|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 17, 2011 10:36:42 GMT 1
From Wikipedia: A banana equivalent dose is a concept occasionally used by nuclear power proponents to place in scale the dangers of radiation by comparing exposures to the radiation generated by a common banana...... The average radiologic profile of bananas is 3520 picocuries per kg, or roughly 520 picocuries per 150g banana. The equivalent dose for 365 bananas (one per day for a year) is 3.6 millirems (36 μSv). Bananas are radioactive enough to regularly cause false alarms on radiation sensors used to detect possible illegal smuggling of nuclear material at US ports. Another way to consider the concept is by comparing the risk from radiation-induced cancer to that from cancer from other sources. For instance, a radiation exposure of 10 mrems (10,000,000,000 picorems) increases your risk of death by about one in one million—the same risk as eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter, or of smoking 1.4 cigarettes... Some other foods that have above-average levels are potatoes, kidney beans, nuts, and sunflower seeds.[8] Among the most naturally radioactive food known are brazil nuts, with activity levels that can exceed 12,000 picocuries per kg.... Also, bananas cause radiation exposure even when not ingested; for instance, standing next to a crate of bananas causes a measurable dose... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose |
|
|
|
Post by principled on Feb 17, 2011 10:52:23 GMT 1
I took to eating bananas for breakfast some years ago. Since then my wife says I'm glowing with health. Now I know why!  P |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 17, 2011 13:31:26 GMT 1
It certainly helps to place ones fears about radiation in context, principled!
As does this from BenfromMO
"More people have died in Kennedy cars then died from radiation at three mile island…."
and GregR
"I love it when nuclear physics and understandable analogies intersect."
I hope you have voted for WUWT in the top science blog poll, principled!
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Feb 17, 2011 13:34:43 GMT 1
here's a question: In which occupation do workers experience the greatest exposure to radiation?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 17, 2011 13:40:43 GMT 1
Radiology?
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Feb 17, 2011 14:12:46 GMT 1
Not radiology, not nuclear power workers, not banana farming.
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 17, 2011 14:40:52 GMT 1
Airline Crew?
|
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Feb 17, 2011 15:33:46 GMT 1
Correct. they get more cosmic and solar radiation because they are above much of the protective atmosphere. (Concorde crews experienced the greatest intensity of radiation because they flew particularly high, but the flights were shorter in duration so the total dose was about the same.) |
|
|
|
Post by principled on Feb 17, 2011 15:53:16 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 17, 2011 17:35:01 GMT 1
Eammon,
So that is the reason why stewardesses look like they are glowing
.. and I thought it was on account of all the sex ...
|
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Feb 17, 2011 17:53:02 GMT 1
Correct. they get more cosmic and solar radiation because they are above much of the protective atmosphere. (Concorde crews experienced the greatest intensity of radiation because they flew particularly high, but the flights were shorter in duration so the total dose was about the same.) What about the poor buggers who dig uranium ore out of the ground? |
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 17, 2011 20:08:36 GMT 1
Eammon,
If you know miners, shouldn't that be;
"What about the poor rich buggers who dig uranium ore out of the ground? "
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Feb 19, 2011 10:20:05 GMT 1
Correct. they get more cosmic and solar radiation because they are above much of the protective atmosphere. (Concorde crews experienced the greatest intensity of radiation because they flew particularly high, but the flights were shorter in duration so the total dose was about the same.) What about the poor buggers who dig uranium ore out of the ground? What about them? Uranium ore is an utterly benign substance. You could build your house with it with no ill effects. Granite is more radioactive and Aberdeen is built with the stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 20, 2011 15:02:36 GMT 1
Re-read this thread those worried about radiation spreading from the Japanese reactor. And note this coment from Hector Pascal who says: March 20, 2011 at 3:21 am In another geological life, I collected a series of drill samples through the uranium ore body at Honeymoon Well in South Australia. Being a dutiful Senior Research Scientist at CSIRO Division of Exploration and Mining, I reported my bag of samples to the Site Safety Officer. He brought his geiger counter and checked me out. It’s OK he said, no problem, then passed the counter over the bricks outside my office. The bricks were more radioactive than my uranium samples.wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/20/someone-is-wrong-in-the-msm-about-radiation/#more-36304 |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 12, 2011 9:56:45 GMT 1
Monbiot recants and slams green nuclear critics www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushimaI post these links not because I have any respect for George Monbiot but simply to demonstrate that it IS possible to change one's opinions without being in the pay of some nefarious interest or other. I myself never questioned the meme of AGW until Durkin's "The Great Global Warming Swindle" in 2007 prompted me to start informing myself about the subject. Naturally I never looked back once my eyes were opened! (Has anyone ever changed their opinion in the other direction - from being a sceptic to being an AGW "believer"? Not too many, is my guess because the "evidence" isn't exactly "compelling" is it?) |
|
