Background radiation levels in England and Wales

[Tim Streater]

I thought this article was reasonably interesting:

You'll see where the UK hots spots are and that the average backgound is a few milliSieverts (mSv) per year. For comparison that xkcd chart at:

tells us that 4Sv (i.e., about 1000 times backgraound), received not in a year but all at once, is usually fatal.

Then there's the Winky article at:

which includes a section on nuclear accidents' contribution to background. It's pertinent enough tp include it all here:

Nuclear accidents

Under normal circumstances, nuclear reactors release small amounts of radioactive gases, which cause small radiation exposures to the public. Events classified on the International Nuclear Event Scale as incidents typically do not release any additional radioactive substances into the environment. Large releases of radioactivity from nuclear reactors are extremely rare. To the present day, there were two major civilian accidents ? the Chernobyl accident and the Fukushima I nuclear accidents ? which caused substantial contamination. The Chernobyl accident was the only one to cause immediate deaths.

Total doses from the Chernobyl accident ranged from 10 to 50 mSv over 20 years for the inhabitants of the affected areas, with most of the dose received in the first years after the disaster, and over 100 mSv for liquidators. There were 28 deaths from acute radiation syndrome.

Total doses from the Fukushima I accidents were between 1 and 15 mSv for the inhabitants of the affected areas. Thyroid doses for children were below 50 mSv. 167 cleanup workers received doses above 100 mSv, with 6 of them receiving more than 250 mSv (the Japanese exposure limit for emergency response workers).

The average dose from the Three Mile Island accident was 0.01 mSv.

End

I wish the likes of T r o l l would learn to do their own research, look at and understand the numbers, and so be in a position to answer their own "What if" questions.

[Jethro_uk]

But they don't want to learn anything do they ?

[T i m]

Some don't, mostly those who hide behind killfiles and refusing to watch videos highlighting the plight of millions innocent animals every who suffer and die needlessly.

So what am I supposed to learn from those (potentially biased and very unlikely fail to tell the whole story) figures? That a good few people dying quickly and many more after when some accident happens it is 'ok'?

And what about 100,000 Ukrainians and Belarussians, having to leave their homes and 3,000 sq miles being left abandoned to this day? I don't suppose that counts for anything does it? Just one of those things?

Farmers not being allowed to take their sheep to market, over 300 farms being shut down in WALES ffs, thousands of miles away but the chances are that didn't affect you so why would you care?

So I don't need any figures to *know* that nuclear power, when it goes wrong, can be a big issue for a long time over a wide area.

It's also an issue when you want to get rid of the power stations themselves ... thousands (~250,000) of tonnes of nuclear waste around the world waiting for someone to find a way to dispose of it safely.

I'm sure the Squeaker Goblin would just build flats on the sites after just filling them in with concrete, as long as he doesn't have to live there.

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

<snip>

That's *exactly* what I do do, based on ALL the factors, not just the ones someone with a successful empathy bypass operation considers worthy.

Nope, again, your left-brain has led you down another bogus rabbit hole.

I *also* consider 'emotional' scenarios, unlike you who couldn't if they tried.

Ask the 100,000 misplaced Ukrainians how they 'feel' about having to leave their homes, quickly and forever what they 'feel' about nuclear power.

You wouldn't ask them of course, because you don't care about anyone other than yourself.

I repeat for the hard of thinking .... I'm not against nuclear power, I have just stated that when it goes wrong, it can make a big mess for a long time. So far it might have only made a medium mess for a long time (if you include any decommissioning and waste re-use / re-location / disposal).

Cheers, T i m

[Fredxx]

No, just the ones you want to hear. When someone comes up with facts you don't want to hear you abuse them and when you can't cope with facts you killfile them.

Once again, abuse is the classic sign of a lost argument.

I think they will be liberated, as Chernobyl contributed to Glasnost and the breakup of the Soviet Union.

There is little point. Chernobyl was the result of poor safety features, an unstable reactor and a flawed design without a containment vessel.

So lets make it safe. It's still probably safer than green energy in terms of lives lost. Its not newsworthy to report every worker falling of a roof installing solar panels.

[Tim Streater]

Ah, shifting the goalposts eh? Nice attempt at a shimmy.

What you would learn is that this ...

... and this ...

... were largely unnecessary, caused by unnecessary panic, mediated by the likes of you who can't be arsed to educate themselves.

No you don't know that, as the figures show. This is the point.

Another discussion that's been had before. And it is being disposed of safely.

[T i m]

Not shifting anything you stupid goblin..

Nothing of the sort. It was a parallel re the not wanting to learn and those who won't even listen.

IT DOESN'T MATTER (you stupid left brained goblin), IT HAPPENED.

Aw, nice try, comparing someone simply reflecting the facts as seen by someone with empathy and someone in charge of a nuclear power station. Ironically you have shot yourself in the hoof with that as it only helps prove my point. They *allowed* someone to be in charge of something potentially 'dangerous' on a world wide scale that in your 'opinion' weren't sufficiently well educated to really do so!!

I do, I'm not the one in denial. It *went wrong* (for whatever reason), people died, pollution was spread over a long way and lasted a long time. A large area of the planet is no longer inhabitable.

As the figures show *you*, not someone who actually cares about people.

You wouldn't get the point if you were jabbed with it (but that's not your fault, you simply can't help it).

Well, we can look back on just 'how safely' when it's all be 'disposed of' eh?

Cheers, T i m