4/17 Discussion on the Mainichi: Accumulated radiation tops 17mSv in Fukushima's Namie

April 17--"What do you think about this?" article discussed. Mr. Sanns and TRL involved.

David Knopfler: Not sure how to interpret this

Accumulated radiation tops 17,000 microsieverts in Fukushima's Namie - The Mainichi Daily News

Frank Sanns  The reported doses are for a three week period and are being compared to a one year normal background rate of 1,000 microSv/year. The three week numbers have to be multiplied by 52/3 (weeks) or 17.3 to give the yearly values to properly compare to the 1,000 microSv/year normal background. Doing the math gives 8,580 microSv/year for Minamisoma, 170,405 microSv/year for Iitate, and 294,273 microSv/year for Namie. These numbers will be smaller for the entire year because I assume they included I-131 which is now mostly gone so the accumulated dose for the next three weeks should be less. It also gives an idea of the quantities of radiation released was very high and the geography and wind direction played a key role in the deposition of radioactive elements.

Romain  It also shows that the japanese government seems to be not carefull enough concerning the people in those area (=worry more about the cost/reputation than health risk). If you consider pregnant women and children, risks seems high to me... While I am not a "green", I would say that Greenpeace was correct in their PR saying that the limit should be set to 50 km right away. Principle of precaution would require to have people out of those area ASAP, and if it is proven safe later on, they can still come back sooner.

Tokyo Radiation Levels  @Romain: I believe a review of the contaminated areas is being undertaken. There will probably be some new exclusion zones exclaves a bit further up north and maybe some reducing of the zone's radius south. Pregnant women have already been advised to move out of some areas. However it's not realistic evacuating everyone ASAP because of a Greenpeace PR only to let them come back AFTER it's proven save. You need a pretty solid reason or proof of danger to tell 200,000+ people to uproot your lives, move out of the area and go live in Saitama Super Arena.

Romain  @TRL : I do agree. But then it is a trade off between cost and risk. Principle of precaution says that cost is irrelevant and risk should be reduced as much as it can be. It is just a point of view against others but I believe it is "ok" to be overprotective once every 25 years, even if the end result looks like a waste of time and money. That's the whole point of paying an insurance for you, your car or your home, and you do not hear people complaining of having no accident and that they paid for nothing. It is better to have wasted money than have wasted people if things go wrong. When you see that in the first few hours after the earthquake, Tepco wanted to flee the powerplant and "let it go", you can foresee the irresponsability of some leaders. And that is why you also need a counterpower like Greenpeace (even if I do not like green extremist either).

Tokyo Radiation Levels  Tepco executives wanted to withdraw all workers 4 days after the disaster because the radiation levels were extremely dangerous on the 14th March. Not hours after the quake. I agree that if the radiation levels were hazardous it would be important to move, but the levels are not. They might be high and even hazardous over the course of a year, but not at evacuation levels. Not even close. 

While I agree that Greenpeace is an important counterbalance and does a lot of good in the world, they have a strong anti-nuclear power and an agenda, which they are leveraging with this situation. You shouldn't rest on their information alone for an argument. I'll say this though, they are getting out empirical data from measurements they are taking, which is great.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110318p2a00m0na009000c.html

Tokyo Radiation Levels I made a mistake. The levels were previously high in some areas north and would have been a reasonable time to consider evacuation in March, but since, as Frank pointed out, I-131 has decayed substantially and has lowered the immediate radiation threat. The contamination threat needs to be addressed but is not an immediate cause to evacuate.

Romain I remember some article saying that prime minister Kan went to Tepco and saying something like : "If you do not do it, who will ? There will be no future for Tepco". Which can be decoded as : 1/ I dont care how many dead guys there will be, but fix it. 2/ Tepco : we do not want to go there. Thats just my 2 cents.

David @Romain : I share your concerns: Radiation doesn't leak in tidy geometric circles of course and it's only too easy to view this with the luxury of armchair reviews, distance and time. It seems to me they didn't do all that badly given the ...See more

Frank Sanns The situation is still active. Even though radioactive Iodine has declined, the other radioactives are piling up from the breached and vented reactors. This is still and active crisis and large amounts of radioactivity is still being deposited. Winds for just a brief few hours moved toward Tokyo on Sundayish and the background levels rose by 50%-100%. The areas closer to the plant are still seeing buildup of higher and higher levels of bad stuff so more evacuations come as the radioactive "snow fall" continues to accumulate. Not at as fast a rate as those first weeks but more accumulation is occuring.