- #36
kowalskil
- 22
- 0
Dmytry said:this thread is OP posting incorrect data: 16 times under estimate of dose rate outside the zone, almost 2 times off 'typical mammography dose' , etc. see my earlier post here. No point even arguing anything when the numbers are so off.
Dear Dmytry,
1) I agree on the "not worth arguing." No one expects radiation to be uniformly 0.25 mr/hr. In some places it can be much higher and in other it can be much lower. It depends on the time, rain, wind, etc.
2) Do you agree that quoted numbers--for the expected biological effects--are not significantly different from what is "well know"? Do you agree that such numbers can be very useful?
Have a good day.