So, with all the reporting about Fukushima, they're talking a lot about the different isotopes, most notable Iodine 131 and Cesium 137.
The usual commentary is "oh, Iodine has a half-life of 8 days so it's not so bad, but Cesium has a half-life of 30 years!"
My question is: Say you have 10 grams of Iodine 131 and 10 grams of Cesium 137. Doesn't the higher half-life of Cesium in turn imply that its radiation is subsequently lower? I mean, an isotope emits radiation when it splits off its extra neutron an then becomes its stable equivalent of the element, correct? So, if it takes Cesium 30 years for half of its atoms to emit radiation, this means much less radiation over a time span than Iodine, which emits the same amount of radiation, but within 8 days, right?
So, I can see the argument that Cesium is worse because you can't send people back into the area because they would be accumulating the same amount of radiation over time. Is that the argument then? The commentaries always make it sound as if Caesium is magnitudes worse because it radiates as much as Iodine, but for 30 years and not 8 days.
rumborak