Radiation Levels Visualized Side-By-Side (INTERACTIVE)

Inspired by the radiation levels graphic at XKCD, the Huffington Post created our own interactive visualization comparing radiation levels.

How much radiation do you get from eating a banana? How about living in a stone, brick or concrete building for a year? How about from a chest CT scan? Moreover, how do these levels compare to Japan's nuclear crisis and the most threatening levels of radiation?

Click through to interact and see the different radiation levels. Rollover to see levels.

CORRECTION: Due to a mathematical error, we initially displayed the incorrect proportions for the circles. We have since fixed the error.

Comments

[T says]

12:23 AM on 04/03/2011

Eating one bananas, .1uSv? That is bananas!

[theveggiedude]

03:03 PM on 04/06/2011

Sleeping next to someone for eight hours is .05 uSv. I assume that is the average meat eater. But what if they are vegan? Surely, a cow must have far more radiation from the concentrated grass it eats.

[snork]

04:42 AM on 04/01/2011

it is seriously discouraging to see so many fʌk.tɑ˞dz on here playing right into the conservative hand. There are SOOO many genuine reasons to be anti nuclear. Don't be lazy, freaking google it and read the basics of how the science works. The thing about nuclear physics: it actually ain't "nuclear physics." It's not magic. "radiation" isn't cooties, it's a very real property of the physical universe we live in, and it operates within a bound system: it's predictable (predictably dangerous in the case of bombs & power-plant accidents). Basically "radiation" just means 'moving energy'. Without it there would be no life on Earth; in fact without it, there would be no 'universe'. In a way, we *are* radiation (or at least inextricably and necessarially linked to it).

To reiterate: it's NOT cooties. Think of the warmth you feel by a fireplace. That is radiation, it is good—unless you get too close. Danger depends on type of ray and type of irradiated particle, as well as the context. Platitudes are not helping the rationality-based anti-nuclear movement. when you make such obviously-false, uninformed alarmist-isms, those with an agenda spin what you say so that it seems to discredit my science-based reasons for opposing nuc. energy. Learn about it so you can make logical anti-nuc. statements. Start with 20 min on Wikipedia and then move on from there. It's not as hard as you think; you WILL understand!

[wesley kimler]

07:20 AM on 04/01/2011

I love this post. Nothing like an informed opinion to stir up controversy in the times we are living in.

[splashy]

02:17 PM on 04/01/2011

Radiation does not equal radioactive particles that can get into your body, to emit radiation until they completely decay. For some, that means the rest of your life.

[snork]

08:23 PM on 04/01/2011

exactly. I appreciate logical statements like this. Recognising the difference between radiation and a radioactive particle is an important distinction. Likewise, as I stated above, it is important to understand the type of 'ray' (wavelength) and the type of particle.

Saying I was exposed to 'x' amount of radiation is meaningless w/o the context. It is important that people understand these differences otherwise Anne Culter can get up and say: "you eat warm food from your microwave, talk on your cellphone, & get x-rays, so living next to a leaky reactor is perfectly safe."

People with a basic understanding of the science will immediately recognize the logical flaw (i.e. they would actually understand 'why' a microwave & cellphone can't hurt you—even cumulatively—without your being immediately aware of it & why that is a false analogy that is absolutely NOT the same as a leaky reactor.)

[theveggiedude]

03:06 PM on 04/06/2011

We all have radiation that will not completely decay for centuries. How do you think carbon dating works? We can accurately measure ancient Egyptians by the amount of radiation still leaking from their bones.

[cosmocrackers]

02:06 AM on 04/01/2011

Better representation here: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

[BigSlick674]

12:54 AM on 04/01/2011

"More than four-fifths of the radiation we receive comes from natural sources"

So, humans have increased ambient radiation levels by as much as 25% in the past 70 years.

What an achievement.

[snork]

04:09 AM on 04/01/2011

Are you seriously this intellectually uncurious? Congratulations, you just played right into the other side's hand.

FYI: I am VERY liberal, against nuclear power (for empirical reasons, not dogmatic reasons), & extremely concerned by human-caused global climate change as well as other pollution, but making absolutely ignorant/alarmist statements (e.g. what you wrote above) just gives the sean hannitys out there ammo to use against us—they can just quote junk like this and pretend that it represents the concerned scientist's position. Everyone that possesses a modicum of critical capacity recognizes things like what you wrote as bunk straight away.

Even if you don't have the capacity to figure out your absurdly-flawed conflation on your own, you can still JFGI!

[BigSlick674]

01:36 PM on 04/01/2011

Let me know when you are done master baiting.

[paulbenjouse]

11:26 PM on 03/31/2011

Scary

[MissKaren]

11:22 PM on 03/31/2011

I saw this chart in another form. I'm not reassured by it. Having had cancer, I am routinely scheduled for an annual mammogram. The information on the amount of radiation makes me worry. Cancer makes me worry more, though, and I will continue to have the test every year.

[Davest]

11:05 PM on 03/31/2011

That was quite Craptastic.

We are being nuked. Chernobyl was one reactor, how many are cooking in Japan? We are getting dosed constantly.

[marsjunkiegirl]

07:29 AM on 04/01/2011

Yeah, by the sun and the entire universe. It's impossible to run away from ionized radiation.

[Greenkid]

08:41 PM on 04/01/2011

Yea, so let's make more then, eh?

rediculous mindest

[tandrmcdonald]

08:02 PM on 03/31/2011

This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for the NRC. Give the public their poison a few drops at a time; then, when they have a belly full top off the tank. I grew up in a town that was contaminated with radioactive mill tailings. We were told the same lies, in the exact sequence, for over a decade, including their old favorite, "You get more in an x-ray." Then the cancer statistics skyrocketed and something had to be done. Please, don't be lulled into a sense of security about what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear industry are telling you. It may well be "...only a small amount... ." But a small amount of plutonium can kill you. The NRC has been in the industry's pocket for decades. Neither can be trusted, they have too much invested in keeping up a benign facade.

[free speech isnt free]

05:38 PM on 03/31/2011

To go with REMs, CDs, DAPs, MeVs, RADs.CGS units, GYs, etc.--- how about a new unit of measurement for lying (or if you prefer--not telling the whole truth) about the amount of radiation leaked, how harmful it is, or the nonsensical rosy predictions of when the nuclear crises will be over, etc.

We could call it the SHAM.

[phazeroftruth]

06:23 PM on 03/31/2011

There would no unit of measure large enough to measure an average every day lie... much less these lies.

[olivesforbreakfast]

09:31 PM on 03/31/2011

It's a great idea.

SHAM, as in standing for something like Speech Holding Artificial Meaning? S.H.A.M.?

maybe someone can do even better.

fanned and faved.

[GuiltD]

04:15 PM on 03/31/2011

Hey just bow down and worship Hometown Security and hang out in their body scanners that have been blasting radioactive particles all day long

[wm1]

02:35 PM on 03/31/2011

Estimated time of exposure? All this seems not to bad until you realize the time we will be exposed is in the tens of thousands of years. Oh, and during all that time the material will spread itself around. Oh and that is if it gets no worse, or there are not other accidents. BTW, how much radiation from the BP oil leak...

[RobM1981]

01:24 PM on 03/31/2011

First off, an admirable effort and the data is there. But I agree that the infographic could be improved. It will take more space, but perhaps something that's all on one page?

As for data - any information around what the food situation is, and/or will likely become? You show eating a banana which has natural potassium. What about eating a fish caught 100 miles offshore? What about drinking milk in Tokyo? Any data on that kind of thing?

[tandrmcdonald]

08:04 PM on 03/31/2011

RE: Any data on that kind of thing?
Of course not. They don't want a public panic.

[ConserveLiberally]

01:22 PM on 03/31/2011

Badly constructed sequence and comparison. The progression through the increasing numbers is meaningless and distracting from the really relevant numbers. Comparing a daily or hourly dose to a yearly dose requires the reader first, to notice the difference in duration, second, to do the math to find out the proper comparison. Each item could still have the given number associated, but the sequence is not applicable and each should also have the annual equivalent. Apples to apples. Or bushels to bushels. I infer that the point to be made is that the Japan nuclear crisis is generating sufficient radiation level to be dangerous, but those 8 words I typed are much clearer than this interactive distraction. Please don't use shoddy, disjointed methods to try to prove an important point.

[Andrewwwww]

12:37 PM on 03/31/2011

Bad infographic, it had the same copy for the first four slide. It said nothing. It looks like a brochure distributed to elementary school by the nuclear energy industry.

[mw21]

11:46 AM on 03/31/2011

I gave my high school Contemporary World Issues class a research assignment on the effects of this "mess." I have even had them read this blog site. Guess what they think? After reading through the posts here they think that the hysteria is the real problem. How can all the experts who post here be right when they are in total disagreement with each other? I am no expert on radiation, so I have to research right along with my students. What I have concluded is that this is very much like politics: I have to find someone I believe in and trust that person to steer me in the right direction. At least until they don't. And in the case of nuclear accidents finding that person or agency to trust is difficult--just as in politics--because of all the special interests involved.

I suppose the only thing I am sure of is this--the uncertainty makes me want to err on the side of caution when it comes to this technology. But I also know that the discussion usually assumes a comparison to a "safe" energy source. The more I research the harder any safe energy is to find.

[olivesforbreakfast]

09:47 PM on 03/31/2011

With respect, mw21, I'd say you are a little late to the conversation. It is well known that information on difficult subjects such as this can be gamed and unreliable and must be carefully vetted.

How to gauge the truth vs truthiness of any data or report? We must always consider the source.

But to be surprised? At this point? I refer you to the book, Doubt Is Their Product by David Michaels. A real eye opener, author Michaels talks about 'mercenary scientists' - people who are paid to shill for the large corporations either to circumvent regulatory agencies or to avoid and/or beat lawsuits, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threatens/dp/019530067X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301621616&sr=8-1

If you want to find information you can trust, go to sites that do not receive corporate sponsorship of any kind.

But to say that 'hysteria is the real problem' is an oversimplification. People are in information overload and generally unprepared, by psychological disposition and social conditioning, to take on such overwhelming problems as face them today. Loss of jobs, foreclosure on homes, right to unionize, inadequate health care offered at exorbitant fees. Would shake up most people, wouldn't you say?

This does not make the responsible for the problems per se. Urge your students to seek the root causes, not analyze the after effects. Would you call the people living near the Gulf 'hysterical' because BP betrayed their trust? You get my point.

[mw21]

12:05 PM on 04/01/2011

With the same respect back, I have to say that one shouldn't assume that the post I made begins to explain all that I am asking of students. Of course I ask them to look at a variety of sites--at the beginning of the year we spent a great deal of time looking at "sources" and determining what makes a good source. However, it is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. True, a site with corporate sponsorship probably has a built in bias. But to assume that non-sponsored sites do not is equally naive. I can, and have found a number of left and right leaning sites that are not sponsored in any way that are nothing more than unabashed propaganda. I teach my students to look for balance, facts that are verifiable and then run everything through the filter of perspective.

As for the difference between Japan's nuclear mess and the BP disaster, My students and I both agree that people are much more informed about oil spills than nuclear threats and therefore less irrational. As for hysteria, I believe it is a fair word to explain the sudden shortages of gas masks, iodine pills, moon suits and other "safety" items that are running off the shelves in some places. But then again, we are a nation built on fear because fear sells stuff.