Archives for posts with tag: oceanet

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
__________________________________________________________________________

Fukushima

The release of radioactive material has been estimated to be between
500 PBq and 1000 PBq
The Pacific Ocean covers 165 million km^2 and contains 66 million km^3 of water.
Assuming all of these 1000 PBq (10^18 Bq) to be equally distributed over 1 % of the ocean to a depth of 50 m, and without considering the ‘sinking down’ of heavy material, you will get 12 Bq/kg. If you thereafter consider that some 90 % of the radioactive release is Iodine131 (see page 116 in UNSCEAR 2013 Report,) only some 2 Bq/kg will be active at the time of the horror-stories.
Further, it may be worth mentioning that the US National Academy of Science has referred to measurements showing 7 Bq/m^3 Fukushima-derived fallout of 137Cs near the Canadian continental shelf.
This may have been rather difficult to measure, considering that the natural level of radiation in the ocean is 11,000 Bq/m^3

In order to relate to something familiar, it can be mentioned that all of us carry with us about 65 Bq/kg (65,000 Bq/m^3) as part of our human body, or that a radon level of 100,000 Bq/m^3 was found in the basement of an occupied house. (Watras Incident, as discussed on another post.)
Correct me if I am wrong.
Fukushima Greenpeace
Considering this, it is difficult to understand how well established “green organizations” show maps and indicate the “extreme danger” related to the radioactive pollution the whole way to the American west coast.
Even far inland.
1 RAD = 10 mSv However, this unit is (deliberately?) confusing and will not have any meaning without stating the time. E.g. RAD/hour.

Without being able to check, I think this link from The Register is more reliable.

If you have trust in World Nuclear, the following may be interesting:

  • A silt fence has long been in place to prevent contamination reaching the open sea and the diluting effects of ocean currents mean that radioactivity cannot be detected in seawater beyond the plant harbour.

If you are a fan of YouTube and have seen “The Ocean of Death”, you may wonder how the many fish can be so sensitive that the increase in radiation from 11,000 to 11,007 Bq/m^3 has caused the disaster shown on the film.
Contrary to radiation; fish are rather sensitive to change in the concentration of salt in the water. So, if not directly falsified, the dead fish may be found outside a plant for desalinating seawater.
Besides this it is worth looking at the last table in a paper from UNSCEAR. Here it is seen that the radiologic tolerance  for fish is some ten times that for mammals and birds.
On the other hand you may be relieved to see how the animals are thriving in the highly radioactive and forbidden zone at Chernobyl.

As far as I am aware of, Tepco’s limits for groundwater contamination is that groundwater should contain less than 5 Bq/L of beta ray-emitting radioactive material and 1 Bq/L of caesium-134 and caesium-137.
Again, this should be seen in relation to the natural load of the human body: 65 Bq/L and of the ocean: 11 Bq/L
Natural Radiation EU
To be on the safe side, the standard for public radiation exposure was (arbitrary) set
to one millisievert/year.
This is only one tenth of what some Europeans have been exposed to throughout their lives.

My conclusion is clear.
Something is rotten – somewhere –
But where ?

englandEnglish translation.
For kilder og henvisninger:
Klik på det der er med gult og se om du får brugbare detaljer.

Og.klik påb Og klik på billeder for at få fuld størrelse.
_______________________________________________________________

(11 Marts 2011)

Fukushima TsunamiEt jordskælv og en efterfølgende tsunami ramte området omkring Fukushima på Japans østkyst.
Selve tsunamien krævede tæt ved 20.000 ofre.
Men selv om de tre, der døde ved kraftværket, ikke døde som følge af ioniserende strålig, så blev det snart det dominerende emne i debatten.

Naturligvis blev der distribueret jod-tabletter og foranstaltet store evakueringer.
For at imødegå en udbredt frygt for en ikke eksisterende fare følte politikere sig nødsaget til at opretholde disse evakueringer også længe efter det var berettiget.
Hvis det overhovedet var berettiget i første omgang.
Natural Radiation EU
For at forstå dette, må man huske at der var opblæst en hysterisk frygt og at en politiker vil risikere sin politiske fremtid hvis han ikke viser handlekraft eller kan beskyldes for at udsætte befolkningen for farer.
For at være på den sikre side, blev grænsen for tilladelig stråling sat til en millisievert per år.
Mindre end halvdelen af det vi allesammen er udsat fra naturlige kilder.

Støvmasker BørnAlligevel kom der noget godt ud af frygten.
For at beskytte mod radioaktivt støv, var der megen brug af ansigtsmasker.
Dette reddede mange fra skader fra det asbest-støv, der var hvirvlet op fra de ødelagte bygninger.

Det er nemt at være bagklog og sige at der skulle have været en helt anderledes kraftig mur til at beskytte reaktorerne.
Eller bygget længere oppe på land og haft større udgifter til kølevand.
Der kunne også have været et bedre kølesystem eller man kunne have lyttet til svenske forslag om at lave et filter, som man havde ved reaktorerne ved Barsebäck.
Endeligt var det uansvarligt at vente for længe før man brugte saltvand til køling.
Selv om japanerne er dygtige og samvittighedsfulde, fejlede man da man flere gange tidligere overhørte advarsler fra Det Internationale Atomenergiagentur.
Fukushima Fier in the OIL
MEN
Når formålet er at skabe frygt og sensation, er det tilsyneladende sådan at hensigten helliger midlerne.
Danmarks Radio kunne tilsyneladende ikke finde noget, der var tilstrækkeligt rædselsvækkende fra kraftværket.
I stedet vistes en røgsøjle fra et brændende olieraffinaderi.
Således bliver det let for alle at forstå den uhyggelige – næsten ikke eksisterende – fare ved radioaktiv forurening.

Stadigvæk er det svært at forstå hvorledes denne fanatiske propaganda og de klare fejl ved kraftværket kan begrunde den næsten panikagtige diskussion om kernekraft i Europa, hvor der ikke er fare for en tsunami.

Panik og Følger

  • De store evakueringer, der senere viste sig at være unødvendige, medførte meget store skader på de mange som frygten havde ”jaget fra hus og hjem”.
    Både fysiske og psykologiske skader – endog selvmord.
    Ifølge officielle kilder: Vel over 1000 dødsfald forårsaget af evakueringerne.
  • Hvis tilgængelige oplysninger står til troende, har disse skader langt overskredet de, næsten hypotetiske, skader fra den, trods alt meget begrænsede, forøgede radioaktivitet som befolkningen ville have været udsat for, hvis de kunne have returneret hjem.
  • På den måde vil jeg hævde at de ansvarlige for disse urimeligt mange “evakueringsdødsfald” ikke findes i forbindelse med kraftværket, men blandt de selvbestaltede miljøforkæmpere, der oppiskede en næsten ubegrænset, men ubegrundet, frygt.
  • I bagkundskabens klare lys og i forbindelse med behandling af teorien for J-value (justification value) kommer man frem til at ALLE de mange evakueringer var overflødelige og derigennem skadelige.
  • På internetsiden Forbes læser man også at Fukushimas refugees are victims of irrational fear. Not radiation.
  • Tilsvarende ses det at 75 % af evakueringer ved Tjernobyl var overflødige og derigennem skadelige.

MEN

Den største og næsten oversete skade kom fra den panikagtige lukning af over 40 velfungerende reaktorer.
Dette medførte en stærkt forøget forurening – både lokalt og globalt.

Fra en lidt rodet og måske upålidelig kilde Deaths from Nuclear Energy Compared with Other Causes. February 26, 2013 citeres følgende:
(Kort uddrag og oversættelse)

  • Ifølge World Data Bank, forøgede Japan brugen af fossile brændsler.
    Således genereredes 125 TWh mere fra kul, naturgas og olie.
    I alt resulterende dette i over 3.000 flere dødsfald og 31.000 alvorlige skader. (Årligt ?)
    Disse skader vil fortsætte indtil frygten er manet væk og de stansede reaktorer kan genstartes.
    Lidt flere detaljer kan findes på en anden post.
  • Fra Neutron Bytes (August 9, 2017) haves følgende:
    Hvis 10 kernekraftreaktorer genstartes i Japan inden marts 2019, falder værdien af importerede fossile brændstoffer med $4.55bn (€3.84bn).

Derudover kan jeg referere til følgende:
http://billothewisp.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/fukushima-hidden-epidemic.html
Og, lidt bedre: The Lancet 2007
– – The Lancet anses normalt som meget pålideligt og graph side 983 er
– – meget illustrativt.

National Geographic
prøver at give en objektiv vurdering.
Strengt taget er de mange kommentarer meget illustrative.
De giver et godt billede af den folkelige misinformation.

Oprydningen

Omkostningerne i forbindelse med oprydning er tilsyneladende ved at løbe løbsk.
For detaljer henviser jeg til en anden side.

Oceanet

Det oplyses at udslippet af radioaktivt materiale har været mellem
500 PBq og 1000 PBq eller 10^18 Bq
World Nuclear angiver: “Eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq)”
Med sædvanlig sans for (fiktiv) nøjagtighed angives 11.346×10^18 Bq.
Jeg tillader mig at tvivle på dette tal, der er ti gange mere end de 10^18 Bq jeg regner med.
Samme sted angives at den samlede radioaktivitet i alle oceaner fra Potassium 40 er 14.000×10^18 Bq, eller 1000 gange mere.
I forbindelse med de mange tal, vil man savne oversigt over radioaktivitet udledt fra afbrænding af fossilt brændstof.

Tilsvarende må man undres over hvordan det er muligt for Greenpeace at komme så tæt på (påstået) dumping i oceanet, at der er muligt at få de billeder, der findes her.

Det Pacifice Ocean dækker 165 millioner km^2 og indeholder 66 millioner km^3 vand.

Hvis man antager at alle disse 1000 PBq (10^18 Bq) bliver jævnt fordelt over 1 % af oceanet til en dybde på 50 m, og ikke medtager at størsteparten vil synke ned vil man få 12 Bq/kg.
Hvis man derefter overvejer at sådan 90 % af det radioaktive udslip var jod 131 (se side 116 i UNSCEAR 2013 Rapport)
Ja så vil højst 2 Bq/kg være tilbage på tidspunktet for de mange rædsels-beretninger.
Desuden har the US National Academy of Science meddelt, at der er fundet et 7 Bq/m^3 137 Cs af affald fra Fukushima nærved den Kanatiske kontinentsokkel.
Dette må have været temmeligt svært at måle, når men tænker på at der allerede findes 10.000 Bq/m^3 fra naturlige kilder.

For at sammenligne med noget, der er nærmere, nævnes at vi alle bærer rundt på omkring 65 Bq/kg (65.000 Bq/m^3) som del af det menneskelige legeme, eller at 100.000 Bq/m^3 radon var fundet i en beboet bygning. (Watras Incident, som diskuteret på en anden post.)
100.000 Bq/m^3, som luftforurening, er ‘sådan bare’ 1000 gange det der normalt tolereres.
Ret mig hvis det er forkert.

Fukushima Greenpeace Hvis man tager alt dette i betragtning er det svært af forstå hvorledes veletablerede “grønne organisationer” kan vise kort der viser “alvorlig fare” fra radioaktiv forurening hele vejen ind over den Amerikanske vest-kyst.
1 RAD = 10 mSv
Selv denne enhed er (bevidst?) forvirrende og vil ikke have nogen mening.

Hvis du stoler på World Nuclear eller Atomic Insights, vil det følgende være interessant:

  • En silt barriere har i lange tider været i funktion, og har forhindret forureningen i at nå oceanet, hvor fortyndingen bevirker at radioaktivitet ikke kan måles i havvand udenfor havnen.

Senere beretninger om store forureninger fra lækkende tanke er vildt overdrevne.
Formentligt direkte bedrageri.

En mere neutral opgørelse af situationen kan findes her.

Hvis du er glad for YouTube og har set “The Ocean of Death”, vil jeg tro at du alligevel kommer i tvivl når du ser at de mange fisk er så påvirkelige at de kan mærke en forøgelse af radioaktiviteten fra 11.000 til 11.007 Bq/m^3.
I modsætning til radioaktivitet; er fisk relativt påvirkelige af ændringer i vandets saltindhold.
Således, hvis det ikke er direkte falskneri, kan de døde fisk måske findes udenfor et af-saltningsanlæg for havvand.
Måske ville det også være interessant at se lidt på den sidste tabel i et indlæg fra UNSCEAR.
Her kan det ses at den radiologiske tolerance for fisk er ti gange den for dyr og fugle.
Du vil måske få trøst ved at se hvorledes både planter og dyr trives i den stærkt radioaktive og lukkede zone ved Tjernobyl.

Så vidt jeg kan forstå er Tepcos grænser at forurening af grundvand ikke må overskride 5 Bq/L af beta stråling fra radioaktive materialer og 1 Bq/L fra cæsium-134 og cæsium-137.
Dette skal igen sættes i relation til den naturlige radioaktivitet i den menneskelige organisme – mere end ti gange så meget: 65 Bq/L.
I oceanet: 11 Bq/L
Natural Radiation EU
For at være på den sikre side, fastsatte man (helt arbitrært) en grænseværdi på en millisievert/år.
Dette er kun en tiendedel af det mange europæere har været udsat gennem hele deres liv.

Min konklusion er klar:
Noget er råddent!

Men hvor?

Hvis du ikke er træt, kan du finde lidt af svaret her:

Meget mere

2018 giver World Nuclear en grundig og forhåbentligt ærlig vurdering af situationen.

På Wikipedia finder man en grundigt, lidt forsigtig, men formentligt ærlig vurdering.

Tilsvarende for Videnskab.dk, der hæfter sig ved de meget lave grænseværdier.

Miljøforkæmperen George Monbiot, der oprindeligt var imod kernekraft, blev overbevist om kernekraftens relative sikkerhed efter, hvad han betegner som de begrænsede skader ved reaktorerne efter jordskælvet og tsunamien i Japan.

Jeg tillader mig at gentage at vi alle sammen bærer rundt på 65 Bq/kg som et resultat af vores liv på jorden.
I alt over 4000 radioaktive henfald per sekundt !

Hilsner og god tænkepause
Thorkil Søe

Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
_____________________________________________________________________
When the discussions turn in the direction of radiation and the effects on the health of people, several obstacles are seen:
First, of course, lack of reliable information on the effect of low-level radiation.
But another major problem is the many unfamiliar units used and the confusion caused by ignorance and sometimes wishes to deny facts.
Even the aspirations from some organizations, to turn everything related to radioactivity into a major hazard.

Near the end of this post you will find an evaluation of the ridiculous claims and unrealistic ‘safe limits’ in relation to the Fukushima disaster.

Units

Bq Becquerel
1 Bq is one radioactive decay per second and is a very small unit.
One adult human contains about 4,500 Bq from natural sources.
More can be found form World Nuclear
Sv Sievert
The Sievert is a measure of the health effect of ionizing radiation on the human body.
Also here World Nuclear gives a good overview of the situation.
A very illustrative, and apparently reliable, Radiation Dose Chart is provided by Wikimedia.
Other Units
Several other units are still used in different literature:
1 Sv = 1 J/kg = 1Gy = 100 rad = 100 rem = 100 Roentgen
Becquerel to Sievert
There is no clear-cut relation between Becquerel and Sievert.
The only guide found is in a paper from Luckey fig. 10.
Here you will deduct: 1mSv = 1.7 kBq/litter.
Without having checked and fearing being wrong, I quote:
1000 Bq/m^3 = 4.45 mJ*hour/m^3 = 6.3 mSv

Radon

Now and then radon comes up in the media and people living in “radon houses” may be scared and will often have difficulties selling their house.
At Wikipedia you can find a very comprehensive paper on radon.
From this paper and other sources the following is a short summary.

Origin

Radon originates from decay of uranium, mainly found in the granite in the earth’s crust.
The only isotope of interest is 222Rn having a half live about four days.
It is a heavy noble gas and will only harm if it decays within the lungs.
The concentration is measured in Bq/m^3

Concentrations can vary greatly from place to place.
In the open air, it ranges from 1 to 100 Bq/m^3, even less (0.1 Bq/m^3) above the ocean.
In caves, aerated mines, or in poorly ventilated dwellings, its concentration can climb to 2,000 Bq/m^3.
Typical domestic exposures are about 100 Bq/m^3 indoors and 10-20 Bq/m^3 outdoors.

Exposure to radon

The magic cure
Just as much as radon and radiation is feared, it has been seen as a magic cure for all types of illnesses.
For a period around 1915 radioactive water was the fashion, until some rich and enthusiastic people overdosed and died a horrible death.
Radon baths Radon Treatmeng It should be noted that now, as well as long before radon and radioactivity was known, health seekers are frequenting locations, where they receive “radon-treatment” for all types of illnesses.
On the internet you may find several advertisements for spas and clinics, as for instance: here, here andRadioactive Water here.
Radon in ”Health Water”
Even radon mineral water is regulated:
The minimum strength should be 74 Bq/L, but the following is found:
Merano: 2000 Bq/L and
Lurisia (Italy): 4000 Bq/L
The human body contains some 65 Bq/kg
Extremes
High levels of radon are found at several locations.
Best known is what originally was named “The Rasmar Paradox”:
A relatively small population at Rasmar in Pakistan are exposed to very high levels of radiation from radon.
This unique case is over 80 times higher than the world average background radiation.
However there has not been reports of ill health.
Several other locations have similar, but smaller exposure:
bla • Guarapari (Brazil)
bla • Cumuruxatiba (Brazil)
bla • Kerala (India)
bla • Karunagappall (India)
bla • Arkaroola (South Australia)
bla • Yangjiang (China)
bla • Black Beach (Brazil – Record but uninhabited)
Record high
Probably, the highest recorded level of exposure is the Watras Incident,
as described a little below.
Miners
The health effects of high exposure to radon in mines, where exposures reaching 1,000,000 Bq/m^3 can be found.
It was first recognized in 1530 by Paracelsus in his description of a wasting disease of miners.
It must be hoped, that this is “a thing of the past.”

Radiation Hormesis

A controversial epidemiological study, unexpectedly showing decreased cancer risk vs. radon domestic exposure at least up to 200 Bq/m^3.
These findings, first published by T. D. Luckey

Radon and Cancer

It is difficult to understand why it has been outright rejected by WHO and others.
It is even more difficult to understand why these observations have not been followed up.
I have tried to summarize some of the existing knowledge here.
Even more surprising are the findings that even very high doses of ionizing radiation have not caused harm to future generations.

Cigarette Unit

The many different units and the often conflicting “evidences” will lead to the following:
Cigaret Unit From the internet, I quote the following:
I still remember:
Long time ago an expert in radiation got the question:
“Why don’t you compare your results to something people can understand, as for instance Cigarette Unit?”
His answer was clear:
“I have tried. It is hopeless. People just accuse me of lying.”

From private correspondence with a Danish expert, I remember the similar.
(Unfortunately I have no records or references.)

Radon and smoking

It has long been known that the much trumpeted damage from radon has not been seen in the affected populations.
Around 2010 we see how the magician pulls a new rabbit out of the hat.
Now it is explained that only smokers need to be afraid of radiation from radon.
To my knowledge, the biological mechanism behind this penurious exception can not be explained.

Watras Incident

The only – hopefully reliable, but also rather confusing – information is found from The Guardian and Wikipedia.
The following is an extract:

  • Radon levels in particular dwellings can occasionally be orders of magnitude higher than typical.
    It was dramatized by the so-called Watras Incident, in which an employee at a U.S. nuclear plant triggered radiation monitors while leaving work over several days.
    Despite the fact that the plant had yet to be fuelled, and despite the employee being decontaminated and sent home “clean” each evening.
    This implied a source of contamination outside the plant, which turned out to be radon levels of 100,000 Bq/m^3  in the worker’s basement.

    [1000 times the limit in Denmark].
    The lung cancer risk associated with living in that house was compared to the extrapolated risk from smoking 135 packs of cigarettes daily.

It is difficult to accept these findings and even more difficult, when it is noted that the alarm was raised, not because he or any of his family had suffered from bad health.
A similar, but not so dramatic event occurred at a Swedish nuclear plant, which was closed for several days until it was realized, that one of the employees had taken his radiation monitor with him home.

What can not be avoided?

Where ever you are and whatever you do, all us – as well as our forefathers – have been exposed to some radiation.
This, together with ‘manmade exposure’, has been summarized here.

What is Allowed?

If the units and dozes are conflicting, it is probably nothing compared to existing regulations.
It has, of course, been necessary to neglect “information” from the many so-called green organizations specializing in scaremongering.
Further, different political statements and regulations may be highly influenced by the fear of being accused of not protecting the public.
It is easy to find a lot of obviously conflicting “facts” and regulations.
Much too much to go into details here.

A very comprehensive guide to definitions and regulations related to disposal of radioactive waste is given by The International Atomic Energy Agency.
These guidelines are apparently applied very differently in different countries and different situations, resulting in the following, which is an extract from World Nuclear.

  • Recycling materials from decommissioned nuclear facilities is constrained by the level of radioactivity in them.
    This is also true for materials from elsewhere, such as gas plants, but the levels specified can be very different.
    For example, scrap steel from gas plants may be recycled if it has less than 500,000 Bq/kg (the exemption level).
    This level however, is one thousand times higher than the clearance level for recycled material (both steel and concrete) from the nuclear industry, where anything above 500 Bq/kg may not be cleared from regulatory control for recycling.
    – – Norway and Holland are the only countries with consistent standards.

Even considering the public hysteria and the almost poisonous level of political lobbying, it is difficult to understand this.

Public interest

Often you will find statements from green organizations indicating that all levels of radiation is dangerous.
With the availability of cheap and very accurate Geiger Counters it has been the faction to find dangerous spots:
Of course help from the public should be appreciated, as for instance when a long time forgotten radioactive source was found in Tokyo.
However, at the same time it is necessary to relate real or conceived dangers to what we all of us are exposed to through all our lives.

Fukushima

The release of radioactive material has been estimated to be between 500 PBq and 1000 PBq
The Pacific Ocean covers 165 million km^2 and contains 66 million km^3 of water.
Assuming all of these 1000 PBq (10^18 Bq) to be equally distributed over 1 % of the ocean to a depth of 50 m, and without considering the ‘sinking down’ of heavy material, you will get 12 Bq/kg.
If you thereafter consider that some 90 % of the radioactive release was Iodine131 (see page 116 in UNSCEAR 2013 Report,) only some 2 Bq/kg will be active at the time of the horror-stories.

Further, it may be worth mentioning that the US National Academy of Science has referred to measurements showing 7 Bq/m^3 Fukushima-derived fallout of 137Cs near the Canadian continental shelf.
All this may have been rather difficult to measure, considering that the natural level of radiation in the ocean is 11,000 Bq/m^3

In order to relate to something familiar, it can be mentioned that all of us carry with us about 65 Bq/kg (65,000 Bq/m^3) as part of our human body.
Or that a radon level of 100,000 Bq/m^3 was found in the basement of an occupied house.
Just 1000 times what is allowed in Denmark.
(Watras Incident, as discussed above.)
Correct me if I am wrong.
Fukushima Greenpeace
Considering this, it is difficult to understand how well established “green organizations” show maps and indicate the “extreme danger” related to the radioactive pollution the whole way to the American west coast.
Even far inland.
1 RAD = 10 mSv
However, this unit is (deliberately?) confusing and will not have any meaning without stating the time. E.g. RAD/hour.

Without being able to check, I think this link from The Register is more reliable.

If you have trust in World Nuclear, the following may be interesting:

  • A silt fence has long been in place to prevent contamination reaching the open sea and the diluting effects of ocean currents mean that radioactivity cannot be detected in seawater beyond the plant harbour.

If you are a fan of YouTube and have seen “The Ocean of Death”, you may still wonder how the many fish can be so sensitive that the increase in radiation from 11,000 to 11,007 Bq/m^3 has caused the disaster shown on the film.
Contrary to radiation; fish are rather sensitive to change in the concentration of salt in the water.
So, if not directly falsified, the dead fish may be found outside a plant for desalinating seawater.
Besides this it is worth looking at the last table in a paper from UNSCEAR. Here it is seen that the radiologic tolerance  for fish is some ten times that for mammals and birds.
On the other hand you may be relieved to see how the animals are thriving in the highly radioactive and forbidden zone at Chernobyl.

Back to Fukushima.
As far as I am aware of, Tepco’s limits for groundwater contamination is that groundwater should contain less than 5 Bq/L of beta ray-emitting radioactive material and 1 Bq/L of caesium-134 and caesium-137.
Again, this should be seen in relation to the natural load of the human body: 65 Bq/L and of the ocean: 11 Bq/L
Natural Radiation EU
To be on the safe side, the standard for public radiation exposure was (arbitrary) set
to one millisievert/year.
This is only one tenth of what some Europeans have been exposed to throughout their lives.

My conclusion is clear.
Something is rotten – somewhere –
But where ?

Radon DK