Ionising radiation in perspective

adman (Adam) · #1 22-03-2011, 11:23 PM

I was sent this earlier today - can anyone tell me whether it looks about right....?

Davi5678 (Dave) · #2 22-03-2011, 11:35 PM

Is that from Randall Munroe, of XKCD fame??

Davi5678 (Dave) · #3 22-03-2011, 11:39 PM

I highly suspect it is, which gives me a warm fuzzy feeling despite being thousands of kilometer's from Japan...

Kal (Andrew) · #4 23-03-2011, 01:46 AM

Looking at the chart, I have a question on the radiation detected 50km NW of fukushima on 16/3 and again on 17/3. These were detected at 3.6msV/day, an amount equal to the average radiation we all get in 1 year. While it sounds low, if you multiply that by 365, that works out at 1300msV, which is 13 times above the amount linked to cancer. This leaves me with a few questions. Did the radioactive material that was carried here 'settle' there, and if so, what is it's half life. Iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, so long term it is no concern, but cesium 137 has a half life of 30 years.

wasyoungonce (Brendan) · #5 23-03-2011, 10:09 AM

This chart does not take into effect the types of differing radiation given by varied particles and their decay series.

I suspect it is being sent around to allay fears for the great unwashed.

RickS (Rick) · #6 23-03-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davi5678

Is that from Randall Munroe, of XKCD fame??

Yes... http://xkcd.com/radiation/