tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7390168029330307425.post4347637898532201496..comments2021-08-18T04:01:38.227-07:00Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7390168029330307425.post-40524503678645767042018-05-07T15:40:50.012-07:002018-05-07T15:40:50.012-07:00I agree. Thinking that Greenpeace has failed in their attempt to inform the public. If they were honest about their apparent intentions they would also have examined specific isotopes including those found in food, bodies of water, 'sludge' at the bottom of bodies of water wildlife and forests. Their donors ought be shaming them. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018930865612490880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7390168029330307425.post-86335543147640559462018-05-07T12:01:48.921-07:002018-05-07T12:01:48.921-07:00The Page 9 references CS137 CS134 as being the only long term concern of isotopes released. This is a shameful misunderstanding. They were not testing for isotope types, just merely mentioning here that their gieiger were "calibrated" to the accepted toxicity of CS137. This then takes CPM and turns it into a "dose". This selection is VERY common and the default setting for all Geigers that I know of. However, it misses the boat. There are other much more dangerous isotope, which have a much longer biological half life than CS137 (bio half life is like 80 days, much less with Prussian Blue as an antidote)Stockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04516118374677265589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7390168029330307425.post-53116478291755773222018-05-06T11:44:05.957-07:002018-05-06T11:44:05.957-07:00I'm going to guess that the isotopes are the ones most often cited, though, could be they tested for more. I'll go see what I can find on that. ... notes about Cs 134/7 on pg 9 of the report. Looks like general readings. Not even mentioning alpha beta or gamma. @cecalli_helperhttps://twitter.com/Cecalli_Helpernoreply@blogger.com