Forgot your password?

I estimate my radiation dose for my day as ...

Displaying poll results.
Zero bananas equivalent
  2295 votes / 8%
Between 0 and 3 bananas equivalent
  8548 votes / 31%
Between 3 and 6 bananas equivalent
  2997 votes / 10%
Between 6 and 12 bananas equivalent
  1465 votes / 5%
A whole bunch!
  3852 votes / 14%
You are ignoring my preferred way to measure radiation.
  8241 votes / 30%
27398 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I estimate my radiation dose for my day as ...

Comments Filter:
  • Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:5, Interesting)

    by txoof (553270) on Friday March 25, 2011 @02:39AM (#35608552) Homepage

    You're right - XKCD Banana Radiation Table []. The poll's ranges are WAY outside the actual exposure for a typical human. I live in Norway on top of a bunch of decomposing granite that just oozes radon gas and ionizing radiation. So I figure my daily dose is closer to 12 uSv which is about to 120 bananas.

    I think the only way you can get to 0 Bananas is to transfer your consciousness into the cloud and ditch the body all together. Just being alive exposes you to around 11 bananas worth of ionizing radiation (1.08 uSv/day on average) from decaying potassium found throughout your body.

    It's too bad the media links all radiation exposure to death and destruction. This poorly informed idea of what ionizing radiation is and is not lead to crazy statements from the Nevada governor stating that zero radiation exposure is the only acceptable level. Obviously, it's not a great idea to hang out around sources of ionizing radiation, but it's part of life and life has adapted to some background radiation. As long as you're not snacking on uranium laced bananas, you're probably going to be OK.

    By the way, slashcode chokes on the mu ---- symbol. I'm sure this has been noted before, but I never paid attention.

  • Radon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cgomezr (1074699) on Friday March 25, 2011 @05:14AM (#35609096)

    I live in an area with lots of underground granite that emits radon. The background radiation here is estimated to be around 12 mSv/year. That's around 32 uSv/day, i.e., 320 bananas. More like a crate than a bunch, I'd say.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 25, 2011 @08:52AM (#35610090)

    This poll wrongly lumps all "radiation" together into the trivial effect that a banana has. The is a gross overgeneralization, and a severe distortion of the facts -- this is nearly as bad as people who claim that microwaves, radio waves and ultraviolet radiation are all also radiation, and therefor, since we use ultraviolet radiation to get vitamin D, a little radiation might actually be good for us.

    This is very wrong. Not only are some kinds of radiation more hazardous than others (eg, alpha vs neutron radiation), but certain radioisotopes are more dangerous than others -- because certain parts of our bodies are more susceptible to cancer, and the worst kinds of radioisotopes congregate in those areas -- unlike, say, radioactive potassium from a banana.

    I'm all for nuclear power, and I believe that it can be made safe, however I certainly do not believe PR lies and misinformation. Anyone who agrees with the banana metaphor is killing a kitten. This is faulty reasoning at its worst -- faulty reasoning that directly harms the reasoner and other people.

  • Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lgw (121541) on Friday March 25, 2011 @01:12PM (#35613106) Journal

    You can see Tokyo's pre-quake radiation level on that same page.

    2011/03/05: mean 21.54 CPM
    2010/12/05: mean 14.00 CPM

    So, admitedly that's a 50% increase, not a 33% increase now that I look at the numbers instead of eyeballing it, but it's still a tempest in a teapot.

    You can estimate average deaths indirectly cause by exposure to nuclear material by the estimated increased risk and the number of people involved. Are you really saying that there's any chance that the long term deaths here will be within 2 orders of magnitude of the long term death toll from the tsunami? Why obsess over "scary scary nukular scary" instead of comparing the risks mathematically to other risks - you know, dangerous things like household accidents.

    As my friend in Tokyo wrote recently about the water risk "For us, we think (a) these amounts shouldn't matter and (b) our activated carbon filtration systems will take care of this, but carefully consumed wine and beer this evening just to be safe"

... though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"


Forgot your password?