By Michael Shaw
What are you looking at? Try 6.6 microsievert/hour.
(photo: Patrik Lundin)
This story is FAR from over.
Photomanipulation isn’t normally a good way to present information, but wouldn’t it be interesting if, as a visual experiment, you tweaked the “brightness” or “hue” controls in photoshop by the # of microsieverts on any given photo?
I thought of that because of the slight overexposure in the sky and trees in this shot..
For reference in re: radiation doses. By my guess-timations 6.6 mic’s is about 2/3’s of a full day’s normal background radiation exposure every hour — about 15 times normal, a dental x-ray every 45-50 minutes.
Madame Curie’s (1867-1934) lab papers are still so hot one must wear protective gear while viewing them.
You’re posting too many new pictures. You should be far more selective. I think one per day is about right. Is this the best we can do for Fukushima? I can’t see how it could make the top 1,000 pictures on that topic.
Just an opinion,
Appreciate the feedback. Regarding the photo selection, I was interested in the attempt to capture the presence of absence.