Published: September 22nd, 2011 at 3:34 pm ET
|
Observations of Fallout from the Fukushima Reactor Accident in San Francisco Bay Area Rainwater, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley:
the US EPA limit on 131I allowed in drinking water of 3 Bq L−1 (81 pCi L−1) [5]
Citation 5: US Environmental Protection Agency website. Available: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#Radionuclides Accessed 2011 Aug 30 and Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry website. Available: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=23&po=12#tocbookmark0 Accessed 2011 Aug 30.
The citation actually shows that the EPA limit is 3 pCi/liter, not 81:
SOURCE: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
Published: September 22nd, 2011 at 3:34 pm ET
|
...
sending...
27 x 3 = 81 They must be mathamagicians.
I think they used the same math when calculating containment structure strength. Oops!
Report Comment
If you believe anything from those radiation fakers at Berkeley, then I’ve got some swamp land in Fukushima to sell you.
Report Comment
Look, I”m not a Health physicist or Nuclear scientist, i’m just a generic
bright guy who reads broadly. If i have it right, the EPA reccomends you
take action from Radon exposure at 4 PCi/L for household air.
My Mom’s place in Maryland shows 2-2.5 PCi/L of radon in the air.
So it didn’t seem worthwhile to do the slab vents or any of that.
So, when we see Radiation levels for Iodine that are 10-100,000 background,
we should wonder if we can compare that to Radon. We saw Iodine Levels out west spike like crazy. Iodine has a 8 Day halflife, Radon has a 4 day halflife. Both of these are Alpha emitters and are gas inhalants.
Report Comment
Your appalachians have granites. possible rock
foundations, walls…do you have fans for slab vents?
Report Comment
i like the disingenuous way they state that “the US average annual radiation dose [is] 6.2 mSv” while failing to indicate that half of that is from man-made sources (x-rays, etc)… the impression they seem to be going for is that somehow 6.2 is “all-natural”.
even better is the way the source they site in the article (an NRC publication, of course) laughs at natural sources of radiation (cosmic rays, radon, thoron, etc.):
“No adverse health effects have been discerned from doses arising from these levels of natural radiation exposure.”
the money shot, though, is the disclaimer:
“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
LOL
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html
Report Comment
AL: I must confess, I like you a lot better now that I see your avatar. I got a tad carried away with your post of phoning the UTexas prof a while back. I feel better now.
Report Comment
i remember berkely being a bit slow on rain samples too!….incredibly slow actually!! lol
)
nice post acid (but dont tell anyone i told ya
Report Comment
Yes arc…I was so fed up with the initial BRAWM team data, I gave up on them. They seem to be doing a bit better now though.
Report Comment
Isn’t 27 just the conversion factor between Bq’s and picocuries? Seems pretty obvious their blunder.
Report Comment