Parts of Japan now rendered ‘uninhabitable zones’ due to Fukushima

[KrazyHorse]

I just did, you dumb ****.

[Docfeelgood]

So, You say mildly elevate is safe? What would be the threshold limit?

[Docfeelgood]

I just did, you dumb ****.

Translate so that we all can understand.

[Uncle Sparky]

You too, you stupid mother****er.

This isn't life and death, you imbeciles. This is mildly elevated levels of radiation.

My mother is dead, and I am not into necro-incest.
I do not support your right to enjoy such activities, but accept your apology.

[KrazyHorse]

So, You say mildly elevate is safe? What would be the threshold limit?

Depends what the usage factor and time of exposure is, you dumb ****. Under the linear response no threshold to harm model, you would have to spend 30 years, 24/7 playing in the dirt (4 microSv per hour) in order to increase their cancer incidence by 5%

Note that nobody in their right minds believes linear-response no threshold models at such low levels. So the best estimate of harm from this is "0".

[Tupac Shakur]

Unbelievable!

[Hauldren Collider]

Still waiting on godzilla.

[Docfeelgood]

......30 years, 24/7...5%...best estimate of harm from this is "0".

wow. So what are the people licking there balls about?

[The Mad Monk]

A lesson in unexpected results. This Nature program explores the Chernobyl area, showing how it has become a wildlife sanctuary, where endangered animals now thrive free of humanity.

I watched it on PBS last night.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

wow. So what are the people licking there balls about?

Beats me. The fact that radiation is measurable and that one can truthfully claim increased values, does not mean the values pose any significant threat. I suppose people are in a tizzy due to lack of knowledge and fear mongering.

Moreover as has been explained time and again on these boards the two prevailing schools of thought with respect to radiation exposure is a linear threshold mode and an adapative model. The linear threshold model assume no level of radiation as inconseqeuntial and that all radiation results in cellular damage ultimately resulting in increased chances of cancers. This by far and awayis the most conservative estimate and in todays risk averse society (read litigious society) is the normal means to look at radiation. However, it also likely not reflective of reality. A number of papers have been issued that detail that low levels of radiation may in fact be beneficial as the immune response system becomes more agressive in these situations and more capable of dealing with immunological threats including carcinogenic effects. Given the effects are fairly unprovable and likely difficulat to defend in court the decision to suggest people willingly expose themselves to low levels of radiation for health benefits is understandably not taken up as policy as the legal liabilities are obvious.

Both the adaptive and linear threshold models converge at higher levels of dosage wherein high dosage does translate into increased risks for cellular damage and/or DNA mutations, but at the levels described above the health threats are either exceedingly small, or zero (or as some describe actually a boon).

[The Mad Monk]

The show I posted noted that birth defects appeared to be twice the normal level in animals living near Chernobyl, which would be unacceptable for humans, but had little impact on animal populations.

[Elok]

So, do believers in linear threshold do any studies of tropical countries where people basically live off of bananas as a staple food? Mmm, tasty, tasty radioactive potassium...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The show I posted noted that birth defects appeared to be twice the normal level in animals living near Chernobyl, which would be unacceptable for humans, but had little impact on animal populations.

Genetic damage effects are greatest to life forms with the greatest cellular growth rates. Fetus and developing children are most at risk for genetic damage and the accompanying cellualr replication effects. Similarly one would expect greater effects on animals with short life spans or that spent a large portionof their life cycle in development phase.

[The Mad Monk]

I believe they mainly relied on dormice for that portion of the study, I'm not certain how many generations that would be in twenty five years, but it's a lot.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I believe they mainly relied on dormice for that portion of the study, I'm not certain how many generations that would be in twenty five years, but it's a lot.

Dormice, fruitflies etc. are often chosen by biologists because the genetic effects and genetic mutations are most easily observable (in particular teratogenic impacts) in relatively short time frames. Correlating that to human poplations is difficult other than to say risks are elevated.