OT – Nuclear Fallout Map

[Eugene]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=Eugene]Rad is not a unit of fallout. That map is meaningless.[/quote]
But Rad is a measurement of ionizing (high energy) radiation, which is related to fallout. It indicates the strength if its related to units of time.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/488258/rad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad_%28unit%29%5B/quote%5D

You use rads to measure the cumulative amount of radiation, or ‘the dose’, absorbed by your body. At any given level of fallout, your dose depends on the duration of exposure, being indoors/outdoors, having an air filter in your AC that traps radioactive particles, etc. etc.

At the very least, they would want to use rads per hour. (And I’m pretty sure that the map does not show rads per hour. 750 rads/hr is the level of radiation 20 miles downwind of a 1 megaton nuclear explosion, not something you see 5000 miles from a reactor meltdown.)

The correct unit to measure fallout is becquerels per square meter or curies per square kilometer.

[ILoveRegulation]

Information from a poster on Mother Jones:

0-50 rads – No obvious short-term effects
80-120 rads – You have a 10% chance of vomiting and experiencing nausia for a few days
130 -170 rads – You have a 25% chance of vomiting and contracting other symptoms
180-220 rads – You have a 50% chance of vomiting and having other severe physical effects
270-330 rads – 20% chance of death in 6 weeks, or you will recover in a few months.
400-500 rads – 50% chance of death
550-750 rads – Nausea within a few hours ; no survivors
> 1000 rads – immediate incapacitation and death within a week or less.

Japan’s Nuclear Emergency Explained

Could a meltdown in Japan wipe out a large portion of the Western U.S.? It doesn’t seem likely, but I know nothing about nuclear power.

[ILoveRegulation]

Information from a poster on Mother Jones:

0-50 rads – No obvious short-term effects
80-120 rads – You have a 10% chance of vomiting and experiencing nausia for a few days
130 -170 rads – You have a 25% chance of vomiting and contracting other symptoms
180-220 rads – You have a 50% chance of vomiting and having other severe physical effects
270-330 rads – 20% chance of death in 6 weeks, or you will recover in a few months.
400-500 rads – 50% chance of death
550-750 rads – Nausea within a few hours ; no survivors
> 1000 rads – immediate incapacitation and death within a week or less.

Japan’s Nuclear Emergency Explained

Could a meltdown in Japan wipe out a large portion of the Western U.S.? It doesn’t seem likely, but I know nothing about nuclear power.

[ILoveRegulation]

Information from a poster on Mother Jones:

0-50 rads – No obvious short-term effects
80-120 rads – You have a 10% chance of vomiting and experiencing nausia for a few days
130 -170 rads – You have a 25% chance of vomiting and contracting other symptoms
180-220 rads – You have a 50% chance of vomiting and having other severe physical effects
270-330 rads – 20% chance of death in 6 weeks, or you will recover in a few months.
400-500 rads – 50% chance of death
550-750 rads – Nausea within a few hours ; no survivors
> 1000 rads – immediate incapacitation and death within a week or less.

Japan’s Nuclear Emergency Explained

Could a meltdown in Japan wipe out a large portion of the Western U.S.? It doesn’t seem likely, but I know nothing about nuclear power.

[ILoveRegulation]

Information from a poster on Mother Jones:

0-50 rads – No obvious short-term effects
80-120 rads – You have a 10% chance of vomiting and experiencing nausia for a few days
130 -170 rads – You have a 25% chance of vomiting and contracting other symptoms
180-220 rads – You have a 50% chance of vomiting and having other severe physical effects
270-330 rads – 20% chance of death in 6 weeks, or you will recover in a few months.
400-500 rads – 50% chance of death
550-750 rads – Nausea within a few hours ; no survivors
> 1000 rads – immediate incapacitation and death within a week or less.

Japan’s Nuclear Emergency Explained

Could a meltdown in Japan wipe out a large portion of the Western U.S.? It doesn’t seem likely, but I know nothing about nuclear power.

[ILoveRegulation]

Information from a poster on Mother Jones:

0-50 rads – No obvious short-term effects
80-120 rads – You have a 10% chance of vomiting and experiencing nausia for a few days
130 -170 rads – You have a 25% chance of vomiting and contracting other symptoms
180-220 rads – You have a 50% chance of vomiting and having other severe physical effects
270-330 rads – 20% chance of death in 6 weeks, or you will recover in a few months.
400-500 rads – 50% chance of death
550-750 rads – Nausea within a few hours ; no survivors
> 1000 rads – immediate incapacitation and death within a week or less.

Japan’s Nuclear Emergency Explained

Could a meltdown in Japan wipe out a large portion of the Western U.S.? It doesn’t seem likely, but I know nothing about nuclear power.

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]The correct unit to measure fallout is becquerels per square meter or curies per square kilometer.[/quote]

Yes and no. Both Becquerel and Curies relate to decay rate. There is no relation to the damage of human tissue, nor to the amount of energy delivered to target – which relate to Rads, Rems(roentgen) or Sieverts. Both of these measurements (Becquerel, Curies ) map directly to readings on unshielded counters (moment you start shielding the counter, you are considering energy).

The measures that are important to human ‘survivability’ are based in Rads/Rems because they also account for the potential tissue damage.

[quote Eugene]At the very least, they would want to use rads per hour. [/quote]Definitely. Or better Rems/hr because it takes into account the potential of the particular type of radiation to cause tissue damage.

Came across a good info source on Radiation:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html
Half way down, has a comparative between different sources, including 3-mile island and Chernobyl.

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]The correct unit to measure fallout is becquerels per square meter or curies per square kilometer.[/quote]

Yes and no. Both Becquerel and Curies relate to decay rate. There is no relation to the damage of human tissue, nor to the amount of energy delivered to target – which relate to Rads, Rems(roentgen) or Sieverts. Both of these measurements (Becquerel, Curies ) map directly to readings on unshielded counters (moment you start shielding the counter, you are considering energy).

The measures that are important to human ‘survivability’ are based in Rads/Rems because they also account for the potential tissue damage.

[quote Eugene]At the very least, they would want to use rads per hour. [/quote]Definitely. Or better Rems/hr because it takes into account the potential of the particular type of radiation to cause tissue damage.

Came across a good info source on Radiation:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html
Half way down, has a comparative between different sources, including 3-mile island and Chernobyl.

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]The correct unit to measure fallout is becquerels per square meter or curies per square kilometer.[/quote]

Yes and no. Both Becquerel and Curies relate to decay rate. There is no relation to the damage of human tissue, nor to the amount of energy delivered to target – which relate to Rads, Rems(roentgen) or Sieverts. Both of these measurements (Becquerel, Curies ) map directly to readings on unshielded counters (moment you start shielding the counter, you are considering energy).

The measures that are important to human ‘survivability’ are based in Rads/Rems because they also account for the potential tissue damage.

[quote Eugene]At the very least, they would want to use rads per hour. [/quote]Definitely. Or better Rems/hr because it takes into account the potential of the particular type of radiation to cause tissue damage.

Came across a good info source on Radiation:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html
Half way down, has a comparative between different sources, including 3-mile island and Chernobyl.

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]The correct unit to measure fallout is becquerels per square meter or curies per square kilometer.[/quote]

Yes and no. Both Becquerel and Curies relate to decay rate. There is no relation to the damage of human tissue, nor to the amount of energy delivered to target – which relate to Rads, Rems(roentgen) or Sieverts. Both of these measurements (Becquerel, Curies ) map directly to readings on unshielded counters (moment you start shielding the counter, you are considering energy).

The measures that are important to human ‘survivability’ are based in Rads/Rems because they also account for the potential tissue damage.

[quote Eugene]At the very least, they would want to use rads per hour. [/quote]Definitely. Or better Rems/hr because it takes into account the potential of the particular type of radiation to cause tissue damage.

Came across a good info source on Radiation:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html
Half way down, has a comparative between different sources, including 3-mile island and Chernobyl.

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]The correct unit to measure fallout is becquerels per square meter or curies per square kilometer.[/quote]

Yes and no. Both Becquerel and Curies relate to decay rate. There is no relation to the damage of human tissue, nor to the amount of energy delivered to target – which relate to Rads, Rems(roentgen) or Sieverts. Both of these measurements (Becquerel, Curies ) map directly to readings on unshielded counters (moment you start shielding the counter, you are considering energy).

The measures that are important to human ‘survivability’ are based in Rads/Rems because they also account for the potential tissue damage.

[quote Eugene]At the very least, they would want to use rads per hour. [/quote]Definitely. Or better Rems/hr because it takes into account the potential of the particular type of radiation to cause tissue damage.

Came across a good info source on Radiation:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html
Half way down, has a comparative between different sources, including 3-mile island and Chernobyl.

[ILoveRegulation]

Pretty good story and video:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/31595

It sounds like we are past three-mile island at this point and entering into Chernobyl territory where cancer rates are going to spike within a certain radius. Unfortunately, it sounds like there are more reactors at risk here — up to 5 — so this could be a mega-nuclear disaster on top of a mega-natural disaster.

[ILoveRegulation]

Pretty good story and video:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/31595

It sounds like we are past three-mile island at this point and entering into Chernobyl territory where cancer rates are going to spike within a certain radius. Unfortunately, it sounds like there are more reactors at risk here — up to 5 — so this could be a mega-nuclear disaster on top of a mega-natural disaster.

[ILoveRegulation]

Pretty good story and video:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/31595

It sounds like we are past three-mile island at this point and entering into Chernobyl territory where cancer rates are going to spike within a certain radius. Unfortunately, it sounds like there are more reactors at risk here — up to 5 — so this could be a mega-nuclear disaster on top of a mega-natural disaster.

[ILoveRegulation]

Pretty good story and video:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/31595

It sounds like we are past three-mile island at this point and entering into Chernobyl territory where cancer rates are going to spike within a certain radius. Unfortunately, it sounds like there are more reactors at risk here — up to 5 — so this could be a mega-nuclear disaster on top of a mega-natural disaster.

[Author]

Posts