I've long wondered how effective are the monitoring proceedures used for
particulate, rather than averaged "background", environmental radiation
hazards.
Microscopic slivers of relatively low-radioactivity metal are innocuous
enough in the environment, but maybe not if each is permanently irradiating
one tiny area of lung tissue.
Statistically speaking, particulate radionuclides represent an entirely
different kind of risk, don't they? I wonder how realistically science can
quantify this risk, let alone clarify it to the public and the politicians?
Throughout the battle of the Somme, average airborne lead-levels remained
well within acceptable modern safety limits. The dangers were in small
lumps, not in averages.
This issue might also relate to safe decommissioning of nuclear power
stations.
Ian Russell * [log in to unmask]
Successful learning environments are
more exploratory than explanatory.
* http://www.interactives.co.uk *
|