Natural exposure to gamma rays in background radiation linked to childhood leukaemia
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/120611.html11 June 2012
[font size=3]Findings demonstrate that there are small effects of radiation at very low doses
A small but statistically significant link between risk of childhood leukaemia and the gamma rays we are all exposed to from our natural environment has been detected in an Oxford University-led study.
…
The team found that there was a 12% increase in the risk of childhood leukaemia for every millisievert of natural gamma-ray dose to the bone marrow. While this finding was statistically significant, even with a study of this size there is still some uncertainty around the size of the effect. The relative risk increase is likely to lie within a range from 3% to 22% per millisievert.
…
Dr Kendall adds: ‘The findings are relevant to understanding the risks from low radiation exposures such as medical X-rays and CT scans; planning for the disposal of nuclear waste; and the risks from the exposures received by people living near Chernobyl or Fukushima.
…[/font][/font]
= new reply since forum marked as read
RobertEarl (777 posts)
1. Natural background?
View profile
What's natural about it? Do you have any idea? Or are you just posting stuff to post stuff?
I especially like the snark: "Do you have any idea? Or are you just posting stuff to post stuff?"
Irony FTW!
"Fallout from nuclear testing is an increase in your radiation exposure".
Yeah, clearly he's saying nuclear explosions have no impact 
you're awfully silent about your own.
What are your credentials? Degree? Job? 
and I am telling you nicely that if you persist in attacking other people's credentials, I will persist in asking you about yours. 
This isn't personal opinion, it's science. Words have actual meanings. You were the one who used the term "dose". If you don't know what it means, then don't criticize others for correcting your ignorance.
There's a difference between activity levels and exposure... and a difference between exposure and absorbed dose... and then a difference between absorbed dose and equivalent/effective dose. Once you get to dose, the source is not an issue.
It's exactly as if you proclaimed that a pound of feathers weighs less than a pound of lead and then, when corrected on the ridiculous error, got all huffy that the volume was entirely different. You don't understand the terminology so you simply don't "get it" when you receive the simplest of corrections. Let's try an example:
You know that given equal parts of radon and plutonium that in a matter of days the radon has decayed away but the plutonium at a minimum can be decaying... for many, many years.
Yes... I do know that. What you apparently don't know is that this means that the radon is much more radioactive than the same mass of plutonium. So once again, your belief in your own understanding is misplaced.
and emitting alpha, beta and gamma
Wrong yet again.
That you persist in issuing, at best, half-truths
If we could get you up to anything approaching half truth... we would all be better off.
That's progress.
So.... why don't they make nuclear bombs from radon?
Because "radioactive" and "fissile" are not the same thing.
Because the plutonium is much more reactive. Duh!
Duh indeed... how ironic.
Once again, plutonium is not more radioactive than radon. These aren't matters of opinion, you should have been able to look it up faster than replying to the post... but for some inexplicable reason assumed you assumed you already understood the subject.
You were wrong.
Nope. At equal masses, radon is much more active. Again, that's what half-life tells you. The longer the half-life, the lower then activity.
Radon is a gas and comes and goes.
That would be true if you were exposed to radon at some discrete time and then expelled it from your body. In reality, you breath more in right after you breath some out.
And since it has such a short half-life, there are all those daughter elements to worry about too... but let's not advance the lesson too quickly.
And... since you're opening up to correction. You started the thread off with some serious mis perceptions - that fallout from weapons/reactors was now the majority of background radiation. This simply isn't true. Certainly the infant living near Fukushima in the early hours of the event was exposed to above-background doses (particularly thyroid doses), but for anyone outside of that immediate area (and certainly talking hundreds of days later), there's simply no comparison.
There are human decisions that have significantly impacted our gamma dose:
Medical procedures: These obviously vary wildly from individual to individual, but can appreciably impact that individual's exposure. It's useful to note that even for the person of average health needs, this is on the order of 100 times as much radiation as fallout from reactors and weapons-testing combined.
Better-insulated homes: There's a trade-off here, we're better at recognizing homes with serious radon issues and remediating them (lowering doses for those individuals), but for the majority who don't have remediation systems (or who turn them off), the better-sealed homes have much higher radon concentrations than back in the day when people just opened their windows for ventilation and homes leaked like a sieve. And, of course, granite counter tops are much more common these days. As I've pointed out before, the difference in radon exposure between one home and the one right next door can easily be larger than the background exposure to fallout. The differene in the same home with the windows open/closed can be larger. Your decision to live in the Smokies vs. down here in the triad likely increases your background dose more than any fallout you're getting (from a combination of higher altitude and more exposure to uranium daughters).
Sprawl: The simple fact is that we have many more people living at higher altitudes than in the past. Most of mankind used to live quite close to sea level... and the higher altitudes necessarily add a nontrivial amount to the cosmic radiation levels (averaging about 50 times the level of weapons/reactors)
for uranium in the water. Good times. 
Anything to get you to think through the post could help.
Radon + Plutonium = more radiation
And which of your prior posts do you think that supports? Which of my posts do you think it rebuts? Does it mean that the VAST majority of background Gamma radiation is not natural? Does it mean that background levels from fallout are increasing? Or that plutonium has suddenly become more radioactive than radon? Or that plutonium is used in bombs because it's so radioactive?
You seem to have a knack to shifting your points back to things people never disagreed with without admitting the prior errors (with the notable exception of the dose comment that you retracted).
And cesium, and strontium and a few other deadly elements that before mankind's efforts did not exist in the background radiation mix that is now spread around the world.
Sigh... Cesium and strontium are both naturally-occurring elements. But perhaps it's too early to discuss elements vs. isotopes.
Regardless... still mixed in with your errors is this ridiculous assumption that the source of an alpha particle (man-made vs. natural) makes any difference at all.
No matter how slowly you type it... that's still wrong.
If you don't understand part of it... you're free to ask for help. Assuming (especially with your track record) that you DO understand and that the person must be lying... just makes you look foolish.
Do you see what I put there immediately after telling you that cesium could occur naturally? "But perhaps it's too early to discuss elements vs. isotopes. " You've just proven that it clearly is too early... because you just don't "get it".
The subject is cesium from Fukushima.
Actually... the subject of the thread is the impact of gamma radiation and a possible link to childhood leukemia. You're the one who drove it so badly off course. Cesium (regardless of isotope) is entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
you wouldn't have gone off yapping about cesium from nuclear reactors being natural. But you did
Nope. I merely corrected your frequent errors. Nobody claimed that cesium from reactors was "natural". You were the one foolishly trying to convince others that background radiation is not natural if any part of a person's exposure (regardless of how tiny) came from a manmade source.
I do not profess to be a nuclear scientist.
Thank goodness. Unfortunately... you do pretend to have a clue.
It could be the reason for our current political problems.
Trying to read this thread have a beer and relax 
