150,000 SQ.KM of Pacific with Fukushima nuclear material - ‘Remarkable’ amount released in ocean

[FBaggins]

37. There is no such thing

That is.. there is no "recommended amount above natural background" because "natural background" isn't a set level (and most background dose isn't 'natural' in that sense). The guidance is almost always to limit exposure to the amount practicable.

As I've pointed out to you more than once, the normal background levels vary substantially from one area to the next (even from one home to the one next door)... and these variations easily exceed any exposure in the US from Fukushima.

I know where you're coming from. You've heard the BS about "no safe level" and assume that this means that any exposure, no matter how small, should result in action to avoid it... but that simply isn't the case.

Let me point out some examples that illustrate the fundamental error in your thinking:

Take the Pacific bluefin tuna reported on last month. A bit more than half of the fish tested came back with measurable amounts of radiocesium from Fukushima. And, as can be expected, some of the knee-jerk crowd here talked about avoiding tuna because of it. But the contamination in question ranged from zero to 1.3 Bq/kg in those tuna... while the "noatural background" (Potassium 40) in those same fish varied from about 250-700 Bq/kg. So if you had the ability to identify the Cs134 in those fish (no consumer-grade device could do so... but we'll just pretend), and you selected fish without any Fukushima radiation, you could easily add hundreds of times as much radiation to what you put in your mouth.

Or take cesium fallout is rain (in the US) in the weeks immediately following the accident. Obviously almost all of this contamination would end up outdoors on the ground... with some concentrating in drainage areas. Let's say that you could detect it with your home equipment (you couldn't) and elected to stay indoors in response. Most homes have higher radon levels indoors than what you see outside... and that different is MUCH larger than the highest level of FukuCesium found here. So again, by choosing to follow the logic of "less un-natural radiation"... you expose yourself to more radiation.

Other relevant data points include decisions that people make every day. Where in the country do you choose to live? How do you travel (air or ground)? Do you want granite countertops in that home you're thinking of buying? How about all-brick... or a brick facade... or just siding? Cast iron pots and pans or copper? Home on a slab or a crawl space over bare earth? Open your windows in the Spring/Fall or use the AC?

These decisions have more impact on your annual radiation dose than anything from Fukushima... so why are you so worried about one of them and none of the rest?

If you actually "get it" this time... I'll eat crow.