With a quick google search, it seems there are some areas where 2-4mrem/hr is the average background. Id imagine these would be the places the tour would take you. Apparently these have been groomed for lower rad levels. I cant find any maps including average airborne radiation levels. Obviously a piece of radioactive dust stuck in your lungs for a month would be a lot worse than a little slightly radioactive mud on your shoe. But with the average exposure levels in the US around 300-400mrem/year I wouldn't be against spending an hour or two in the area provided airborne rad levels weren't insane. (BTW a flight on the Concord apparently could have netted you .97 mrem/hr. from cosmic radiation) Anyway, I don't care to spend more time investigating the issue. For those of you science geeks, I could have investigated far more, and come up with a detailed report worthy of a good science report, but frankly, this is an automotive forum and i don't care to go further than to say the craptacular reports I read provide no evidence that would scare me from going on a tour of some of the outlying areas of Chernobyl (albeit I would want a radiac and some form of dose monitoring equipment.)
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ukraine to open Chernobyl area to tourists in 2011
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by eastsidetorino View PostWith a quick google search, it seems there are some areas where 2-4mrem/hr is the average background. Id imagine these would be the places the tour would take you. Apparently these have been groomed for lower rad levels. I cant find any maps including average airborne radiation levels. Obviously a piece of radioactive dust stuck in your lungs for a month would be a lot worse than a little slightly radioactive mud on your shoe. But with the average exposure levels in the US around 300-400mrem/year I wouldn't be against spending an hour or two in the area provided airborne rad levels weren't insane. (BTW a flight on the Concord apparently could have netted you .97 mrem/hr. from cosmic radiation) Anyway, I don't care to spend more time investigating the issue. For those of you science geeks, I could have investigated far more, and come up with a detailed report worthy of a good science report, but frankly, this is an automotive forum and i don't care to go further than to say the craptacular reports I read provide no evidence that would scare me from going on a tour of some of the outlying areas of Chernobyl (albeit I would want a radiac and some form of dose monitoring equipment.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by eastsidetorino View Postwith a quick google search, it seems there are some areas where 2-4mrem/hr is the average background. Id imagine these would be the places the tour would take you. Apparently these have been groomed for lower rad levels. I cant find any maps including average airborne radiation levels. Obviously a piece of radioactive dust stuck in your lungs for a month would be a lot worse than a little slightly radioactive mud on your shoe. But with the average exposure levels in the us around 300-400mrem/year i wouldn't be against spending an hour or two in the area provided airborne rad levels weren't insane. (btw a flight on the concord apparently could have netted you .97 mrem/hr. From cosmic radiation) anyway, i don't care to spend more time investigating the issue. For those of you science geeks, i could have investigated far more, and come up with a detailed report worthy of a good science report, but frankly, this is an automotive forum and i don't care to go further than to say the craptacular reports i read provide no evidence that would scare me from going on a tour of some of the outlying areas of chernobyl (albeit i would want a radiac and some form of dose monitoring equipment.)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by momostallion View Postsounds like a waste of money and vacation days.
Comment
-
Comment