RE: 100 rad

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

> Is that 100 rad per year for ten years or is it 100 rad in ten years?



Otto:



All numbers for that situation are generally given as cumulative for the

years.  As I remember, it started about 1982, so that's nearly 20 years now.

The Co-60 activity is pretty well died out now, so cumulative doses will not

change much from now on.  I believe there has been time enough for cancers

to begin to appear.  People have commented on the lack of excess leukemia

after Chernobyl, and that was 4 years later.



The 100 rad figure is near the max, I believe.  But a lot of people got

doses that LNT would say are carcinogenic.  I have a number of reports on

the situation, but I haven't looked at them in years.  If you want refs or

links, I can give them.



We can argue that we don't have a proper scientific survey and analysis of

the situation, but we can't argue that the event is not significant and

relevant.  How can anyone claim we should still be pouring millions into

looking at Hiroshima data, and not be interested in these people?



Ted Rockwell





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.