tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post8853754412213768625..comments2024-03-27T00:22:35.272-07:00Comments on EXSKF: Japanese Government Decides 20 Millisieverts Annual Radiation Exposure Poses Little Cancer Threat to General Publicarevamirpal::laprimaverahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10637620330944911600noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-70219433510632527442011-12-17T01:04:57.898-08:002011-12-17T01:04:57.898-08:00Actually, the EU's normative implies that they...Actually, the EU's normative implies that they would follow the same approach as the Japanese have:<br /><br />"ANNEX I<br />Bands of reference levels for public exposure<br />1. The optimisation of public exposures in emergency and existing exposure situations shall<br />be based on a reference level to be established within the following bands, expressed in mSv<br />effective dose (acute or annual):<br />(a) greater than 20 and less or equal to 100<br />(b) greater than 1 and less or equal to 20<br />(c) 1 or less"<br />http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radiation_protection/doc/com_2011_0593.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-86161113060844390112011-12-17T00:45:15.482-08:002011-12-17T00:45:15.482-08:00@Atomfritz:
In the EU the limit is also 1 mSv/yea...@Atomfritz:<br /><br />In the EU the limit is also 1 mSv/year without including medical radiation. And that's in non-emergency situations, wait until there's a big accident in Europe and you would see how fast the safety levels go up. Or do you think anyone was evacuated from the contaminated areas in Sweden, Norway, Austria, etc. after Chernobyl?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-70039697226666578762011-12-16T08:40:04.477-08:002011-12-16T08:40:04.477-08:00I never believed before that a democratic country ...I never believed before that a democratic country would do such. In the European Union the limit is (still) 0.1 mSv/a.<br /><br />Just replace "democratic" with capitalist, then it might work out.<br />It's all a matter of money.<br />As long as the prevention of property loss outweighs the (hidden) body count financially, it will be "safe".<br />At least the rich can (and will) move elsewhere where it's cleaner.Atomfritznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-17951671670338631422011-12-16T05:52:49.230-08:002011-12-16T05:52:49.230-08:00Anonymous@4:43am,
Many parts of the world have ra...Anonymous@4:43am,<br /><br />Many parts of the world have radiation in excess of 5 millisieverts per year.<br /><br />Also, that video is horrible. They've made the common mistake of defining "safe" in such a way that nothing is safe. For example, walking would be extremely dangerous by their definition (about 4,000 pedestrians are killed every year in the US alone).Yosakunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-70868052779714302542011-12-16T04:43:04.603-08:002011-12-16T04:43:04.603-08:00Thanks to Vivre for posting the Fukushima Safety L...Thanks to Vivre for posting the Fukushima Safety Level NOT SAFE video. It shows unequivocally that 5 millisieverts and over per year causes cancer. To say, like the government does, that "nothing is known" is a blatant bald faced lie to be lapped up by the sheeple for breakfast. But then even some in the government admit noone believes the government! WAR IS PEACE WAR IS PEACE WAR IS PEACE...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-32886357865402461152011-12-16T03:00:57.658-08:002011-12-16T03:00:57.658-08:00Fukushima Safety Level NOT SAFE! - http://www.yout...Fukushima Safety Level NOT SAFE! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywKv0dj3UuY<br /><br />a worth reviewing analysis of various research studies and available sourcelinksVivrehttp://www.youtube.com/user/beVivrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-42152980820432674882011-12-16T02:53:18.875-08:002011-12-16T02:53:18.875-08:00Re: "There is no difference between internal ...Re: "There is no difference between internal and external radiation exposure"<br /><br />That's absolute, utter B.S.Mauibradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16759237357642699345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-1483966407293045072011-12-16T01:41:24.762-08:002011-12-16T01:41:24.762-08:00>to discuss the risk of "low-level" r...>to discuss the risk of "low-level" radiation exposure (meaning less than 20 millisieverts per year)<br /><br />low level is anything under 100 mSvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-5226189149476138142011-12-15T21:43:58.582-08:002011-12-15T21:43:58.582-08:00Probably zero. Workers hired by the maintenance su...Probably zero. Workers hired by the maintenance subcontractors, probably not in one year.arevamirpal::laprimaverahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10637620330944911600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1765307840677473617.post-38847372510088973002011-12-15T21:32:03.153-08:002011-12-15T21:32:03.153-08:00Does anyone know how many Tepco employees experien...Does anyone know how many Tepco employees experienced 20 millisieverts cumulative during the year prior to the meltdowns, working in and around the reactors?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com