So What Does It All Mean???
Reading this article, it appears that the usual suspects are out there scare-mongering again. No numbers are given. The tests mentioned are able to measure single atoms of radioactive cesium in a sample. Are they going to use a background level of what is naturally occurring verses what is found now?
What about the radiation dosage levels verses the natural background levels of radiation? Real conditions are never Zero. They never have been.
Is the leakage still going on? How rapidly are the levels dropping, or are they still going up?
There was a large area closed to fishing due to fears of radioactive iodine. What is the iodine level now?
How fast is the material decaying? The most dangerous materials have the shortest half life. What is the expected half life of the materials encountered?
What is the dosage expected? How does this dosage compare to the dosage found in the area for undisturbed materials? That is never zero. There is always some minute amount of the material. How does this dosage compare to the allowable yearly dosage? How many equivalent medical X-rays does this equal in a year?
This article is very short on information. It seems to just be an attempt to make people scared. A little more questioning would help illuminate the conditions a lot more.
Chernyoble seems to have, after 20 years, a whole viable natural ecosystem thriving in areas that were claimed to be uninhabitable for millenia. There are still areas in Ukraine that are dangerous to live in, but few that are lethal.
Most of the Western press are rabid about the Nuclear incidents, but are ignoring the still substantial damage and death toll of the combined tsunami and earthquake. Whole provinces were leveled, and tens of thousands were killed.
The total nuclear death toll from the 50 year old plant that was operating at least ten years beyond it's expected end of life will in all probability never equal, or even seriously rival the death toll of the natural disasters that spawned the reactor leakage and damage.
Why is it that we are focusing solely on the off chance that there MIGHT be some damage in the future, and yet ignoring the plight of hundreds of thousands who had their whole way of life wiped out by the non-nuclear aspects of this tragedy? Is there any realism in this reporting?
So far, the total is well over 100,000 dead from tsunami and earthquake, and 2 dead from the reactor. One of those was a stress induced heart attack. Where is our sense of proportion?
Is SmartPlanet being smart, or just trying to be 'trendy'?
