Good to hear that Matt :thumbsup:
Besides, you got your sacraments, they'll keep you safe anyway ;-)

Matt Watts