this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
158 points (93.9% liked)
World News
33422 readers
827 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
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
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.
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?