izentrop wrote:...
Study made by activists who have chosen their sampling locations. And why did you choose Bq / kg dry when IRSN quantifies in Bq / m²
...
Ouch, answer to the cookie cutter!
I recall the link to the ACRO study:
http://www.tchernobyl30.eu.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/BILAN-TCHE30.pdfACRO is a citizen organization created in response to state disinformation. After the Three Miles Island accident in 1979, one could read in certain newspapers that "human error did not exist" in French nuclear installations, a profession of faith which would only contradict itself if it happened ... he French nuclear industry is not, however, immune to accidents:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_d%27accidents_nucl%C3%A9aires. In the days following the announcement of the Chernobyl disaster, we could read from a government source that France was spared the radioactive cloud ... Certainly, I cannot provide you with links, that dates from before the Internet and my searches to find this info have yielded nothing!
But we can still ask ourselves questions:
http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article151.
ACRO is therefore perhaps not useless as an independent source of information ...
ACRO, "activists who have chosen their places of sampling"?
ACRO's report "Chernobyl, 30 years later" is based on a public call for sample collection, free but also led by calls to external scientific bodies to designate what kinds of samples might offer useful data .
Izentrop, do you have any impartial indication that ACRO would have "chosen their collection sites" or selected the samples received according to unspeakable criteria?
"And why did you choose Bq / kg dry when IRSN quantifies in Bq / m²" ... ACRO asked for deep soil samples on two horizons (0-10 cm and 10-20 cm; p . 10 of the pdf), knowing that since 137 the cesium 1986 of Chernobyl had slowly percolated into the soil. Therefore, it becomes more relevant to evaluate them in Bq / kg dry rather than in Bq / m², no? I have vague memories of field physics which whisper to me that the power of an emission source decreases with the square of its distance, so why surface measurements?
Finally, the conclusions of this study say that nuclear tests and Chernobyl have lastingly contaminated the soil, and that:
"Through their living environment and their diet, some animals are exposed to chronic contamination by cesium-137, sometimes leading to significant contamination of their flesh. Occasional consumption of these foods induces a health risk, a priori limited."
Do you find this too alarmist, inappropriate, completely false?
Also, "activists" seems to have a negative dimension in your lines, what are you thinking? Are we not all "activists" to defend "truths" that touch us, and to fight the claims of those who deny them?
Is there nothing good in activating, or in activating only in a very specific area?
Reread your messages in certain threads, to me, it seems to me that you are an activist ... at least in certain very specific fields.
Ooh, ugly!
The keyword of our survival, that's life because we do not eat pebbles, then kill them with respect and discernment!