In early April I detected radiation in the milk in my refrigerator in San Diego. That was alarming because the media and the EPA were telling me no radiation would make its way to the west coast.
1. It is my understanding that the LNT model of radiation exposure risk is the correct model to use and that no levels of ionizing radiation, especially internal emitters, are safe.
2. I find it strange that someone who studies the atmospheric transport of pollutants would not be aware of the huge volume of Sahara sand that regularly travels thousands of miles across the Atlantic in the jet stream and is deposited unevenly across the Caribbean islands. The spectacular sunrises due to the airborne sand are known locally as tequila sunrises. The sand deposited is so thick that one needs to wash off their car windows before driving. Even local children are aware of this phenomenon.
3. "fuel fleas" of uranium and plutonium are being detected in the Pacific Northwest and are very dangerous/deadly particles to inhale.
4. How are health risk assessments being made about the fallout in N. America if fallout dispersion can be irregular from one sq. meter to another, as they are finding out in Japan? I disagree with the gross generalization that the Fukushima fallout on the West Coast is harmless.
Torgen Johnsonof CA12:44PM August 20, 2011
Thank you for this article, but I'm not buying the statement that Radioactive Sulfur is not harmful.
In this article by Jeff McMahon of Forbes, Radioactive Sulfur tends to concentrate in testicles and emits beta radiation there.
U.S. News's "Best" delivers recognized, authoritative information and clear, objective rankings that help readers plan for their life and ultimately, make the most of it.
Reader Comments
Back to article
Torgen Johnson of CA 12:44PM August 20, 2011
Dee of IL 5:49PM August 18, 2011