Sentences with phrase «about radiation levels»

The basis of the project is that there are still many areas where information about radiation levels is not being collected.

Rooibos tea has up to 50 % more polyphenols and antioxidants than Green Tea (1) and can be a great alternative with recent concerns about radiation levels in green tea.

Bill Nye sees common ground between a new rule for humans on commercial spacecraft and good news about radiation levels on Mars.

Not exact matches

The radiation levels were about 40 times as high as normal (4 uSv / h)-- not extreme, but elevated, especially if you stood on the patches moss or got close to the bumper cars.

On July 4, the Juno Spacecraft successfully entered orbit around Jupiter — a planet scientists still know very little about, which generates extreme levels of radiation.

At sea level on Earth, sunlight's «radiation pressure» is about 50 million times smaller than atmospheric pressure.

As a result, several thousand of Fukushima's 2 million residents have been thrust into the middle of a vigorous scientific debate about the health effects of long - term exposure to low levels of radiation.

The level of radiation found in stream sediments at the disposal sites was about 650 times higher than radiation in upstream sediments.

«We wanted to be able to talk to the community about what we are seeing — and to have evidence,» Johnson said, adding that the coast should still be safe for recreation even if radiation levels climb over the next several years as expected.

In the early days of the crisis, engineers were desperate to learn about the damaged reactors» cores and the radiation levels inside the buildings, data that robots should have been able to provide.

After catching a 2.2 - metre shark that showed radiation levels indicating it was born in the 1960s and was about 50 years old, the team calculated how fast the sharks grew.

New climate models — made by using estimated radiation levels from that time, along with data from the Magellan spacecraft about Venus's current surface — suggest that Venus would have been only 11 °C (52 °F).

Even with whole genomes, some of the earliest branches in Neoaves proved challenging to resolve, which was best explained by massive protein - coding sequence convergence and high levels of incomplete lineage sorting that occurred during a rapid radiation after the Cretaceous - Paleogene mass extinction event about 66 million years ago.

Researchers emphasize, however, that environmental levels of radiation outside the 20 - kilo metre evacuation zone around the power plant are currently far below levels that warrant concerns about human health.

Nevertheless, experts are tracking radiation levels worldwide to learn more about the accident and to assess the possible impacts on health.

So although radiation protection agencies typically restrict occupational exposure (for the nuclear industry, for example) to an average of 20 mSv per year, scientists don't have hard data on which to base high - stake conclusions about what level of radiation, if any, is really safe.

Given that solar output four billion years ago was only about 60 percent of what it is today, enhanced levels of carbon dioxide and perhaps ammonia (NH3) must have been present in order to retard the loss of infrared radiation into space.

This brings concerns about the levels of radiation these planets receive — it's possible that their star's radiation stripped them of their atmospheres, killing the chances of life taking hold.

Most Brazilians wear the same pair every day for about two years, the study notes, yet it has not been proven that lenses maintain the same level of protection after that type of exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

And for a vegan bodybuilder who must unfortunatelly play tetris with the food sources that he choses in order to give to his body the right ammounts of aminos, restricting SPI and soy foods so much does not make his goal any easier.There are sometimes that you need a meal thats complete with aminos and soy provides that meal with the additional benefits of lacking the saturated fats trans cholesterol and other endothelium inflammatory factors.I'm not saying that someone should go all the way to 200gr of SPI everyday or consuming a kilo of soy everyday but some servings of soy now and then even every day or the use of SPI which helps in positive nitrogen balance does not put you in the cancer risk team, thats just OVERexaggeration.Exercise, exposure to sunlight, vegan diet or for those who can not something as close to vegan diet, fruits and vegetables which contains lots of antioxidants and phtochemicals, NO STRESS which is the global killer, healthy social relationships, keeping your cortisol and adrenaline levels down (except the necessary times), good sleep and melatonin function, clean air, no radiation, away from procceced foods and additives like msg etc and many more that i can not even remember is the key to longevity.As long as your immune system is functioning well and your natural killer cells TP53 gene and many other cancer inhibitors are good and well, no cancer will ever show his face to you.With that logic we shouldn't eat ANY ammount of protein and we should go straight to be breatharians living only with little water and sunlight exposure cause you like it or not the raise of IGF1 is inevitable i know that raise the IGF1 sky high MAYBE is not the best thing but we are not talking about external hormones and things like this.Stabby raccoon also has a point.And even if you still worry about the consumption of soy... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21711174.

She educates about the health effects of wireless radiation, the impending cancer tsunami and PEMF (pulsed electromagnetic fields) that restore human health on the cellular level.

As the atmospheric opacity is increased (e.g., 2xCO2), the physical location of the TAU = 1 level will rise to a higher altitude, but the outgoing flux will still come from the TAU = 1 level since radiation doesn't care about the geometric scale), and the TAU = 1 level will still correspond to the same temperature (since the solar input energy is unchanged).

It does seem at first glance that a warm troposphere would warm the stratosphere, but the explanation that more of the earth - sourced infrared radiation is absorbed lower in the the troposphere by higher levels of CO2 makes sense if one thinks about the thermodynamic losses involved in the CO2 re-radiation processes; some of the earth - sourced infrared is transformed into kinetic energy and only a fraction is reradiated as more infrared radiation (if I'm understanding correctly).

The term «photosphere» for a star has essentially the same meaning as any of the six terms «Effective -LCB- Emission Radiation Radiating -RCB--LCB- Height Level -RCB-» for the atmosphere of a planet, being the altitude at which the gas above has an optical depth of 2/3, i.e. at which about 50 % of the radiation leaving that altitude vertically upwards escapes to space.

Or: «Sunlight's composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.»

And if you go to wiki, sunlight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight You find this graph: And wiki says, «Sunlight's composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.»

Note: At least one of the YouTube posters (Shazzy Mazzy of The News Insight) and Victoria Woollaston, the reporter who covered the drone tapes from the Daily Mail Online, appear skeptical about radiation dangers to life on earth: «many of these areas are said to be covered in radioactive soil,» «reports claim the soil and water in the region still contains high levels of radiation that makes the clean - up effort difficult.»

The casual disregard of the internal variations / cycles and the «elmination» of any external factors (galactic radiation effects are a very very interesting for me at the moment - especially due to the inverse relationship with solar output) disguise the level of ignorance that we have about the climate as a whole.

«Sunlight's composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.»

-- it is all daft theories about it not being greenhouse gases, radiation or water vapor — and endless quibbling from both sides of the blogosphere climate trenches about the talking points — Arctic ice, seal level rise, surface temperature trends, the LIA and MWP — in the very latest reconstruction.

I can point to experimental evidence showing the rapid build - up of CO2 in a car with a sleeping infant and windows closed leading to rapid temperature increase and death, but we are not living in closed cars, and the atmosphere's CO2 at even 760 ppmv falls well short of the dangerous levels in that experiment (which of course said nothing about radiation).

sunlight's composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.

The only other places we know about that get extremely cold — the poles — have long «nights» of some months and receive low levels of incident radiation.

If Earth's mean energy imbalance today is +0.5 W / m2, CO2 must be reduced from the current level of 395 ppm (global - mean annual - mean in mid-2013) to about 360 ppm to increase Earth's heat radiation to space by 0.5 W / m2 and restore energy balance.

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

* the water vapour content of upper layer of the air (in blue figure 6 - D) will change by about 12 % / K near the tropopause and is reduced by the enhanced cooling of the 250 mbar layer; hence the water vapour radiation will the be from a «lower and warmer» level, with a very significant spectral leverage of a factor of ten (400 cm - 1 for the water vapour w.r.t to 40 cm - 1 for the CO2).

[44] a reduction of 1/7 of the water vapour content of the air near 300 mbar pushes down by a factor 1 / (1-1/7) 4.7 = 1.03 the P80 % level and the P80 % temperature increases by a factor 1.030.19 = 1.006 that is by about 1.5 K for the radiation temperature over the far infrared spectral range

Spiegel talks about scientific teams, especially experts from GSF, that have analyzed several events that led to increased levels of radiation,

I've not found any references in current literature about any increase in radiation levels in area oil production.

There had been earlier reports that internal radiation levels were at 1000 times normal, and unconfirmed reports that exposure rates outside the plant were at about 620 millirems per hour, about the same as the annual permitted exposure.

The biggest increase in background radiation levels world wide was during the peak of atmospheric weapons testing during the 1960s raising the level by about 5 %.

But, were the Sun's activity and total radiation to drop in the coming century to levels of the Maunder Minimum, solar effects might reduce the expected surface temperature effects of enhanced greenhouse warming — by at most about 0.5 °C.

The effective average location of outgoing radiation is about 5 km, so the lapse rate times 5 km = -33 C. Note that the higher ground and thus air temperature near the ground then cause the higher radiation levels.

Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century used this approach, looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth.

Many people were and are worried about the levels of radiation in the food they're eating.

«EPA has identified significant flaws in the state's fracking proposals, particularly inadequate plans to treat hazardous wastewater, questions about unsafe levels of radiation in fracking waste, and the absence of any consideration of the environmental impacts of the infrastructure associated with fracking, such as pipelines and compressor stations,» said a statement issued by a coalition of hydrofracking opponents including Catskill Mountainkeeper, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Environmental Advocates of New York, Natural Resources Defense Council and others.

He was right about so many things — the background nineteenth - century CO2 concentration level and its increase over the twentieth century; the importance of high - quality temperature data and the warming trend observed over much of his lifetime; the infrared spectroscopy of CO2 and its effect on «sky radiation»; and more.

But, if we leave the fission products alone for a few hundred years, they will decay to normal background levels of radiation (Safe enough we don't need to worry about them as much).

Mother Jones: By the 105th week, males exposed to the highest levels of radiation had a survival rate of about 70 percent.

And remember, we are talking about an additional radiation exposure in the realm of 0.0002 mSv for those living near a nuclear power plant, versus a background level of 2 to 4 mSv (depending on where you live) due to everything from cosmic rays to ground - derived radon emission to eating bananas (this last one gives you more radiation than the NPP).