|
Gary;
Thanks for the 'heads-up' on the 100m vs 100km. I look at all this news with some degree of skepticism.
It may only be 100 m, but 'iodine at levels 126.7 times higher than the legal concentration limit and radioactive cesium 24.8 times higher', is the real worry.
And, it seems there were 'no radioactive substances recently detected in seawater before the disaster', also.
I presume the iodine problem will be short-lived, but the Caesium contamination, isn't good.
Hi Scott;
I see your point about the translation side of things, also. Thanks for your input … 'tis always good to have input from someone who may have to deal with it on a day-to-day basis.
Thanks kindly,
Craig.
|