Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

7. Thanks.

Reply to caraher (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 2, 2014, 12:06 AM

Mar 2014

Would you know how accurately they are able estimate the quantity of respirable particles and what the most reliable methods for measuring it are? I'm guessing that the conditions described mean they are dealing with open air exposure that wasn't expected to be there, so...?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

(13) Workers at Nuclear Waste Site in New Mexico Inhaled Radioactive Materials [View all] kristopher Mar 2014 OP

Just lovely Demeter Mar 2014 #1

Makes me think of Karen Silkwood. LiberalEsto Mar 2014 #2

since i live very close to there, i have been keeping a VERY close eye on the situation NMDemDist2 Mar 2014 #3

Any ratioactive particle in the lungs is not good madokie Mar 2014 #4

Well, dosing in this case isn't a one time and it's gone event. kristopher Mar 2014 #5

Some specifics for plutonium and americium caraher Mar 2014 #6

Thanks. kristopher Mar 2014 #7

One way is by measuring the excretion rate and change in time. Yo_Mama Mar 2014 #8

At this stage such an estimate would be challenging caraher Mar 2014 #9