I estimate my radiation dose for my day as ...
Displaying poll results.27400 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8477 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7155 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Answering less than a bunch... (Score:5, Informative)
...is just not possible. One banana is about 0.01 mrem. According to the NRC's annual radiation dose calculator [nrc.gov], I get about 301.016 mrem per year. On a daily basis, that means 0.8247 mrem, or about 82.5 bananas per day. That makes for quite a large bunch (at least, by grocery store standards - Wikipedia says they grow in 3-20 tiers per cluster, with up to 20 fruits per tier).
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
At time of writing - the poll is showing most people have chosen 0-3 bananas...
(sigh) I weep for our children.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:3)
(sigh) I weep for our children.
well be thankful that the people who are grossly underestimating how much radiation they are getting probably won't capable of having any children!
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Well, truth is unless they have a reason to care, they are probably fine.
Most people who have a reason are (supposed) to be educated in its safety. It's been my experience that most people who work around radiation have generally received some kind of mandated "radiation and you" style training.
Receiving the training does not mean understanding or absorbing the training.
A dental hygienist has one of those jobs I absolutely would not want: digging around in someone else's smelly mouth. I'm sure it doesn't pay particularly well, she has to deal with squirrelly children and annoying adults, and among everything else she has to do, she X-rays people's teeth daily. The last time I went in for a dental X-ray, my hygienist aligned the tube with the plate in my mouth, stepped back to the entrance to the cube (but not behind the wall), and clicked her remote button. I noticed that her torso was directly in line with the emitter! But she certainly didn't recognize what she had done, nor did she seem to care at all when I asked her about it. It was kind of an "Oh, I never noticed" response. Had there been any effective training in her background, I would have expected at least a facial reaction of "oh crap, I've been standing in front of an X-ray machine for the last 23 years!"
Given that the patients all sit in the same chair in the same orientation for their X-rays, and the line through the patient's teeth during a left premolar bitewing X-ray looks like it will always point to the cube entryway in a pretty repeatable fashion, I imagine she irradiates herself half a dozen times a day.
I don't know what kind of training she's received, if any, but whatever it was proved to be completely ineffective.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:3)
"(sigh) I weep for our children."
Yes, Somebody Think of The Children. We need a moratorium on banana sales for the sake of the children.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:5, Funny)
You let your children drink sake?
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:3)
Yes, but only banana free sake. And not based on brown rice which is known to contain relatively large quantities of potassium.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
I answered honestly, based on my exposure to eating bananas, which is accurately 0-3 per day.. Some days none, most days one, some days more than one, very rarely 3 or more. <grin/>
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
All you need to know about relative radiation exposure: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ [xkcd.com]
(Though I agree that it should have been in the stem of the poll....)
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
it might be a necessary lesson if we blow up a few more nuclear power plants.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Have you never played Fallout? Have to keep an eye on those rads :p
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:4, Informative)
Came here to post the same thing. I used the handy XKCD radiation chart [xkcd.com] to conservatively estimate that I'm receiving at least 100 banana's worth per day.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:5, Funny)
Come Mistah tally-man, read me dosime-tah.
Daylight come and me wonda do i glow.
Six REM, Seven REM, Eight REM dose!
Daylight come and me wonda do i glow.
DAY! Me say day-ay-ay-glow.
Daylight come and me wonda do i glow.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Well, now I don't trust the banana eating analogies. :(
I prefer Brazil Nuts Equivalent (Score:2)
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:5, Funny)
But do you eat the entire banana? I would imagine that most of the radiation lodges in the peel, a protective coating specially designed to absorb radiation and keep it away from the edible banana core. So the true danger here is for clowns, street mimes and their ilk, who are more likely to come into close contact with the dangerous radioactive peel.
---
Contrite, to say the least.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:3)
I would imagine that most of the radiation lodges in the peel, a protective coating specially designed to absorb radiation and keep it away from the edible banana core.
The radioactivity in a banana isn't caused by irradiation from external sources, it's in the potassium, which has a naturally-occurring radioactive isotope.
Of course, your comment is obviously a joke, so maybe I just spoiled it by explaining something you already knew. Oh well.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be true for an uneaten banana, but once you eat it you put that radiation inside your body where it does far more harm [...]
That's completely false. As explained in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org],
According to Bowes and Church's nutrition guide, the dose equivalent of eating a banana is about 0.01 mrem (or 0.1 Sv). [my emphasis]
So, just standing near a banana has no real measurable effect on your health, you have to eat it to get the 0.01 mrem. Furthermore, it also says:
When you eat a banana, your body's level of Potassium-40 doesn't increase. You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40. The net dose of a banana is zero.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Getting the prefix or scaling wrong seems to be happening all over the place. NHK said that the two firefighters standing in the water got between 2,000 and 6,000 mSv in one of their news stories, I'm hoping that was a misprint.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:2)
Yep, apparently Slashdot ate the "mu" character when I pasted the text from Wikipedia (the WP article is correct). I should have paid more attention when I posted.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:3)
Also 0.01 mrem is not 0.1 Sv (try 0.1 uSv). Given that 1 Sv starts to cause nausea, 0.1 Sv per banana would be bad. ;-)
I'm pretty sure I'd feel nauseous if I ate 10 bananas in one sitting, radioactive or not.
Re:Answering less than a bunch... (Score:3)
Actually, the body sheds excess Potassium-40 when you ingest more, so the net change in radioactivity from eating a banana is zero, therefore BED [wikipedia.org] doesn't really mean much. If the radiation from a banana worries you, avoid avocados and beets - they have 3x the potassium.
Without potassium, we can't survive. It is essential for heart functionality, protein synthesis, conversion of blood sugar into glycogen (long term energy storage), etc. Our bodies also naturally transform solar radiation into vitamin-D, so the "all radiation is bad" view is wrong - it is essential - just avoid too much exposure.
Errors, Errors everywhere... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow, we've found a poll with worse numbering than the one that assumed most people were born within 20 miles of their current home. [slashdot.org]
At least it was possible for someone to live within 20 miles of home. Here, though, the only option that's possible to select is the last. That is, unless a "bunch" is defined as "all of the bananas found in a typical large grocery store."
Re:Errors, Errors everywhere... (Score:3)
Truly this will go down in history as THE worst poll. Until the next one.
Not only does it make no sense and show about 3 minutes of thought, but it's also hilariously, almost autistically, insensitive. I can only figure that they were trying to spark some kind of discussion about radiation measurement systems, like this was an episode of xkcd or something. This is easily the laziest news publication that anyone takes even halfway seriously.
They have a tremendous and valuable readership and a brand name, and their work is of lower quality than second rate blogs about reality tv. Lazy, lazy, lazy lazy. It's been fun, guys. Been here since high school; you can take this 5 digit ID and shove it.
Re:Errors, Errors everywhere... (Score:2)
Goddammit!
How can I delete my account?
You can't. The system needs to keep track of the users, so accounts are permanent. Don't sweat leaving unused accounts hanging around. It doesn't hurt anything.
Re:Errors, Errors everywhere... (Score:2)
Here, though, the only option that's possible to select is the last. That is, unless a "bunch" is defined as "all of the bananas found in a typical large grocery store."
Wrong. The question isn't "How much radiation do you get in a day", the question is "How much radiation do you estimate you get in a day". I estimate my radiation dose to be between 3 and 6 bananas. My estimate is way off, but at least I'm not some loser who wikipedias radiation doses before answering a Slashdot poll.
You missed my favourite unit... (Score:5, Funny)
The 'TSA': the level of radiation received from an airport body scanner. As in, you have the 'freedom' to opt to receive a TSA rub-down or a TSA of radiation on each and every flight.
The only potential problem with this unit is that nobody has any idea of its size.
Re:You missed my favourite unit... (Score:3)
opt to receive a TSA rub-down
I prefer the colloquialism: Freedom Grope
Re:You missed my favourite unit... (Score:2)
Can you choose to take that line? I ended up in that line last time I flew, but the guy looked at my passport and told me to go there. I didn't even know where the lines went when he told me either...
Re:You missed my favourite unit... (Score:2)
"I would like to opt out of the scan" and they send you on your way to get groped. The fella I had was super professional about it and would have no qualms about doing it again.
banana eating Tokyo:ite (Score:2)
Re:banana eating Tokyo:ite (Score:2)
If your calculations are correct you don't have anything to worry about.
I'm not worried, I was complaining about insensitive clods, you insensitive clod.
Radon (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Banana equivalent dose (Score:3, Informative)
and
i might loose some carma points for pointing this out on a /., though.
missing option (Score:2)
"I live in a stone, brick, or concrete building, you insensitive clod!"
According to the radiation dose chart, that gets you 70 uSv, equivalent to about 2 bananas.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/ [xkcd.com]
Re:missing option (Score:2)
Yeah but that's per year. That's under 2 extra bananas per day.
Tops out at 12? (Score:2)
I estimate my daily dose of background radiation to the equivalent of well over 100 bananas.
3 Bananas / day (Score:2)
I've been eating, on average, 3 bananas per day for most of my adult life. They are an excellent source of potassium, fructose, and fiber.
After a 100 mile bike ride, electrolytes are usually in short supply, so a banana replaces lost potassium quickly. Also, fructose repletes lost glycogen in the liver more quickly than glucose. The fiber ensures I crap regularly.
I find it really stupid that one of the most healthy foods on the planet is being demonized because a minuscule amount of the potassium in them is isotopic.
Re:3 Bananas / day (Score:2)
Actually... all the potassium in them is isotopic.
Re:3 Bananas / day (Score:2)
Um.. everything is isotopic...
Re:3 Bananas / day (Score:2, Funny)
Obligatory (Score:2)
CowboyNeal (Score:2)
1 Million Bananas (and a hat).
This is a terrible, trivializing poll (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Rads, dude (Score:2)
The Banana Nuke Song (Score:5, Funny)
Day-oh Day-oh
Daylight come and me wanna go home (x2)
Work all night with uranium
Daylight come and me wanna go home
Set the fuel rods 'til morning sun
Daylight come and me wanna go home
Come, Mr. Manager, count up the megawatts
Daylight come and me wanna go home (x2)
It's 6 rem, 7 rem, 8 rem boom!
daylight come and me wanna go home (x2)
Re:The Banana Nuke Song (Score:3)
Re:The Banana Nuke Song (Score:2)
I plead hastiness and fall on the mercy of the moderators of the redundancy mods.
40 mSv (Score:2)
I average between 40 and 45 mSv per year. Considering that a banana is 0.1 microSv, that's a hell of a lot of banana equivalents.
That being said, I am a physician that works in a cardiac cath lab. Even with adequate (including eye) shielding, I expect to get early cataracts due to my exposure. I'm not complaining. I get paid enough to deal with it. :)
And if you're worried about the techs and nurses that work with me: None of them are *ever* closer to the active radiation source than me during a case, unless things hit the fan (ie: chest compressions), which occur less than once/year, and they all get less exposure than I do, as measured on our radiation badges.
Re:40 mSv (Score:2)
Ops. I was looking at my yearly dose. Daily is probably 1/365th of that, or ~110 microSv.
Re:40 mSv (Score:2)
It sounds like a lot, given that radiation workers have a dose limit of 50mSv per year, and 100mSv over a year is positively correlated with cancer...
I measure my radiation in units of... (Score:3)
I measure my radiation in units of mutant superheroes.
Japan is currently at 3 Fantastic Four, 8 Hulk
Re:I measure my radiation in units of... (Score:3)
Handy Chart (Score:4, Informative)
Courtesy of XKCD here is a handy chart of exposure levels:
http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/
1 banana = 2x sleeping next to someone who would have known ?
I am in a chemistry lab frequently, (Score:2)
I'm in a chemistry lab frequently, and deal with a guy whose primary research interest is ornanometallic complexes involving actinides, especially those of uranium (depleted, but still).
So probably "many" bananas.
Re:I am in a chemistry lab frequently, (Score:2)
Then again, you jumped at shadows as the person with "coal is full of radioactive carbon OMFG" (carbon14 half life 5730 years - coal age hundreds of millions of years). You didn't apologise for a blatant lie about fly ash toxicity either but that's a different topic.
Re:I am in a chemistry lab frequently, (Score:2)
Yes, hence my "many" bananas comment, and the general issue with simplifying radiation exposure down to simple units like this (and yes, on the Banana Equivalent Dose scale, living 50 mile from a coal plant is 3 bananas per year, while living 50 miles from a nuclear plant is 1 banana per year - because coal is radioactive, like I have been saying all along - albeit *slightly*, partially due to C14, and partially due to other elements in it like uranium, thorium, etc that are also present in minute quantities).
There's still no "lie" about fly ash - it is a toxic, nasty substance, albeit one that can be reprocessed into useful materials. It also have very unpleasant physical properties if you wash it into a mud slide - it's essentially like covering a town in thick mud full of toxic compounds and elements that separates into a fine dust when it dries out that is unpleasant to breathe in.
Anyway, on the lab front, I regularly calibrate a conductivity meter... with potassium chloride, so I don't doubt I get more "banana doses" from the large tub of KCl that I use to weigh out that solid before making up solutions than I do as second hand exposure from the guy I meet frequently who works with uranium (depleted) and other transuranic stuff - in fact, I I'd wager that his own body gives off more radiation than I get from any potential "contamination" from the stuff he works with, since the human body is also radioactive. (again, very small, etc etc, but "very small" are the doses we are dealing with here for all concerned).
And the guy working on the actinides is not solely confined to depleted uranium (which is interesting to hold in quantity since it is absurdly heavy for its volume) but some of the other more esoteric ones.
You should also note that while it is called "depleted uranium" it is just that - reduced in the more active isotopes (which themselves have pretty long half lives) but not completely eliminated. The U238 itself (which is already over 99% odd of natural uranium) is also radioactive, just with an exceptionally long HL. Just, with your opening sentence you make it sound like it's not radioactive at all, and since you like to be specific about these sorts of things - for example, dragging up an argument to conceded by resorting to calling me "scum" when you ran out of things to refute, I just want to make sure that we are both on the same page before continuing. The doses received from it are exceptionally small - just like natural uranium.
So to conclude, DU is an active radiation source, albeit with reduced activity due to reduction of the shorter HL isotopes to about 30% of their abundance compared to NU.
Fly ash is toxic and unpleasant, and I stand by that.
I get more radiation exposure from the tub of potassium chloride I use to calibrate a conductivity meter than I do from the professor who I see every day who works with uranium and other actinides.
I don't like the taste of bananas, so my exposure from them is quite small.
Re:I am in a chemistry lab frequently, (Score:2)
How the fuck do you expect that to happen in amounts worth mentioning after hundreds of millions of years? Don't tell me you think the earth is only 6000 years old or some weird shit about radioactive decay changing over time.
Yes - "processing" as in getting a lot of it together, squashing it into a brick and applying a bit of heat to get it to stick together, but you know that and are lying. You owe me an apology and the readers an apology for treating them as if they are very stupid and easily led.
Really? Try reading one sentence then the next then the one after then. There is radioactive as in stuff to worry about and wear a dosimeter and there is radioactive as in ignorable because it's exposure equivalent to background - incredibly obvious since these comments are attached to something talking about banana equivalent doses isn't it? No need to play games with that just to set me up as a stupid strawman and take your pretend version of me down a notch or two to make yourself feel good.
I saw a stupid comment and replied to it because I'm annoyed at people getting misled, that's what I do sometimes and that's all there is to it. I can't help that is getting stupider with you talking about getting irradiated by standing next to a guy that is probably taking a lot of care not to get contact with the fairly inactive stuff he's working with. We are talking in stupid low units at or even below the level of background, but still if you are getting more than background levels somebody is not doing their job
Re:I am in a chemistry lab frequently, (Score:2)
How do I expect it to happen? Oh who knows! But put a piece of coal in front of a counter and you can observe that it is radioactive! Oooh! Bill O'Riley style "You Can't Explain That!!" shock horror.
It has a 6000 year half life, and tends to build up in plants due to its formation (neutron capture by nitrogen > oxidation into CO2 > uptake by plants), so either it's there in trace amounts via contamination (eg, due to water taking organic matter into the rocks that contain the coal), or via other mechanisms.
There is, of course, also the presence of other radioactive sources - for example, uranium, which is present in minute amounts.
Really? Try reading one sentence then the next then the one after then. There is radioactive as in stuff to worry about and wear a dosimeter and there is radioactive as in ignorable because it's exposure equivalent to background - incredibly obvious since these comments are attached to something talking about banana equivalent doses isn't it? No need to play games with that just to set me up as a stupid strawman and take your pretend version of me down a notch or two to make yourself feel good.
Ok, I'll read one then the other:
If you don't have to wear a dosimeter than probably next to no extra bananas. It's called depleted for a reason. If it was active then somebody would take radiation safety seriously or the lab could face expensive consequences.
"If it was active" strongly implies that it's not active. ie, not a source of radiation, which in fact it is by it's very nature. A very weak source, but it is a source. You can't just make the definition whatever suits the way you inaccurately replied to my post.
Yes - "processing" as in getting a lot of it together, squashing it into a brick and applying a bit of heat to get it to stick together, but you know that and are lying. You owe me an apology and the readers an apology for treating them as if they are very stupid and easily led.
Yes, "processing" to make it into bricks and other aggregate to prevent it spreading everywhere as mud, or as a fine dust when it's extremely dry (you add binding to keep the bricks from becoming dust).
This doesn't change the chemical makeup of the raw material, which contains large quanities of SiO2 (sand), CaO (calcium oxide), and smaller, but still measurable and 'take notice' levels of things like mercury, arsenic, lead, as well as dioxins and other unburnt hydrocarbons. Just because you process it all up into bricks doesn't change that. Much better that you do that and use them for something rather than leave it in a large pile outside the power station that can be washed away in a large, toxic mudslide.
What "I know" is not what you're trying to say I know. What I do actually know is that you lost an argument with someone who doesn't get frustrated with your "berating" style of arguing where rather than actually concede a point when it's clear you were in error you attempt to reframe your opponents answers or tell them what they believe.
I am still amused that you are persisting in trying to argue that fly ash isn't a toxic, unpleasant material - so much so that you felt compelled to bring it up in a different thread on a new story. Presumably to try and get "fresh eyes" on it from other readers of slashdot, or perhaps to somehow attempt to "shame" me now that the old one is buried and unlikely to be read. You can look for external confirmation of your side of the argument if you like, but I am standing by my statements as made originally. So far you have not actually made any attempts to argue against it other than telling me that I really don't believe what I'm typing and that I'm deliberately lying.
I saw a stupid comment and replied to it because I'm annoyed at people getting misled, that's what I do sometimes and that's all there is to it. I can't help that is getting stupider with you talking about
Re:I am in a chemistry lab frequently, (Score:2)
"coal is full of radioactive carbon OMFG" (carbon14 half life 5730 years - coal age hundreds of millions of years).
You're correct about the carbon-14. However, coal is full of radioactive thorium. In fact, if you extracted the thorium and put it in a (suitably designed) nuclear reactor, you'd get more energy out of it than you would by burning the coal it came in.
Cultivar? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Cultivar_Groups [wikipedia.org]
A metric banana or an imperial banana?
One banana, two banana, three banana four (Score:2)
Of course danger depends on the type of radiation instead of the amount but if all you've got to measure stuff is fogged film or geiger counters what can you do? A volkswagen full of bananas of x-ray radiation would be ignorable while a neutron source emitting at the same rate as a few bananas would have a non-trivial chance of giving you cancer after a while.
The Ann Coulter plan (Score:2)
I'm on the Ann Coulter plan.
Dead Spocks per 113 minutes is best (Score:2)
Six foot, Seven foot, Eight foot..... (Score:3)
Re:You know I lost a friend to banana allergy (Score:5, Funny)
you insensitive clods! Why are we joking about such serious things?
Did he slip on one?
Re:You know I lost a friend to banana allergy (Score:2)
Re:You know I lost a friend to banana allergy (Score:2)
Re:You know I lost a friend to banana allergy (Score:2)
What about pointed sticks with a few bananas speared on them? I shudder to think of the possibilties.
Re:You know I lost a friend to banana allergy (Score:2)
Buuuzziiiiiiiiiiing!
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:2)
Argh, I checked it too but replied "wrong" because I didn't pay attention to the micros and the millis properly.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, etc.
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right - XKCD Banana Radiation Table [xkcd.com]. 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.
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:2)
Slashcode chokes on any Unicode symbol outside of the characters on the standard alphanumeric keyboard and a limited set of HTML entities that automatically get converted (most accented letters, e.g. é, the curly quotes and long dash characters). And it strips out any HTML entities that it doesn't recognize, so even if you know the entity you still can't use it - the … entity, for instance, just disappears when you preview/submit.
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:2)
And it stores passwords as cleartext (or at the very least with reversible encryption), and doesn't use HTTPS for logins.. not good.
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:2)
And it stores passwords as cleartext
But at least if you type in your password into a comment, it replaces it with asterisks when anyone else views the comment. For example, my password is ***********. When I post this, it will appear as aterisks to you, but to me I can still see the password in the comment.
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:2)
Hmm so you mean when I type gidrawOkFudNusebugnivRemBukBop3, all you see is asterisks? Cool! gidrawOkFudNusebugnivRemBukBop3 you!!!
*wonders how many people will actually try it out :p *
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:3)
Bad chart.
The average radiation level in Tokyo is about what they're calling the average radiation level in a town near the plant [wsj.com], even though Tokyo is 150 miles away. Tokyo is at 3-4x their normal background radiation right now. Fukushima City is at 100 times their normal background radiation. Residents of Fukushima City are collectively getting an extra 1 1/2 chest X-rays per year from external radiation. Fukushima City is itself 30 miles away from the reactor, and it's to the west (against the prevailing winds). Note that these are averages; for a given location, some areas will have less, while some areas will have notably more. Also note that these dosing figures are for external, non-ingested radiation exposure; radiation exposure from ingested material is orders of magnitude worse. Plus, the release of radioactive material from this plant is nowhere close to over. Three of the buildings had their tops blown out and at least one of the reactor's containment structures is believed to be cracked, and even the intact ones are going to require regular purges of radioactive gasses from the core for quite some time (the cladding on almost all of the rods in 1, 2, and 3 has failed, and who knows about the spent fuel pools in 3 and 4). God forbid anything further unexpected happen here -- there's five times as much radioactive material there as there was at Chernobyl. :P Who knows what's been going on corrosion-wise, since everything's been in contact with *super-hot seawater* for weeks now.
It's one thing to be a nuclear fan. It's another to distort the picture from a serious accident in order to play it down. As things stand, Fukushima is no Chernobyl, but it's no TMI, either.
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:3)
I would have expected better tha this fear-mongering from you, Rei. Here's an online Geiger counter in Tokyo [wakwak.com] that shows level for the past few days, and 3 months ago. Background radiation levels are about 1/3 higher than normal now. They peaked at 2x normal, which is still lower than normal in Denver.
The worst health risk was from the contaminated iodine, and very young children should not be driking tap water this week, but I-131 has an 8 day half-life and levels are already well off their peak.
The expected death toll from the reactor accident reamis the same as TMI: 0. Meanwhile, thousands died in the tsunami which the reactor has stolen all the media attention from, and hundreds of thousands are homeless. For those Slashdotter concerned with actual disasters, the tsunami relief effort still needs your donations.
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're trying to show with your link. Are you claiming that the WSJ is wrong? Looks like they're averaging 15CPM, which is .125 uSv, which is slightly below the official total as reported by the WSJ. Or are you mistakenly assuming that Tokyo's normal background radiation is higher than it actually is? Any comments about the fact that Tokyo is *150 miles away* from Fukushima #1? Or that this is comparing external exposure to inhaleable/ingestable dust?
You're talking about half lives as though the I-131 isn't still being emitted by the plant, and as if it won't continue to be emitted for weeks to months. Or as though the cesium risk isn't multi-decadal.
Concerning deaths, see this [slashdot.org] and many similar comments I've made over the years. Also, I'll add that I *hate* the shell game of "If you can't prove that this death was caused specifically by X, then X is off the hook."
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:4, Interesting)
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"
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:2)
Ah, I misread their charts. Well, their background radiation number for Tokyo's contradicts the official one from the WSJ. So if I have to choose between some random person's geiger counter mounted who-knows-where and the WSJ's reporting of an official number... well, do you really have to ask which one I'm going to go with?
Please re-read what I wrote again. Nuclear disasters are disasters in slow motion. You can't (usually) run away from a tsunami. You can (usually) run away from a nuclear disaster. Hence, nuclear disasters kill few people. But they're still disasters, and you *have* to react to them. If you sit around and let it keep leaking, if you sit in a high-radiation area and don't evacuate, if you keep selling crops contaminated by fallout, *then* you kill lots of people. So you have the choice between huge economic damages and killing lots of people. Everyone (obviously) chooses the former. Nuclear disasters, as a consequence, are primarily economic disasters. But people are always going to talk about deaths whenever the topic comes up, no matter how many times this gets pointed out. Chernobyl was a major contributing factor to the USSR's economic crisis that led to the collapse of the state.
Your friend is right about activated carbon, by the way -- it's a very good iodine absorber. Until this disaster is formally classified as contained, it'd be wise to use one.
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:2)
Ah, I misread their charts. Well, their background radiation number for Tokyo's contradicts the official one from the WSJ. So if I have to choose between some random person's geiger counter mounted who-knows-where and the WSJ's reporting of an official number... well, do you really have to ask which one I'm going to go with?
Have you read the WSJ much in recent years? 5 years ago I wouldn't believe them if they were reporting local weather. I've heard Rupert Murdoch really cleaned the paper up, but when that's the best you have to hope for, I'll belive the local news station (this is part of someone's local weather station, but i don't read Japanese so i don't know who). In any case, these are all very low numbers. Denver is around 75 CPM this week (normally around 50 I think), and 100 CPM is alert-worthy.
In terms of economic damage, that reactor wasn't cheap, but I suspect the cost of reactor-related damages will be a small % of the overall cost of the earthquake and tsunami. Japan has suffered a major natural disaster, and the hit to the nuclear plant remains a small part of that.
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:2)
The estimate for how much Chernobyl cost all together for the Soviet economy is $235 billion. In 1986 dollars. And they lost a lot smaller amount of power generation. And the disaster, while bigger, was in a far less wealth-concentrated area. This disaster will put northeastern Honshuu in rolling blackouts until summer. Trying to fathom the cost of that alone is just mind-boggling.
If the Japanese used the US's 50-mi evacuation zone, by the way, there would be several million refugees from Fukushima; Japan would have an IDP refugee crisis. There are three cities in the low to mid 6-figures population in that range, and a bunch smaller than it. Which is the main reason they're resisting doing so. Fukushima-shi, at a hundred times their reported normal background level of radiation (~4 microsieverts/hr), is the furthest of the major cities within the 50-mile radius. Again, remember that unlike normal background radiation, most of this radiation comes from materials which can be inhaled or swallowed, increasing its biological damage potential by orders of magnitude. I'd be comfortable living in Tokyo, but I would not be comfortable in Fukushima-shi. But there's no way Japan will evacuate them no matter how bad it gets.
Anyway, I'm hoping that they find a way to finally get these emissions under control so things can start becoming less "hot". Then the iodine will go away; the big question is how much cesium will remain.
Re:A Whole Bunch (Score:2)
I got a lovely bunch of coconuts....
Aww shoot, wrong fruit.
Re:Finally a Unit that people can understand (Score:2)
It already is... [wikimedia.org] that's the joke :)
Re:Finally a Unit that people can understand (Score:2)
It's also highly flawed. The radioactivity of bananas comes from potassium. But the human body controls it's potassium content.. if there's too much, it gets flushed out. So eating bananas will not increase the amount of radioactive material in your body.
This is completely different for e.g. radioactive iodine, which adds to the body's inventory of radioactive material.
Re:This is in poor taste (Score:3)
You would never have allowed a joke poll like this only a few days after 9/11.
No, but non-american sites would and probably have.
I definitely agree It's poor taste, but that's just human nature: as long as you're not a victim it's OK to make jokes. The minute it affects oneself, it's an entirely different matter...
Re:This is in poor taste (Score:2)
You would never have allowed a joke poll like this only a few days after 9/11.
No, but non-american sites would and probably have.
I definitely agree It's poor taste, but that's just human nature: as long as you're not a victim it's OK to make jokes. The minute it affects oneself, it's an entirely different matter...
A friend has family in Morioka, Sendai and coastal villages. He has been in touch with family trying to locate relatives, most of whom have by now been located and are safe, if low on water, food and heating energy.
Still he could laugh at a references to changes I recommended for the Empire Builder game Nippon Rails - it needs a new Tsunami/Earthquake event, where every player loses their train, all loads, most of their track and as soon as they get up and running again, there are new load cards for moving engineers, evacuees, food and water. I guess that's our geek way of exploring catharsis.
I estimate my daily radiation dose at 3 Bill The Cats, give or take a hairball.
Re:This is in poor taste (Score:2)
Don't know, it just doesn't feel right to make jokes so soon about a disaster that killed so many. And between you and me, I don't think you'd have cracked that same joke had you learned that your friend had lost loved ones over there. Not that I'm judging you though; on the whole pot/kettle scale I'm just as black as you are. But there's a difference between sharing some jokes with friends or coworkers who weren't affected and posting a poll about it on a high traffic website that may be visited by people who were.
Then again, perhaps I'm completely wrong about this. Kind of reminds me of a Biohazard quote from the song "Remember":
People think they understand. Sat watching TV back on quiet land.
That's what us debating this feels like to me: we can talk all we want... We weren't there, what do we know?
Re:a whole bunch (Score:2)
12 bananas per day?
I don't know where you shop, but I'd estimate that the bunches of bananas I've seen ranged between 6-9 bananas.
Re:58K bananas for me (Score:2)
I hate those things.
It's like getting 90 x-rays in 2 minutes. Because that's pretty much what it is.
About time we banned them and mandated MRI or PET scans instead, and limit the price of those to the time it takes.
Re:58K bananas for me (Score:2)
Re:ogligatory xkcd reference (Score:2)
You were in fact the 7th or 8th person to post it. Thanks for playing.