The information given above would seem to indicate that
medical X-rays were the worst radiation hazard around,
except for natural sources we can't do much about.
Unfortunately this is a distortion based on the difficulty
of measuring the most dangerous kind of radiation:
-emitting radionuclides
(radioactive isotopes).
Many heavy elements have isotopes which naturally
fission into lighter elements plus a helium nucleus,
with the latter being emitted with a substantial
kinetic energy as an alpha ``ray.'' The range of
most
particles
is only a few cm in air
and less than a mm in tissue, so the damage they cause
is localized. While this may be reassuring when the
isotopes are at arm's length, it can be bad news
if you have breathed them into your lungs or
swallowed them so that they can collect in your bones,
where they can do the most damage! Since there is
such a wide variety of radioactive elements with
assorted chemical properties, it is wise to be aware
of the specific hazards associated with each.
I have neither the expertise nor the space to
provide a comprehensive survey here, but I can
mention a few of the most common culprits.
particle
that is quite difficult
to detect since it has such a short range it can't
penetrate the window of a typical Geiger counter.
Thus until recently there was little known about
radon in our environment, even though it is generally
believed that Madame Curie died from
exposure to radon emitted by the radium upon which
she performed her famous experiments.
It is now felt by many that radon is the most
widespread and dangerous of all radiation hazards,
because it accumulates in the air of any building
made of rock, brick or concrete (especially those
with closed circulation air conditioning!)
and thence in the lungs of the people breathing
that air. Lungs in fact make a superb filter
for the radioactive byproducts of radon, so that
one of the most effective radon detection schemes
is to measure the radioactivity of the people
who live in high-radon environments.
In the lung tissue, the short-ranged
particles
expend all their energy where it does the most harm,
raising the incidence of lung disease and cancer.
Rocks from different regions have a tremendous range
of radium content, so that a stone house may be
perfectly safe in one city and hazardous in another.
[I
think Vancouver is just slightly on the hazardous side;
but in the Okanagen, where there are concentrated
uranium ore deposits, I might choose to live
in a wooden house. However, you should check out
the latest data before you jump to any conclusions.]
It is important to note that the food chain may serve to concentrate ``harmless'' levels of radionuclides in ( e.g.) sea water to a level which is worthy of our concern. Were it not for this effect, and the fact that the waste products of nuclear fission include a large variety of radionuclides with various chemical properties that naturally occurring isotopes do not exhibit, it would be a sensible strategy to dispose of radioactive waste by diluting it and spreading it far and wide in the oceans -- since the net radioactivity of reactor fuel actually decreases in the process of digging up the uranium, burning it in a reactor and storing the spent fuel rods for 10 years until the short-lived isotopes decay away. Because of the biological concentration effect, however, it is wiser to seek safe long-term containments for radioactive waste.