Radiation From Japan Found In Illinois

[tarcone]

Its not much, but im disturbed.

hxxp://www.kmov.com/news/local/Radiation-detected-in-Illinois-is-most-likely-from-Japan-119101164.html

[PilotMan]

I'm exposed to more radiation at work than you ever will be from the Japan fallout.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm exposed to more radiation at work than you ever will be from the Japan fallout.

This.

There was a story in the Seattle Times about radiation from Japan found in milk in Spokane, it is pretty poor journalism

[stevew]

Radiation from Sun found on everyone.

[Passacaglia]

I saw something about radiation found at O'Hare because of flights from Japan, but assumed it was just local news garbage.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I saw something about radiation found at O'Hare because of flights from Japan, but assumed it was just local news garbage.

I think it's true. It's just so low it doesn't matter. But there's no money to be made by telling the whole truth.

Anyone see that clip of Nancy Grace going to town on one of her reporters because he had the audacity to say that radiation in California was not a health threat?

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by stevew

Radiation from Sun found on everyone.

I'm going to move to the dark side of the earth.

[Apathetic Lurker]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I'm going to move to the dark side of the earth.

Peoria?

[dervack]

Originally Posted by Apathetic Lurker

Peoria?

Worse, Wisconsin.

[stevew]

Compton?

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by stevew

Compton?

Straight Outta...

[Rando]

Warning: Long post is long.

Originally Posted by jeff061

I think it's true. It's just so low it doesn't matter. But there's no money to be made by telling the whole truth.

Well it certainly doesn't help if you're trying to scare people into staying glued to the TV screen. And lets face it, hearing a scientist say "radiation in a level not known to cause health problems" is about as reassuring as hearing a dentist say "this might hurt a little". What does that even mean? Especially after you heard that other scientist on that other show say "There's no such thing as a safe amount of radiation." Of course he's not going to follow that up with, "But there are some amounts of radiation that would take thousands of years to kill you."

And even if they do try and provide some "hard" numbers it usually ends up a convoluted mess of mixed units. Rems, milirems microsieverts, milisieverts, becquarels, megabequarels, curies, per square meter, per liter, per kilogram, per hour. (Hey, anybody know how many square meters are are a kilogram of Spinach? We're trying to compare becquarels here.)

I propose that in the future, to better help us visualize radiation risks, all media references to radiation exposure be given in a new unit. The Idaho.

The average American is exposed to 0.4 microsieverts per hour of all sources of Ionizing Radiation (like the stuff what comes out of a nuclear reactor). Most of this comes from naturally occurring sources. However there are places in the world which, because of the higher amounts of radioactive elements in the soil or higher altitude (which allows for greater cosmic ray exposure) or a combination of both, have a higher background radiation.

The highest naturally occurring background radiation is found in a city in northern Iran. It's 65 times the average US rate, and with no known health affects. But very few Americans (and we're obviously the only ones that matter) will ever travel to Iran so that doesn't make a very good reference point for conceptualizing radiation risk. However here in the United States we also have more radioactive regions. Among them is the state of Idaho which, on average, comes in at around 0.7 microsieverts per hour.

1 Idaho = the average amount of radiation exposure from spending 1 hour in Idaho

So with that in mind lets break down some radiation levels and their associated risks.

11.4 million Idaho = Certain Death
7.1 million Idaho = One minute at Chernobyl reactor immediately after the explosion
3.5 to 5.7 million Idaho = Acute Radiation Sickness, 50% chance of death
2.8 to 4.2 million Idaho = Estimated local dose (to the legs and feet) to two workers at Fukushima I turbine building on March 24, 2011
1.4 million Idaho = Radiation Sickness, 30% increased cancer risk, estimated levels in contaminated water inside Fukushima I containment buildings
1.0 million Idaho = EPA limit for volunteer emergency workers performing life saving work
714,285 Idaho = Lower limit for possible radiation sickness, recovery expected with medical attention
571,428 Idaho = One hour outside Fukushima I reactor building #3 immediately after explosion on March 14, 2011
357,142 Idaho = Current Japanese, EPA limit for workers in an emergency
142,857 Idaho = Lowest measurable increase of lifetime cancer risk, +0.8%
71,328 Idaho = DoE annual nuclear worker limit in normal situations
17,000 Idaho = One hour at Fukushima I on march 15, 2011 (one day after building #3 explosion)
8,571 Idaho = One hour at Chernobyl, 24 years after explosion
1,428 Idaho = EPA requirement for emergency reaction in the event of possible public exposure to this total dose
857 Idaho = One hour at Fukushima I, measured March 16, 2011 (two days after #3 explosion)
714 Idaho = One hour at Fukushima I, measured March 12, 2011 (one day after tsunami)
242 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rate between 20 to 30 kilometers from reactors, March 17, 2011
85 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rate between 20 to 30 kilometers from reactors, March 31, 2011
66 Idaho = Estimated maximum total exposure to the public from Three Mile Island accident
57 Idaho = One way flight from New York to LA (alas poor PilotMan)
37 Idaho = One hour in Ramsar, Iran
29 Idaho = Chest x-ray
12 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rate between 31 and 60 kilometers from reactors, March 31, 2011
7 Idaho = Dental x-ray
1 Idaho = One hour in Idaho
0.6 Idaho = One hour, average United States (all sources)
0.4 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rates Tokyo, March 30, 2011
0.3 Idaho = One hour, average background radiation on land at sea level
0.1 Idaho = One hour, highest ocean surface radiation rate 30km east of Fukushima reactors, March 26, 2011


In true fear mongery fashion I took used only the highest numbers I could find for any of the above. Most of the radiation readings between 20 to 30 kilometers from Fukushima (83 of 85) were well below these levels, and some of the readings from 30 to 60 kilometers were below 1 Idaho.

As for the question of how much radiation fell in Illinois. Unfortunately we don't have those numbers. But we can look at the numbers from Tokyo (which is closer to the reactors than Illinois) and make some estimations from that. Keep in mind that radiation decreases in intensity at a rate equal the square of the distance from its source. And in the cases of the radiation being discovered anywhere except the Fukashima plant, that source is tiny particles of Iodine and Cesium and other radioactive isotopes that have been scattered by the wind and tides away from the reactors. And as those particles are scattered, they disperse. As distance increases, the intensity of the contamination decreases. So yeah, still no hard numbers but a very safe guess would be "Less than Tokyo".

One last disclaimer, I do not mean to make light of the very serious situation in Japan. The radiation levels in the water in those buildings is downright spooky and its presence there is poses a substantial challenge to the brave men working bring the situation under control. I can sit back and joke about the risks, but each of those men knew the risks and they went in there. Each of them, I am certain, has shown more courage in this last month that I would likely be able to muster in a lifetime, or several.

Nor do I mean to belittle those who have been worried by this. The guy who came in today asking if we had iodine pills did not get nearly so queer a look as the lady who asked what our tsunami evacuation plans were. (We're 3,000 feet above sea level, this is my tsunami evacuation plan)


Sources

hxxp://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

hxxp://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/aser95/tb-a-2.pdf

hxxp://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1304082.htm

hxxp://mitnse.com

[Passacaglia]

So wait a minute...I've probably had 50 or so dental x-rays in my lifetime. Are you saying it's as if I've spent 350 hours in Idaho? Dear God!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by stevew

Radiation from Sun found on everyone.

Wait! And that's 93 million miles away! We're all going to die!

or

And that's a giant nuclear reaction that's out of control! We definitely can't put it out! And, of course: We're all going to die!

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Rando

Warning: Long post is long.



Well it certainly doesn't help if you're trying to scare people into staying glued to the TV screen. And lets face it, hearing a scientist say "radiation in a level not known to cause health problems" is about as reassuring as hearing a dentist say "this might hurt a little". What does that even mean? Especially after you heard that other scientist on that other show say "There's no such thing as a safe amount of radiation." Of course he's not going to follow that up with, "But there are some amounts of radiation that would take thousands of years to kill you."

And even if they do try and provide some "hard" numbers it usually ends up a convoluted mess of mixed units. Rems, milirems microsieverts, milisieverts, becquarels, megabequarels, curies, per square meter, per liter, per kilogram, per hour. (Hey, anybody know how many square meters are are a kilogram of Spinach? We're trying to compare becquarels here.)

I propose that in the future, to better help us visualize radiation risks, all media references to radiation exposure be given in a new unit. The Idaho.

The average American is exposed to 0.4 microsieverts per hour of all sources of Ionizing Radiation (like the stuff what comes out of a nuclear reactor). Most of this comes from naturally occurring sources. However there are places in the world which, because of the higher amounts of radioactive elements in the soil or higher altitude (which allows for greater cosmic ray exposure) or a combination of both, have a higher background radiation.

The highest naturally occurring background radiation is found in a city in northern Iran. It's 65 times the average US rate, and with no known health affects. But very few Americans (and we're obviously the only ones that matter) will ever travel to Iran so that doesn't make a very good reference point for conceptualizing radiation risk. However here in the United States we also have more radioactive regions. Among them is the state of Idaho which, on average, comes in at around 0.7 microsieverts per hour.

1 Idaho = the average amount of radiation exposure from spending 1 hour in Idaho

So with that in mind lets break down some radiation levels and their associated risks.

11.4 million Idaho = Certain Death
7.1 million Idaho = One minute at Chernobyl reactor immediately after the explosion
3.5 to 5.7 million Idaho = Acute Radiation Sickness, 50% chance of death
2.8 to 4.2 million Idaho = Estimated local dose (to the legs and feet) to two workers at Fukushima I turbine building on March 24, 2011
1.4 million Idaho = Radiation Sickness, 30% increased cancer risk, estimated levels in contaminated water inside Fukushima I containment buildings
1.0 million Idaho = EPA limit for volunteer emergency workers performing life saving work
714,285 Idaho = Lower limit for possible radiation sickness, recovery expected with medical attention
571,428 Idaho = One hour outside Fukushima I reactor building #3 immediately after explosion on March 14, 2011
357,142 Idaho = Current Japanese, EPA limit for workers in an emergency
142,857 Idaho = Lowest measurable increase of lifetime cancer risk, +0.8%
71,328 Idaho = DoE annual nuclear worker limit in normal situations
17,000 Idaho = One hour at Fukushima I on march 15, 2011 (one day after building #3 explosion)
8,571 Idaho = One hour at Chernobyl, 24 years after explosion
1,428 Idaho = EPA requirement for emergency reaction in the event of possible public exposure to this total dose
857 Idaho = One hour at Fukushima I, measured March 16, 2011 (two days after #3 explosion)
714 Idaho = One hour at Fukushima I, measured March 12, 2011 (one day after tsunami)
242 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rate between 20 to 30 kilometers from reactors, March 17, 2011
85 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rate between 20 to 30 kilometers from reactors, March 31, 2011
66 Idaho = Estimated maximum total exposure to the public from Three Mile Island accident
57 Idaho = One way flight from New York to LA (alas poor PilotMan)
37 Idaho = One hour in Ramsar, Iran
29 Idaho = Chest x-ray
12 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rate between 31 and 60 kilometers from reactors, March 31, 2011
7 Idaho = Dental x-ray
1 Idaho = One hour in Idaho
0.6 Idaho = One hour, average United States (all sources)
0.4 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rates Tokyo, March 30, 2011
0.3 Idaho = One hour, average background radiation on land at sea level
0.1 Idaho = One hour, highest ocean surface radiation rate 30km east of Fukushima reactors, March 26, 2011


In true fear mongery fashion I took used only the highest numbers I could find for any of the above. Most of the radiation readings between 20 to 30 kilometers from Fukushima (83 of 85) were well below these levels, and some of the readings from 30 to 60 kilometers were below 1 Idaho.

As for the question of how much radiation fell in Illinois. Unfortunately we don't have those numbers. But we can look at the numbers from Tokyo (which is closer to the reactors than Illinois) and make some estimations from that. Keep in mind that radiation decreases in intensity at a rate equal the square of the distance from its source. And in the cases of the radiation being discovered anywhere except the Fukashima plant, that source is tiny particles of Iodine and Cesium and other radioactive isotopes that have been scattered by the wind and tides away from the reactors. And as those particles are scattered, they disperse. As distance increases, the intensity of the contamination decreases. So yeah, still no hard numbers but a very safe guess would be "Less than Tokyo".

One last disclaimer, I do not mean to make light of the very serious situation in Japan. The radiation levels in the water in those buildings is downright spooky and its presence there is poses a substantial challenge to the brave men working bring the situation under control. I can sit back and joke about the risks, but each of those men knew the risks and they went in there. Each of them, I am certain, has shown more courage in this last month that I would likely be able to muster in a lifetime, or several.

Nor do I mean to belittle those who have been worried by this. The guy who came in today asking if we had iodine pills did not get nearly so queer a look as the lady who asked what our tsunami evacuation plans were. (We're 3,000 feet above sea level, this is my tsunami evacuation plan)


Sources

hxxp://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

hxxp://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/aser95/tb-a-2.pdf

hxxp://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1304082.htm

hxxp://mitnse.com

Excellent, excellent post!

I've spent two weeks (well, 2 work weeks plus a day- 11 days) in Boise in my life. I've been exposed to over 250 Idahos! Am I going to die?

But, more importantly:

1,428 Idaho = EPA requirement for emergency reaction in the event of possible public exposure to this total dose

So, what you're saying is that people who spend more than two months in Idaho should evacuate at all costs (60*24=1440)?

SI

[SteveMax58]

I prefer to keep my own private Idaho...well, private, thank you very much.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Lathum

This.

There was a story in the Seattle Times about radiation from Japan found in milk in Spokane, it is pretty poor journalism

I've checked my cows' milk and it is not glowing yet.

But yeah. One of our local newscaster asked herself out loud whether she should stop drinking milk. *facepalm*

People are so fucking stupid.

[molson]

So as an idaho resident, without knowing the precise danger, would you say it was time for us to crack each others' heads open and feast on the goo inside?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

So as an idaho resident, without knowing the precise danger, would you say it was time for us to crack each others' heads open and feast on the goo inside?

"Mmm, yes I would, Kent."

SI

[Rando]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Excellent, excellent post!

I've spent two weeks (well, 2 work weeks plus a day- 11 days) in Boise in my life. I've been exposed to over 250 Idahos! Am I going to die?

But, more importantly:

So, what you're saying is that people who spend more than two months in Idaho should evacuate at all costs (60*24=1440)?

SI

Ah, good catch!

This is what I get for trying to do math at 4:00AM. The actual limit there would be 14,284 Idaho (failure converting rems to microsieverts). Or about 1 year, 7 months, 20 days. Also that should have read "...possible public exposure above this total dose."

Of course since the EPA doesn't try to evacuate the whole of the US every thousand or so days (time to receive this dose at average US exposure), so they must only be looking for radiation exposure above the average

By my admittedly sketchy maths this would be 14,284/(1-0.6)= 35,710 hours or 4 years and 1 month. Mark you calendars Idahoans, you have 49 months to get out.

Of course what we see here a result of a safety standard 1/10th the level known to cause an increased risk of long term health affects combined with a radiation exposure model (linear no-limit) which assumes all radiation exposure is equal and cumulative (the source of “There's no such thing as a safe amount of radiation!”). But the model tends to break down a very low, long term levels of exposure. For instance you don't see the 70,000 folks who actually live in Ramsar Iran falling over dead at the age of 35 (11 million lifetime Idaho). It might seem silly but would you rather have a system that told you a level of exposure was possibly unsafe, when it actually was safe, or one that failed the other way around?

This might be another part of the reason why they don't bother to release radiation rates this level or below. Because some smart ass is going to do some back of envelope calculations and proclaim, "We're all going to die!” (at the ripe old age of 1,304)

Of course the really scary connotation of the failure of the linear no-limit model is that it means that short term, acute, dosages could be worse than their equivalent long term exposures. So Pass' dentist may have subjected him to more than 350 hours in Idaho!



Also, if I ever form a band I think I'm going to have to name it 11 Million Lifetime Idaho.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Rando

Of course the really scary connotation of the failure of the linear no-limit model is that it means that short term, acute, dosages could be worse than their equivalent long term exposures. So Pass' dentist may have subjected him to more than 350 hours in Idaho!

I don't know that's particularly scary. It's a well established fact that acute exposures are worse. This is due to the fact that cells can repair DNA damage from radiation if given enough time. That's why radiation therapy treatments are given over a period of 4 weeks or more instead of all at once. There's more time for the normal tissues to repair damage and therefore side effects are lessened.

[sterlingice]

But, of course, the important takeaway from all of this is: don't go to Idaho (or Iran)

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

I've checked my cows' milk and it is not glowing yet.

But yeah. One of our local newscaster asked herself out loud whether she should stop drinking milk. *facepalm*

People are so fucking stupid.

Think of the breeding experiments you can do with mutant, radioactive cows.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by flounder

I don't know that's particularly scary. It's a well established fact that acute exposures are worse. This is due to the fact that cells can repair DNA damage from radiation if given enough time. That's why radiation therapy treatments are given over a period of 4 weeks or more instead of all at once. There's more time for the normal tissues to repair damage and therefore side effects are lessened.

Sorry, I should have used some sort of emoticon there at the end to drive home that the preceding text was thourougly tounge in cheek and not simply the product of one man's Idaphobia.

I was aiming to poke fun at the idea, which is being used by some to fuel anti-nuclear fears, that very low level exposures over the long term are just as dangerous as single, high level exposures (as that one guy that Rachel Maddow keeps bringing on her show likes to say "No such thing as a safe amount of radiation"). It's an idea that persists, and is supported by groups like the congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, despite substatial evidence to the contrary.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Who exactly is Rando, and how did he just suddenly show up and be awesome?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Who exactly is Rando, and how did he just suddenly show up and be awesome?

I'd be happier about it if I didn't have maybe a 1% fear that he's some kind of evil scientist.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Who exactly is Rando, and how did he just suddenly show up and be awesome?

We have those from time-to-time. We have some ninja-turtle-creating mad scientist who shows up when there's a nuclear disaster. There was a financial wizard who may or may not look like Mr Moneybags from Monopoly in SportsDino who starts posting right after the greatest financial disaster in our lifetime. And then there's lungs, who, unfortunately, I just have this mental image of a superhero who, well, has each fist stuck into places in a cow that I just don't want to think about...

SI

[tarcone]

Im pro-nuke. I just dont want this on my plate

[Chubby]

what if its the 3 boob mutant from total recall?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by dervack

Worse, Wisconsin.

Is that the actual city?

[DanGarion]

You might as well just tape up your doors and windows if this scares you.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Rando

Warning: Long post is long.



Well it certainly doesn't help if you're trying to scare people into staying glued to the TV screen. And lets face it, hearing a scientist say "radiation in a level not known to cause health problems" is about as reassuring as hearing a dentist say "this might hurt a little". What does that even mean? Especially after you heard that other scientist on that other show say "There's no such thing as a safe amount of radiation." Of course he's not going to follow that up with, "But there are some amounts of radiation that would take thousands of years to kill you."

And even if they do try and provide some "hard" numbers it usually ends up a convoluted mess of mixed units. Rems, milirems microsieverts, milisieverts, becquarels, megabequarels, curies, per square meter, per liter, per kilogram, per hour. (Hey, anybody know how many square meters are are a kilogram of Spinach? We're trying to compare becquarels here.)

I propose that in the future, to better help us visualize radiation risks, all media references to radiation exposure be given in a new unit. The Idaho.

The average American is exposed to 0.4 microsieverts per hour of all sources of Ionizing Radiation (like the stuff what comes out of a nuclear reactor). Most of this comes from naturally occurring sources. However there are places in the world which, because of the higher amounts of radioactive elements in the soil or higher altitude (which allows for greater cosmic ray exposure) or a combination of both, have a higher background radiation.

The highest naturally occurring background radiation is found in a city in northern Iran. It's 65 times the average US rate, and with no known health affects. But very few Americans (and we're obviously the only ones that matter) will ever travel to Iran so that doesn't make a very good reference point for conceptualizing radiation risk. However here in the United States we also have more radioactive regions. Among them is the state of Idaho which, on average, comes in at around 0.7 microsieverts per hour.

1 Idaho = the average amount of radiation exposure from spending 1 hour in Idaho

So with that in mind lets break down some radiation levels and their associated risks.

11.4 million Idaho = Certain Death
7.1 million Idaho = One minute at Chernobyl reactor immediately after the explosion
3.5 to 5.7 million Idaho = Acute Radiation Sickness, 50% chance of death
2.8 to 4.2 million Idaho = Estimated local dose (to the legs and feet) to two workers at Fukushima I turbine building on March 24, 2011
1.4 million Idaho = Radiation Sickness, 30% increased cancer risk, estimated levels in contaminated water inside Fukushima I containment buildings
1.0 million Idaho = EPA limit for volunteer emergency workers performing life saving work
714,285 Idaho = Lower limit for possible radiation sickness, recovery expected with medical attention
571,428 Idaho = One hour outside Fukushima I reactor building #3 immediately after explosion on March 14, 2011
357,142 Idaho = Current Japanese, EPA limit for workers in an emergency
142,857 Idaho = Lowest measurable increase of lifetime cancer risk, +0.8%
71,328 Idaho = DoE annual nuclear worker limit in normal situations
17,000 Idaho = One hour at Fukushima I on march 15, 2011 (one day after building #3 explosion)
8,571 Idaho = One hour at Chernobyl, 24 years after explosion
1,428 Idaho = EPA requirement for emergency reaction in the event of possible public exposure to this total dose
857 Idaho = One hour at Fukushima I, measured March 16, 2011 (two days after #3 explosion)
714 Idaho = One hour at Fukushima I, measured March 12, 2011 (one day after tsunami)
242 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rate between 20 to 30 kilometers from reactors, March 17, 2011
85 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rate between 20 to 30 kilometers from reactors, March 31, 2011
66 Idaho = Estimated maximum total exposure to the public from Three Mile Island accident
57 Idaho = One way flight from New York to LA (alas poor PilotMan)
37 Idaho = One hour in Ramsar, Iran
29 Idaho = Chest x-ray
12 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rate between 31 and 60 kilometers from reactors, March 31, 2011
7 Idaho = Dental x-ray
1 Idaho = One hour in Idaho
0.6 Idaho = One hour, average United States (all sources)
0.4 Idaho = One hour, highest measured radiation rates Tokyo, March 30, 2011
0.3 Idaho = One hour, average background radiation on land at sea level
0.1 Idaho = One hour, highest ocean surface radiation rate 30km east of Fukushima reactors, March 26, 2011


In true fear mongery fashion I took used only the highest numbers I could find for any of the above. Most of the radiation readings between 20 to 30 kilometers from Fukushima (83 of 85) were well below these levels, and some of the readings from 30 to 60 kilometers were below 1 Idaho.

As for the question of how much radiation fell in Illinois. Unfortunately we don't have those numbers. But we can look at the numbers from Tokyo (which is closer to the reactors than Illinois) and make some estimations from that. Keep in mind that radiation decreases in intensity at a rate equal the square of the distance from its source. And in the cases of the radiation being discovered anywhere except the Fukashima plant, that source is tiny particles of Iodine and Cesium and other radioactive isotopes that have been scattered by the wind and tides away from the reactors. And as those particles are scattered, they disperse. As distance increases, the intensity of the contamination decreases. So yeah, still no hard numbers but a very safe guess would be "Less than Tokyo".

One last disclaimer, I do not mean to make light of the very serious situation in Japan. The radiation levels in the water in those buildings is downright spooky and its presence there is poses a substantial challenge to the brave men working bring the situation under control. I can sit back and joke about the risks, but each of those men knew the risks and they went in there. Each of them, I am certain, has shown more courage in this last month that I would likely be able to muster in a lifetime, or several.

Nor do I mean to belittle those who have been worried by this. The guy who came in today asking if we had iodine pills did not get nearly so queer a look as the lady who asked what our tsunami evacuation plans were. (We're 3,000 feet above sea level, this is my tsunami evacuation plan)


Sources

hxxp://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

hxxp://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/aser95/tb-a-2.pdf

hxxp://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/1304082.htm

hxxp://mitnse.com

Glad I am leaving Idaho soon........

[PilotMan]

That's my point exactly. Pilots are exposed every day they work at rates much higher than x-rays and the such. I don't wear a lead suit to work. So over the course of a year I come in at around 10,000 Idahos of radiation. I think we will all be ok.

[PilotMan]

The real heroes are the men working on those reactors, knowing it will probably kill them, trying to save the lives of so many, many more.

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Im pro-nuke. I just dont want this on my plate

the greatest slo-mo sequence in animation history

[JediKooter]

Well, none of this explains the growth of hair on my back.

[Rizon]

Did someone say, Idaho?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Well, none of this explains the growth of hair on my back.

That was from the steroid use.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

That was from the steroid use.

Welp, that explains the other 'problem' then.

[Mustang]

The time should be done in Mississippis.

1 Idaho = 3600 Mississippis in Idaho