Radiation Dose Chart

Randall Munroe of the blog xkcd took the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake tragedy (with its resultant fears of nuclear contamination) as an opportunity to construct a chart putting into perspective the quantities of radiation received from various sources — allowing for comparisons between Fukushima, Chernobyl, living near a coal plant, taking a walk, getting an x-ray, flying on an airplane, and the largest and deadliest cases of exposure. Read and learn:

radiation-dose-chart-4490-1300581517-54

10 Comments on "Radiation Dose Chart"

  1. Duncan Armour | Mar 22, 2011 at 7:10 pm |

    Interesting, and doesn’t pretend to accuracy.
    There is no safe dose of radiation – even background radiation will kill a part of the population.
    “Ionising” radiation is an outdated concept, as we have known for over 60 years that low dose and low cycle radiation is also responsible for deaths (due to mutation of genetic material).

  2. Duncan Armour | Mar 22, 2011 at 3:10 pm |

    Interesting, and doesn’t pretend to accuracy.
    There is no safe dose of radiation – even background radiation will kill a part of the population.
    “Ionising” radiation is an outdated concept, as we have known for over 60 years that low dose and low cycle radiation is also responsible for deaths (due to mutation of genetic material).

    • “Ionising” radiation is not an “outdated” concept. It is still a valid scientific definition.
      Ionising refers to the FACT of whether the photon carries enough energy to break atomic or molecular bonds. If does not, then it is considered non-ionising. Whether non-ionising can cause genetic damage or not is not part of the difference in definition between ionising and non-ionising.

    • mrtastycakes | Mar 22, 2011 at 6:04 pm |

      YOU doesn’t pretend to accuracy!

    • Radiation hormesis is not necessarily false. I’m sure the degrees of scale are off, but, saying there is no safe dose of radiation, is similar to saying sunlight can only harm you, using only sunburn and skin-cancer as evidence for this(this doesn’t take into consideration that most people in the US are very under-exposed to the sun because of indoorsy-lifestyles)

      To give an example, assuming the chart is correct, and assuming you are right, eating a banana, or having potassium in your body is unsafe.

  3. “Ionising” radiation is not an “outdated” concept. It is still a valid scientific definition.
    Ionising refers to the FACT of whether the photon carries enough energy to break atomic or molecular bonds. If does not, then it is considered non-ionising. Whether non-ionising can cause genetic damage or not is not part of the difference in definition between ionising and non-ionising.

  4. mrtastycakes | Mar 22, 2011 at 10:04 pm |

    YOU doesn’t pretend to accuracy!

  5. mrtastycakes | Mar 22, 2011 at 10:13 pm |

    Someone put this chart in a bowl of bananas at the office today.

  6. mrtastycakes | Mar 22, 2011 at 6:13 pm |

    Someone put this chart in a bowl of bananas at the office today.

  7. Radiation hormesis is not necessarily false. I’m sure the degrees of scale are off, but, saying there is no safe dose of radiation, is similar to saying sunlight can only harm you, using only sunburn and skin-cancer as evidence for this(this doesn’t take into consideration that most people in the US are very under-exposed to the sun because of indoorsy-lifestyles)

    To give an example, assuming the chart is correct, and assuming you are right, eating a banana, or having potassium in your body is unsafe.

Comments are closed.