Friday, March 25, 2011
Another VERY interesting thing to note is that while the radiation levels in the drinking water are set at 100 Becquerel/L for infants and 300 Becquerel/L for adults, the INTERNATIONAL standard is a WHOPPING 3,000 (Three THOUSAND). That's a power of 10! Our "danger for infants" likely wouldn't even register on your international standards. More food for thought, eh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the science on this is young as of yet..
ReplyDeleteone runs a greater risk of ill health from obesity
Yes, you are exactly right. We have been fighting a war against cancer, and a war against obesity for seemingly forever. And the pundits are no closer than they were when they started, as is witnessed through the ever-increasing obesity and heart disease rates in the developed worlds.
ReplyDelete'food for thought'
ReplyDeleteThe part of the science needing further development is the biochemistry of decaying isotopes and their impact on organic bodies.
ReplyDeleteThe trick with it, is, as with many things, placement and timing.
The human body as an example, has literally tens of thousands of corrective mechanisms in it that continually address all kinds of damage via a series of complex and simple interactions. But the ability of a body to deal with certain kinds of damage is directly dependent upon it's stage of development.
As an example, throughout the vast history of our development as a biological entity, our genetics and bodies dealt with the most common threats available to us,... mainly biological agents, bugs. Radiation wasn't a problem for us, the way it was for early cockroaches.
Hence our young bodies are able to deal with illnesses that would typically take down an adult. This is tied to how fast cells can undergo mitosis. The younger a body, the faster the mitosis.
The speed of this mitosis is susceptible to radiation. Minor and rapid changes in cell structure are extremely vulnerable to biochemical changes resulting from isotopic radioactive decay, which very effectively changes the chemistry of the elements participating in the reactions.
Slower rates of mitosis mean a lower level of risk.
As for the inconsistency in standards of exposure,... this has been consistent for decades (GRIN - yep that was a bad punny!!)
Before sieverts (or however it's spelled), the common measure of exposure was rem. The rate of conversion is 5 rems for 50 sieverts.
The US Atomic Energy Commission's standard for exposure is 5 rems per year. The US Navy's standard for their nuclear power program is 0.5 rems.
The higher standard is based on the level of exposure one would receive if living on the island of Hawaii for a year.
The lower one by the USN, is based on a desperate measure by the father of the nuclear navy (H.G. Rickover) to keep the USN's program.
Because of an accident with a US Army reactor,... and a few incidents with the US Air Force, congress was yanking the programs. The US Navy was able to keep theirs by tightening down the standards to a level most thought would be nearly impossible to achieve.
And I'm out of time.
Hope this helps!!!
Have a great day and please stay safe!!!
Respectfully,