Thank you for the link. I will try to find the underlying data the article is based on. A key attribute I would look for would be the "uniformity" of the readings. When the contamination source is thousands of miles away, a uniformed air distribution could be assumed. With reports of "hot spots" and contamination maps indicating a wide range of contamination densities, I would think a different approach would be required. Either way, it looks like the areas where over 4 million people most at risk (Fukushima and Miyagi) were excluded. I really wish they would just throw all this data at a place like Google Data Explorer.

I think you are assuming the primary "vector" of contamination is the air and are discounting cumulative effects. Do all foods pull in Cs and Sr in equal proportions to ground contamination? Does Cs and Sr have the same biological half life in humans?

I want to know, but how much control do have when they decide not to tell.

Sr 90 has a molecular form soluble in water. Water is leaking from the plant everyday, so airborne models are not the full picture. Either way, please provide links to the model supporting these numbers. I am curious on how such models are created when beta emitters are so difficult to track.

Or perhaps they are more interested in Cs because they would have a hell of a time trying to measure Sr 90. Sr 90 seems the most dangerous, with a widely debated biological half-life.

Yes, or in this case, teeth are not developed yet (can they just remove a speck of tooth or do they need the entire tooth)?

Exactly my point. That is why I went off on CrimsonAvenger. And, no, I will not bother asking the manifestation of organized incompetence that is known as "TEPCO."

Thank you very much for the thorough explanation. This is why I come to Slashdot.

I see, thank you. So I guess Cesium 137 represents one of those "certain circumstances" that beta emitters can be measured. I assume the "degraded sensitivity" model would include some kind of 1/0.05 factor for the portion of gamma energy (i.e. oversimplified, maybe the process is 1/20th as sensitive to Cs 137 compared to a 100% gamma emitter).

Strontium 90, on the other hand, appears to be 100% beta decay (please correct me if I am wrong). Accordingly, I assume that whole-body counting process is not capable of detecting it (have to wait for baby teeth for that?). The question, I suppose, would be whether Cesium 137 could be a proxy for Strontium 90 detection. Both appear to be water soluble (Strontium 90, itself, is insoluble, but it can chemically react to create a soluble molecular form).

However, if we are talking about exposure through food, then the problem becomes much more complicated because of all the potential differences in biological interaction Cesium and Strontium may have (how much of this has been mapped out so far?). Is this understanding correct? Can anyone here add to this?

When it comes to internal exposure, I thought alpha and beta radiation were the more dangerous forms. Can anyone here confirm the "sensitivity" of quantifying alpha contamination through indirect detection, and how to assess beta emitter risk (any other methods that can detect it)? Any new technology companies addressing these on the horizon (that I can invest in)?

Obviously you are just too brainwashed to notice "the birth of Christ" when it happens . . . (and the topic was "selling" not "pushing" products, whatever that means . . .).

Because every grocery store I have ever gone to has also sold similar lies, like religion and diet themed products.

Hate for your hate of homeopathy to make you blind to other forms of lies. . .

I have spent more money on games since Steam was released on Linux than I have my entire life.

It is like having and eating my cake, too (but, this time, the cake is not a lie).

Sorry, there has to be a thread devoted to this . . .

-What kind of egg-head does it to take to create fake eggs, anyway?
-If this does not succeed, it will be fake egg on his face . . .
-Whenever I crack an egg, I will imagine I am hearing the sound "Li Ka-shing" for the rest of my life . . .
-He has got some huge juevos (but I bet they are fake. . .).
-The 3rd picture in the article looks like an eggman is eating another egg (a form of egg cannablism)

Add your own below!

Right, but why go through the trouble and risk of hacking someone else's database when it will soon be cheap enough to sequence directly yourself?

Obtain a used air filter of a building, and you may have the DNA of anyone who has been in that building for the last couple of days . . . legally.

If I were not constantly releasing millions of copies of my DNA in the form of dead skin cells everywhere I go. Either my cells need to also adopt this encryption standard, or I need a lifestyle where I am completely self sufficient (including my waste disposal), never having to leave my home.

Even then, a gust of wind while I am in the backyard might be all that is required one day for someone's reader to catch my DNA and run a simulation to match with facial recognition.

You've got a picture of a photobooth? Do you have a picture collection of photographers, as well? Perhaps it sits on your coffee table, next to a camera catalog.

Sorry, I must get more sleep tonight . . .

I am a financial analyst. Knowing how to program allows me to automate boring things and generate analysis that would otherwise be impossible. It also means I am constantly creating tools that threaten the employment of coworkers who do not know how to program.

When you know programming, you spend most of your time improving the 1st and even 2nd derivative of the productivity function of a given task. When enough people like that are available for a given field, why would employers bother with people who are not capable of that level of productivity?

. . . and a motherf---ing medal of honor.

To be honest, I would not be surprised if he were actually sent by some other part of the federal government to sabotage a rogue NSA. However, you will never see anyone officially admit it until the NSA is neutered. To do so would be political suicide (or more . . .).

energy per unit weight/volume
Sure, but you are stuck at 30% efficiency tops extracting that energy with an ICE. Don't forget that you cannot "create gasoline" when braking or scale down fuel usage to the same degree when idle in traffic, so there is even a greater offset to the raw energy density advantage. Plus, if energy density was EVERYTHING, we'd go nuclear. Clearly there is a "sweet spot" range (probably dependent on each usage case) that, once met, additional range is negligible to the user's purchase decision, compared to things like cost.

cycle life
Does this comparison even make sense? Gasoline has a single life cycle, so batteries win there. Do you mean ICE vs. electric motors? Still afraid EVs win there. Alright, maybe you mean ICE vs batteries. Well, yes, ICEs still beat battery cycle life, but I would argue that is not important. The important question is does a battery replacement 8 years from now (standard Nissan Leaf warranty) cost less than all the repairs and gasoline premiums (over electricity) for an ICE system, over the same period. For my routine use, clearly the EV wins hands down.

and charge speed.
Charge speed can be mitigated by charge flexibility. I do not care about charge speed because my car charges at night in my garage. In fact, I am liberated to never have to "refuel" during my routine schedule. I can also charge while shopping (or sit in the car with the AC on full blast while my wife shops) or even at work, when my employer eventually installs chargers (not required for my use, but a "nice to have"). Long term trips will require new technology, but this, for most people, is an almost negligible use case (most people would just rent for long trips than wait for the technology to reach that point before purchasing an EV).

As with everything, cost will be the main driver. Battery technology is improving faster than ICE technology, so I see EVs winning out long term. For me, I already calculated a better return on a Nissan Leaf, so I got one (JFYI, I also still have an ICE, though). However, these calculations require some financial knowledge, so adoption could be slower than one would expect, like LEDs (How many times have a heard, "I refuse to pay $10 for a light bulb!" . . . but you will break even in 6 months based on your usage . . . oh, well . . .).