Environment & Energy

caraher

(6,356 posts)

9. At this stage such an estimate would be challenging

Sun Mar 2, 2014, 07:35 AM

Mar 2014

I think Yo_Mama has it right - the best way to figure out exposure is ongoing monitoring of the sort described. I'd imagine there will always be pretty big uncertainties associated with any such measurement - you can probably get the order of magnitude right, but since there's also a lot of uncertainty associated with the risk even given accurate exposure data, it's not really necessary to do much better to decide whether doing more than monitoring is warranted.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

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