Slashdot Mirror


A Handy Radiation Dose Chart From XKCD

An anonymous reader points out Randall Munroe's latest contribution to public health awareness, a "chart of how much ionizing radiation a person can absorb from various sources, compared visually. 1 Sievert will make you sick, many more will kill you, however, even small doses cumulatively increase cancer risk." It's a good way to think about the difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima.

42 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. Bananas by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fascinating, the mention of bananas was smart, since there's something known as Banana Equivalent Dose

    1. Re:Bananas by MrQuacker · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, eating a banana is as radioactive as a threesome?

    2. Re:Bananas by Nimloth · · Score: 5, Funny

      I believe the threesome would be higher because most of them involve at least a little of banana eating.

    3. Re:Bananas by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, if God made bananas easy for humans to eat and bananas are radioactive does that mean God's trying to kill us ?

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    4. Re:Bananas by gilleain · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, if God made bananas easy for humans to eat and bananas are radioactive does that mean God's trying to kill us ?

      No, it means that radiation is God's pure love. In order to get closer to Him, all the truly religious should get as close as possible to the hottest source they can find.

      WALK INTO THE LIGHT.

      (note : I am joking - I don't really want the faithful to die of radiation damage. I'm not Dawkins, ffs.)

    5. Re:Bananas by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, eating a banana is as radioactive as a threesome?

      Only if you three like to cuddle, or are really horny - it says sleeping next to someone (presumably for 8 hours or so). Make it a gangbang.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    6. Re:Bananas by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Definitely a really nice chart. It's good to see something so easy to read and quantitative that helps people debate with some level of knowledge. The main problems for me with it are that it doesn't really do a good job on the time axis, spacial axes and the probabalistic risk. For example:

      • 50mSv absorbed in one year is probably completely safe. 50mSv absorbed in one second is quite likely to be bad, even if that's the only radiation absorbed in that whole year.
      • 50mSv spread through all issue types is likely no problem. Even though skin is normally considered less important in calculating Sieverts, 50mSv concentrated on a small area of skin can be a real problem .

      What makes this all difficult is that it seems the mechanisms are random. E.g. most of the time a particle of radiation does nothing. It dissociates a water molecule which soon after re-associates. Even if it does cause a mutation, that likely doesn't cause cancer because the body copes with mutation all the time and genetic codes self correct. However, if two or more mutations happen in close together / related genetic material in the same cell, that is reasonably likely to cause cancer as the cell is no longer able to self-correct. Now of course, this means that the "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk" is actually incorrect; that minimum ("clearly linked to increased", not to "noticeable") is about two particles of radiation where clearly is defined as "we clearly understand that this is so and "increased" is defined as "greater than would be otherwise. However, the minimum yearly dose "linked to a worrying increase according to a reasonable probabalistic model" is what we really want to know and is completely missing from the chart.

      Since the location of radiation damage is entirely random, that can mean that millions of particles could cause no damage to one person whilst just three could damage another very unlucky person. This risk gets higher the more concentrated in space and time a dose of radiation is. When you think about it, the reason is obvious. The chance of a repeat strike in the same cell goes up quadratically as the volume shrinks and factorially as the dosage increases. These are the crucial things which mean that radioactive iodine and back scatter scanners are likely to be much more dangerous than e.g. cosmic ray exposure at altitude or through body X-rays. They are also mean that having a back scatter X-ray just before or after travelling is (I have no idea exactly how much) worse than having the X-ray on its own.

      It would be really great if xkcd could do something which did a comparison of the dangers of different kinds of radiation exposure in different circumstances. Very important would be to leave in the ares of doubt where we actually don't know.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    7. Re:Bananas by macslas'hole · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... does that mean God's trying to kill us?

      What to you mean "trying"? Last I checked life was still a terminal affair and has been one for a long time.

      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    8. Re:Bananas by AlejoHausner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      radiation is God's pure love

      This idea exists in Greek myth: "[Semele] then demanded that Zeus reveal himself in all his glory as proof of his godhood. Though Zeus begged her not to ask this, she persisted and he was forced by his oath to comply. Zeus tried to spare her by showing her the smallest of his bolts and the sparsest thunderstorm clouds he could find. Mortals, however, cannot look upon Zeus without incinerating, and she perished, consumed in lightning-ignited flame" You should not ask the Godhead to reveal itself in its pure form. No mortal can sustain it.

  2. additional by toQDuj · · Score: 4, Informative

    An additional useful chart can be found here, in a slightly more readable and intelligible format:
    http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110315houshasen_mext_en.pdf

    Not as all-inclusive as Randall's work, but still good.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    1. Re:additional by zill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Average doses in the world due to fallout: 0.11mSv

      Average doses in Japan due to fallout: 0.012mSv

      Isn't it ironic how the only country that was attacked with nuclear weapons actually has less fallout than the rest of the world?

    2. Re:additional by jandoedel · · Score: 4, Informative

      As far as I know Japan wasn't the only country hit by nukes. Several countries did nuclear tests above ground. The US and USSR for example were both hit by nukes two hundred times, Japan only twice: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/atest00.html

    3. Re:additional by Nithin+Philips · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there is a significant Brazilian community in Japan

      --
      Einmal ist Keinmal. What happens but once might as well not have happened at all.
    4. Re:additional by zill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Atomic bombs are designed to consume as much of the fissionable material as possible.

      That's actually a common misconception. Many bombs built in the cold war era had the design goal of maximizing radioactive fallouts as opposed to maximizing the yield. The rationale was that the blast waves can't cover the entire enemy nation, but the radioactive fallout can.

  3. Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what you are saying is that XKCD did more research and analysis for a web-comic than the 24 hour news networks do for a story?

    1. Re:Research by shmlco · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently xkcd did do more research. Read this article about how the US coverage from nearly all outlets (not just Fox) is sensationalist, late, and often just wrong.

      http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/JNlPwKP6WAs/taking_stock_3.php

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    2. Re:Research by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Randal does research for some of his comics.

      IPv4 map.
      Map of the Online Communities
      2010 Update of the Map
      Gravity Wells of the Solar System
      The observable universe from top to bottom (on a log scale)

      It probably doesn't hurt that he used to work for NASA and is a programmer.

    3. Re:Research by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's easy to do more research than the news networks. I saw news reports of a mass exodus from Japan, but on a whim, I checked to see if there were seats available on the next flights out. There were economy class seats available, I think it unlikely that there would be economy class tickets available if there were a mass exodus taking place.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  4. Units by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are so many radiation units out there and people keep using them without regard to what they really mean. It's nice that you've got your Sieverts covered. Now you'll have to learn about Grays, Curies, Becquerels, Rads, Rems, and Roentgens. Here's a handy conversion chart.

    1. Re:Units by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because there is no such thing as "radiation". A bit like there is no such thing as "cancer". It is a whole bunch of phenomena all packed together because of historical reasons.

      When unstable isotopes decay, they can emit protons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons, antineutrinos, etc., etc. The stuff emitted, depending on its nature, its speed, its energy, interacts (or not) with the environment in very different ways. Since a measure is a measure of an interaction, there are necessarily many units.

      And then you have those units used to have an idea of the health effects. And again, this is an amazingly complicated issue: damage from "radiation" will come from cells dying or genetic material being altered and not repaired. Killing cells is easy to understand, but DNA damage is much more complicated.

      It may have no consequence at all.
      It may have beneficial consequences.
      It may trigger a chain of events which will eventually lead to illness.
      It may start a cancer right away.

    2. Re:Units by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Any idea why there are so many different units of measure for radiation?

      Some are historical and SI unit conversions (Rem/RAD and Gray/Sievert); others deal with how does effects what absorbs it. The Roentgen is a measure of gamma energy, the RAD is the measure of energy transferred and is an acronym for Radiation absorbed Dose, which them must be adjusted for a quality factor do to the difference in energy transfer, which generally is referred to as REM - Roentgen Equivalent Man which corrupts for different quality factors so that 1 REM is the same no matter the source of the dose. For practical purposes, Roentgen RAD and REM are equivalent since gamma is generally the radiation of concern.

      It's not that different than the measurements - foot meter; slug kilo; punned newton, with the added medical impact measurement.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  5. Media sensationalism no doubt by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I found one source that said firefighters had radiation levels of 27 mSV after a 13 hour operation (presumably to cool down the reactor). Which doesn't seem to me to be a severe healthrisk after looking at the chart provided. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm vastly annoyed with the media, given how they talk you'd think people were losing their hair and growing skin lesions.

    1. Re:Media sensationalism no doubt by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >>Maybe I'm wrong but I'm vastly annoyed with the media, given how they talk you'd think people were losing their hair and growing skin lesions.

      You're absolutely right to be annoyed at the media for getting it so wrong.

      But even the Slashdot summary is disingenuous:
      "1 Sievert will make you sick, many more will kill you, however, even small doses cumulatively increase cancer risk."

      There's no evidence for the LNT (linear no threshold) model for radiation exposure, other than people doing math and plotting a line down into the low-exposure ranges. All the epidemiological studies have shown much lower cancer incidence rates than the LNT would predict, indicating that there is a thresholding effect at work at low doses.

      This actually makes a *huge* difference when it comes to cleanup of radioactive material. Something like $200 billion worth of difference.

      That's why I'm interested in people actually, you know, testing this sort of stuff in the laboratory, like these guys: http://www.orionint.com/projects/ullre.cfm

  6. Cute, but not accurate by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Sievert is a measure of ACCUMULATED dose. Time is a factor. Therefore being exposed to 1 Sievert for a second (the real unit behind the sievert is the J/s, which is equivalent to Watts) is the same as being exposed to 1 milisievert for 1000 seconds, or 1 microsievert for 10^6 seconds.

    This is also why many measurements are done on a "per hour" basis. 400 milisieverts per hour (near the pool between reactors 3-4) is not harmful to you if you are going to be there for 5 minutes. If you stay there for 2.5 hours, however, you could experience signs of acute radiation sickness.

    I find it laughable, however, how the press a) fails to understand this and b) has obvious trouble converting between micro and mili.

    Finally one must bear in mind that radionuclides will decay over time (Iodine-131 being the main culprit here, has a half life of 8 days). So in 5 half lives (40 days), most of it will be gone. And also that the chronic health risk of radiation is usually overestimated, especially for such small doses as currently seen in Japan. It's statistical roulette, just like smoking. It just takes one cigarette to unleash the chain of events that will eventually lead to cancer. However the odds of it being the cigarette you are currently smoking are quite small. But if you smoke all your life, you're likely to buy the winning ticket eventually. The same with radiation. There are still living survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and these people were exposed to far more (and more harmful) radiation - gamma rays vs. beta particles. And yet not that many of them have "grown a third arm". Yes, there have been cancer deaths, but considering the population exposed, it wasn't all that much.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Cute, but not accurate by selven · · Score: 3, Informative

      (the real unit behind the sievert is the J/s, which is equivalent to Watts) is the same as being exposed to 1 milisievert for 1000 seconds

      True mathematically, but not medically

    2. Re:Cute, but not accurate by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Agreed. As a physician I am well aware that the body has compensation mechanisms for virtually everything, and they work fine so long as you don't overwhelm those mechanism (it usually always boils down to the rate of reaction of some enzyme or other). But was trying not to get too technical.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Cute, but not accurate by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "However the odds of it being the cigarette you are currently smoking are quite small."

      "(Radioactive) Po-210 is also present in cigarettes. The actual mechanism by which the polonium arises in tobacco leaves is still disputed. It can arise through the decay of radon gas in the air directly onto the tobacco leaves or directly from the uptake of radioactive decay products of uranium in the earth in the roots of the plant. As cigarette burn, the radioactive polonium on the surface volatilizes and enter the lungs through inhalation. It has been claimed that radioactive polonium-210 is responsible for more than 90% of all smoking related lung cancers "

      http://www.nucleonica.net/wiki/index.php/Polonium_210

    4. Re:Cute, but not accurate by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, forget about the other 200 or so carcinogens present in tobacco smoke. One article will not turn me into a believer. Especially since I think the dose of polonium could be considered homeopathic. I disagree until I see double blind clinically controlled trials that prove this. We never will, however, for ethical reasons.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Cute, but not accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      the real unit behind the sievert is the J/s

      This is actually completely wrong. The Sievert is based on the Gray, which is defined in terms of J/kg. For a fixed mass, it's J, energy. It makes no sense to say "exposed to 1 Sievert for 1 second". You would have to say "exposed to 1 Sievert per second for 1 second".

  7. TSA airport security dosage by FauxReal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would like to have seen the dosage given by using the backscatter machine at an airport listed.

    1. Re:TSA airport security dosage by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Given how honest the TSA has been about them, probably close to the same as vacationing for a week at chernobyl

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:TSA airport security dosage by Khopesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was surprised to see the TSA's full-body screening systems didn't make the list ... until I saw the reports of how much radiation it exposes us to. I'm using data from NPR's Scientists Question Safety Of New Airport Scanners (2010-05-17) and TSA's X-ray Screening Technology Safety Reports (date unknown, cited on the TSA Blog 2011-03-12).

      Note, to compare with XKCD's chart, both TSA and NPR state that a standard chest x-ray is 100 uSv rather than this XKCD's 20 uSv. NPR puts a mammogram at 700 uSv while XKCD holds it as 3000 uSv.

      The stated radiation from these backscatter scanners is 0.05 uSv (TSA, reported as 0.005 mrem) to 0.2 uSv (UCSF via NPR) per usage. UCSF suggests that measuring this radiation on the skin would result in a larger value. The TSA report includes a disclaimer that they are re-testing these numbers and should have results around the end of this month. Another post here noted 0.09 uSv but had no source (reported as "0.09 Sv" because Slashdot eats the Greek letter mu).

      The real danger with respect to the backscatter scanners was to the TSA workers (who had zero protection) and others who work in airports. The NPR piece also cites David Brenner, head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, saying that 5% of the population is especially sensitive to radiation and that "we don't really have a quick and easy test to find those individuals." Fortunately, these machines are not in use any more, though that might change if the TSA's new report doesn't increase those numbers (or it gets trumped by fearmongering on behalf of some news outlet or politician).

      --
      Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  8. Shut down coal fired power stations by Alwinner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Coal fired powers stations emit more radioactivity than nuclear power stations and also release greenhouse gases and ash. We should be shutting all of these as soon as possible to protect the Earth and its people. The deaths due to coal mining annually exceed all deaths in over fifty years of nuclear power generation.

  9. Re:No by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Informative

    12mSv/h is slightly more than one red square, no where near an orange one. This makes the highest level of radiation detected, in the cloud of vented gas from inside the containment vessel about 30,000 times less than those at chyernobyl, and only for a very very brief period involving very short half life elements.

    The radiation level has since fallen back way down, especially since managing to resubmurge the spent fuel. The reaction has also slowed to about 1/2000th of it's original rates in the reactors, making a melt down extremely unlikely at this point.

  10. Re:No by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 3, Informative

    That was a peak reading. It must have lasted in the order of a second. And then decreased exponentially. Chernobyl, on the other hand sustained its rate for hours, days, years...

    There is a good graph of the readings on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents

  11. Re:Why 50km from Fukushima reactor? by Alwinner · · Score: 3, Informative
  12. Not too hard by aepervius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seeing the wild claim I have seen on various network, and web news aggregator, I would say anybody researching *a bit* did more research than news networks...

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  13. Re:Anti-nuclear clowns by shmlco · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or read this article about how the US coverage from nearly all outlets (not just Fox) is sensationalist, late, and often just wrong?

    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/JNlPwKP6WAs/taking_stock_3.php

    Example: "This has not been just Fox News, but also CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and even the New York Times to differing degrees. They get the reactors mixed up or report information that is simply wrong (e.g., writing that the TEPCO workers had fully abandoned the effort to control the plant because of radiation levels when TEPCO had only withdrawn some non-essential personnel). They are perpetually late, continuing to report things the Japanese media had shown to be wrong or different the day before. They are woefully selective, bringing out just the sensational elements ("toxic clouds" over Tokyowhen in fact radiation in Tokyo now is actually less than that in LA on some days). They are misleading (implying for instance that the dumping of water from the air was some last ditch effort to cool the core, when it was just an effort to replenish the water in the spent rod poolswhich are now full in reactor 3 and back to normal temperature)."

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  14. The curse of measurability by Gorimek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think one major cause of nucleophobia is that doses of a millionth of anything dangerous or less are easily measurable

    Negligible doses of most every poison is always around, but are unmeasurable. Radiation radiates its presence and is observed, reported and terrifying.

  15. Re:IODINE TABLETS by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm fond of Rad-X. Rad-Away is nice and all, but an ounce of prevention etc.

  16. Re:It is and it isn't by shmlco · · Score: 4, Informative

    Read your own friggin' articles and stop spreading FUD.

    "Yukio Edano, Japan's chief Cabinet secretary, confirmed at a news conference Saturday that milk produced by a farm in Fukushima Prefecture near a crippled power plant and spinach from the neighboring Ibaraki Prefecture were found to be tainted with radiation levels SLIGHTLY [emphasis mine] above that set by the government.

    However, Edano said, the contaminated food posed no immediate threat to human health. The public should remain calm, he urged.

    Referring to the milk, he said, "drinking it for a year would only expose consumers to the radiation equivalent of one medical CT scan.""

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  17. Re:It is and it isn't by Adayse · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most of the casualties from Chernobyl (4000 to 8000 fatalities and counting) were from Thyroid cancer.

    Check your facts! 4000 cases of thyroid cancer and only 9 fatalities, because it is 99% curable (I think I read somewhere else 15 deaths).