Jim: Two proposed tests for whether they are crying wolf:
*(Serious one): Take a look at the FAO link I posted (FAO is UN's Food & Agriculture Organization). They outline two approaches which I think may sense but I am not very familiar with radiological calculations. By either of FAO's approaches, the food looks OK by about two orders of magnitude. The water looks bad by an order of magnitude. Since you are more familiar with radiological calculations, do the FAO recommendations make sense to you? *(Frivilous one): Go to the home page of the original article. Look at the titles of some of their other articles or skim them. 'Nuff said? ________________________________ From: James Frysinger <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, April 8, 2013 12:47:59 PM Subject: [USMA:52630] Re: Unclear use of radiation units The article is useless and poorly written, as many here have pointed out. I have significant experience in radiological controls for human exposure and nothing here provides me with sufficient data to estimate resulting exposures. It does serve one sole purpose, perhaps its only intended one -- scaring the public. But it might be crying "wolf" for all that I can tell. Jim -- James R. Frysinger 632 Stony Point Mountain Road Doyle, TN 38559-3030 (C) 931.212.0267 (H) 931.657.3107 (F) 931.657.3108 On 2013-04-08 00:49, Pierre Abbat wrote: > http://www.naturalnews.com/039828_Fukushima_radiation_media_blackout.html > > He gives a distance in only miles and messes up the capitalization, but that's > not the point. > > The amount of radiation in food is given in becquerels per kilogram. Two > paragraphs later, the maximum exposure is given in millisieverts per year. A > becquerel is one random event per second; I can imagine putting a kilogram of > tangerines in a Geiger counter and hearing about four clicks a second. A > sievert is a joule per kilogram, adjusted for how much damage it does to a > body. > > The amount of damage done by a particle emitted by a radioactive atom depends > on the kind of particle and the energy with which it's thrown out. Not being a > nuclear scientist, I have no idea how much this is for any nuclide, and the > author doesn't state it. > > Also submitted on the web form. > > Pierre >
