this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
173 points (94.4% liked)
World News
32315 readers
658 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Read it again. Not what they said.
44 x 3 = 132 which is GREATER than 100
You can’t compare exposure over 3 years to a limit for one year.
Radiation damage depends on time period of exposure.
Though I still wouldn't want to live there; the area has been evacuated for good reason.
the graph on the map is μSv/h
using the crosshairs shows 29.88 μSv/h at the waterfront by the plant
that is 0.02988 μSv/h = 261.7488 mSv/a
so not a place I'd want to get food from to say the least
Sure, just pick a completely different location to suit the conclusion you already made.
You mean the location right next to where the water has been sitting for how many years now?
That's on land. Where a whole bunch of various radionuclides have concentrated and remain fixed in place.
This "wastewater release" that's being discussed is the release of low-intensity tritium that will immediately dilute into the whole ocean. You're comparing apples to moonrocks. Completely different things.