Sentences with phrase «not radiation levels»

Not exact matches

One of the big advantages of the approach that this paper uses is that, to decide on a strategy, evacuation officials need to consider only the radiation levels near shelters and along evacuation routes — the overall pattern of the radioactive death - cloud does not factor into the models.

The reason: «We don't know what levels of cosmic radiation are safe for every person.»

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.

«Despite stronger solar wind and EUV - radiation levels under the early Sun, ion escape can not explain more than 0.006 bar of atmospheric pressure lost over the course of 3.9 billion years,» says Robin Ramstad.

But scientists still don't know how the human body will react to sustained low - level doses of radiation inherent in space travel.

Furthermore, most of the radiation had accumulated on the leaves and could be washed off, suggesting that the plants were not absorbing dangerous levels of radioisotopes directly from the soil.

One real effect of the radioactive contamination is the gnawing fear — groundless or not — that low levels of radiation could harm their children.

Not long after, Senators Edmund Muskie and Mike Gravel requested that AAAS investigate the treatment of molecular biologist John Gofman and biophysicist Arthur Tamplin, who believed that the Lawrence Berkeley Radiation Laboratory and the Atomic Energy Commission had taken reprisal actions against them for their criticism of AEC low - level radiation standards.

And simple screening — with Geiger counters and the like — of soil, food and seafood can pick up radiation at low levels (so low, in fact, that the lower - end readings indicate contamination that not likely to be harmful).

In reply, chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano told reporters that the situation did not «immediately require such action», although the levels of radiation might pose a risk «over the long term».

«If there were a fuel fire, the radiation levels off site would go off the charts — which they have not,» he said.

In a new paper in Scientific Reports, FSU Dean of the College of Human Sciences and Professor Michael Delp explains that the men who traveled into deep space as part of the lunar missions were exposed to levels of galactic cosmic radiation that have not been experienced by any other astronauts or cosmonauts.

It probably doesn't help that there have been reports recently of sky - high radiation levels inside the molten core of one of the reactors — levels that would kill humans in seconds.

They have to make people understand that low levels of radiation don't matter because we're all exposed to it all the time.»

As radiation levels around the plants continue to fall, all are hoping that the question won't need to be addressed.

And even when there was water, he notes, «the hardiest cells we know of could not possibly survive the cosmic radiation levels near the surface.»

Yet the review concluded that radiation levels were «very low» and that the wastewater «does not present a risk to workers.»

The tissues, from experiments that could not be recreated today, might help scientists understand which levels of radiation are harmful or even protective

Local people were exposed to radiation levels up to 30 times safety limits because they were not evacuated until five hours after the accident occurred, say Japanese scientists.

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.

When they plotted the number of tracks against the dose of radioactive Cesium experienced in different parts of the reserve, the researchers found that radiation levels aren't correlated with animal abundance.

eBM models organ - level marrow toxicity responses and protective effects of radiation countermeasure drugs, whereas conventional bone marrow culture methods do not.

What's more, oncologists can program the IMRT machine to deliver these radiation beams with varying levels of intensity, so that the higher toxicity beams are not aimed near healthy tissue.

Dust grains could possibly condense at higher levels, but there they would not get enough «push» from the star's radiation to explain their outward movement.

Radiation levels in seafood should continue to be monitored, of course, but radiation in the ocean will very quickly become diluted and is not of concern by the strict standards used in Japan beyond the region closest to Fukushima.

If it does have a large magnetic field, not fed particles by any solar wind from a companion, or surrounding nebula, it could be relatively empty of particles, and have low radiation levels in spite of the field.

If ozone doesn't return to normal levels, the risk of developing skin cancer and cataracts increases from the increased levels of UV radiation that will reach the Earth.

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.

I didn't know that my cell phone gave off such dangerous levels if radiation and I have exposed my 10m old daughter to a lot.

The exact level of radiation exposure that causes cell death is not known, so all exposure should be treated as if it is going to produce cell death.

Your cat can not be released from the Thyro - Cat facility until the amount of radiation in his / her body is below a level mandated by law.

The radiation technician, not the clinician, will authorize release of the cat once radiation levels are determined to be at a level safe to take your cat home.

Radiation safety regulations mandate that we keep cats in our isolation facility until their levels of radiation do not pose a threat to human health.

The United Nations organizations (WHO, IAEA, UNWTO, WMO, IMO, ICAO, ILO) closely monitoring the effects of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant remain confident that radiation levels do not present health or transportation safety hazards to passengers and crew.

Second even if we ignore convection (and assume all warming of the atmosphere is from below, ie no incoming solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere) it is not the case that the atmosphere temperatures will «pivot» around some fixed level (increasing below it and falling above it).

What happens at the «top of atmosphere» — the level where outgoing radiation leaves for space, not itself a very easy concept — is the restoration of equilibrium, the increase in temperature that, through Helmholtz - Boltzmann at the Earth's brightness temperature 255K, restores the balance between incoming and outgoing energies.

The whole issue is that any level above what is often called the «effective radiating level» (say, at ~ 255 K on Earth) should start to cool as atmospheric CO2 increases, since the layers above this height are being shielded more strongly from upwelling radiation... except not quite, because convection distributes heating higher than this level, the stratosphere marks the point where convection gives out and there is high static stability.

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).

Dr Zalasiewicz said: «Like any geological boundary, it is not a perfect marker — levels of global radiation really rose in the early 1950s, as salvoes of bomb tests took place.

Adding CO2 increases the height distribution from where radiation can escape to space, so the Earth looks colder to space at wavelengths where the effect is not already saturated at the tropopause level.

Precisely because damage from very - low - level radiation can not be detected, people exposed to it are left in anguished uncertainty.

The imbalance is not between IR absorbed and IR emitted by a layer of atmosphere, but between the incoming shortwave solar energy from space and the outgoing longwave energy emitted to space, due to the increasing difference between the ground temperature and the temperature of the level from which re-emitted radiation can escape to space.

The downward radiation to the surface increases mainly because the low level air temperature increases, not because of the direct effect of increased CO2 in the air.

What I meant was that Planck radiation increases with body or amb ient temperature, but higher temperature, per the Boltzmann distribution, makes it more probable that rotation, vibration, and / or electronic levels will be excited, and therefore less likely to emit relaxation energy, though as you point out this may not be exactly what happens physically — emission radiation is more flat than anything with increasing temperatures.

A cousin of mine who is a Physicist and worked in solid state manufacturing, is a total climate change denier, he reasons that Carbon dioxide has insignificant interaction with infrared radiation (as compared with H2O), therefore the increased levels of Carbon dioxide can not be influencing climate.

Social because of both a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitude and irrational level of fear of radiation.

The so - called hotspot is not something a feature specific to greenhouse gas induced warming but of any global warming, whether its due to increased levels of greenhouse gases or increases in solar radiation.

And if this is indeed possible, can they not just measure the TOA radiation imbalance, and promptly settle whether or not it moves with CO2 levels or not?

Dams are life - line facilities, as is the power grid, and a dam failure can cause more loss of life and property damage than an atom bomb in some cases (Fukushima losses were mostly from water damage due to sea level rise not radiation per se).