As radiation arrives from Japan, what level is safe?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • John Farmer9 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2011 9:08 p.m.

    I dont understand why John Hollenhorst, the author of this article, used Dr. Moench as a source. I think that Dr. Moench creditability was shattered when he wrote op-ed that stated that he supports the claim that 1,000,000 people died from Chernobyl. In John Hollenhorst article of March 15 Experts fear Japanese crisis fosters fear-mongering in nuclear debate radiobiologist Scott Miller proved that Dr. Moench was supporting a made up number.


  • John Farmer9 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2011 9:08 p.m.

    Moench argued that industry and government regulators have historically downplayed the risks ..that no level of radiation is truly safe.-Deseret News.

    Once again Dr. Moench is putting forth another misleading statement. The industry and the regulations that guide the nuclear industry are based off the principle of ALARA which stands for As Low As Reasonable Achievable. In other words the nuclear industry is compelled to keep the doses of radiation as low as possible for all workers. [USNRC regulation (10 CFR Part 20), radiation exposure SHALL be held to the absolute minimum or As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)]

    Though this article is talking about the effects of low doses of radiation it is important to remember that it takes an acute dose of 10-15 Rad in order for the body to experience any observable philological effects. (NCRP Report No. 98, Guidance on Radiation Received in Space Activities, 1989) The annual Federal limit allowed by the NRC under normal working conditions is 5 Rad.


  • CaseyA Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2011 2:21 p.m.

    I would like to see a chart that indicates the measure of radiation in comparison to things we understand. For example, how much radiation does a lightbulb emit, how much for my computer screen, how about my microwave, xray at the dentist, xray at the doctor etc. Then compare that to the "low levels" talked about in this article. Having something to measure the radiation against could help people understand the risks and concerns better.

  • My2Cents Kearns, UT
    March 31, 2011 4:55 a.m.

    Deception is not fact. Although a 1 time low dose exposure for a few minutes is not critical or a real concern, its the 24 hour daily doses that are what they should be talking about. There are many kinds of standard background radiations but not all of it is nuclear radiation from nuclear power plants, x-rays, or atomic bombs. Background radiation is not necessarily normal or something that can be filtered out of the environment, its the created radiation level we are normally exposed to without our knowledge as the government base line.

    Nuclear radiation is cumulative, which means hourly and continuous 24 hour daily exposure add up to increasing total exposure. Radiation dissipates over long time periods called half life which may be 10,000-50,000 years for half the radiation to dissipate. That's assuming no more radiation exposure is being accumulated. Hence the dosimeters that are used by anyone working around or with raditaion, i.e., x-ray machines, power plants, waste sites, or at Energy Solutions.

    Background radiation accumulations have already been associated by medical reporting of greater sterilization in the men of America and part of our lower birth rates.