Discussion on:

A tale of two radioactive beaches, as Fukushima's reopens

Yes, indeed, there are a lot of natural sources of radiation, You can take it for granite.

through the desert I took my geiger. Found a few rocks that I don't keep under the bed.. It is natural, but sure, less is better.

...where the complex entrance was crowded with protesters because the deep space probe being launched had a nuclear reactor on board. One of the more vocal protesters was featured on TV with her 10-year-old daughter; both with glorious golden-brown skin, no doubt tanned by countless hours spent on Florida beaches.

I had to wonder if she'd ever figure out that the long hours she and her daughter spent exposing themselves to solar radiation on the beach on a daily basis was far more than the exposure they'd receive from a worst-case-scenario of a launch failure.

Part of the reason people react so strongly to any hint of radiation in the environment is a lack of knowledge about how widespread radiation is in the natural world, along with an inability to comprehend dose numbers. Another factor is the persistence of the outdated concept that any increase in exposure equates to increased risk of negative health effects, aka the linear no-threshold (LNT) model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model. This model has been in trouble for some time as evidence accumulates in favor of the more nuanced and evidence based theory
of radiation hormesis http://www.radpro.com/641luckey.pdf. According to this theory, low doses of radiation exposure in excess of normal background levels exerts a number of stimulative and reparative effects at a cellular level that act to improve health. This is supported by large amounts of research evidence, but has been slow to find favor with regulators, resulting in the continued existence of safety standards for public exposure that are excessive. Better recognition of the evidence for radiation hormesis would help to reduce public apprehensions about nuclear energy.

Mark, you might want as well to visit the radioactivity of the phosphates in fertilizers (source of radioactivity in bananas) we use on crops. Apparently, there are substantial areas of eastern farm lands that were used for tobacco production that are now over the "safe" radioactivity levels for food production - because of the NPK used on it over the years. "Some phosphate rock deposits are notable for their inclusion of significant quantities of radioactive uranium isotopes. This syndrome is noteworthy because radioactivity can be released into surface waters[10] in the process of application of the resultant phosphate fertilizer (e.g. in many tobacco farming operations in the southeast USA)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphate)

Florida also has some problems with the radioactive tailings from rock phosphate fertilizer mining there. Once the largest producer of rock phosphates in the world, the US has started running out in the last decade. We're now importing about 15% of our US phosphate demand from - Morocco. We thought ME foreign oil dependence was problem - wait to we experience foreign fertilizer (food) and biofuel dependence. We're now importing over half (54%) of our food fertilizers. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerTrade/summary.htm)

Personally, I would avoid swimming on Fukushimas public beach. That black tie dressed Mr. Halper reminds us that "there is obviously a difference between caution and hysteria", but in his case I would insist that there is only a thin line between naivity and stupidity. Natural radiation and the massive Fukushima fallout are as far apart from each other as is the amount of hydrochlic acid in your stomach from that in the barrels in my backyard!
Don't trust your local authorities either, they are 1. faking radiation levels and 2. admit the facts only later, when denial is no longer possible!
See for 1: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/21/world/asia/japan-nuclear/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
for 2: http://www.prisonplanet.com/operators-admit-fukushima-radiation-levels-exceed-2-12-times-announced-2.html)

People need to understand that radiation is indeed everywhere.

The boulders in my yard, in the Granite State of New Hampshire, will set off Geiger counters, but at harmless levels.

Inside my house is a different story. As houses have become more energy efficient, IE: almost completely air tight and well insulated, scientists have found that the radon gas emitted by decaying granite is being trapped in houses in unhealthy levels.

The naturally occurring gas leaks in through basement floors and foundations. It was never a danger before because old construction methods allowed plenty of air leakage and it never built up to toxic levels.

To allow for a more efficient, less leaky building design, many homes and businesses in NH and throughout New England have radon venting systems that capture the gas from under the foundation and vent it well clear of the roof line.

A quick air quality test in the basement, required in NH when a building without a radon vent is sold, can determine if a vent is needed. Towns can hold up an occupancy permit if a vent is needed.

As you said, caution is needed, but not hysteria.

Why isn't this covered under the clean air act like CO2?

The feds have not jumped on board yet.

Apparently high concentrations of radioactive radon gas have been linked to increases of lung cancer in non-smokers. In most cases it only reaches hazardous levels in the winter months when the house is buttoned up.

Opening a window for an hour once a month is sufficient to keep levels safe, but typical of government regulations you must install a permanent venting solution. A radon test is required when a house is sold. If the levels are above X a vent must be installed.

Our real estate agent told us to open a basement window for 2 days prior to the test and we would not have to deal with it.

My ex-wife closed the windows on me, it was a cool September, and we failed by the thinnest of margins.