5/2 Discussion on ECRR against ICRP

Highlight:  "On no not Chris Busby again..."




5/2 Marcela

Some positions against ICRP standard:
http://www.euradcom.org/2009/lesvosdeclaration.htm
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf
http://www.euradcom.org/publications/fukushima19032011.pdf
A different group of scientists, that believes the ICRP low-dose radiation standards overestimate risks:
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-Becker-IJLR-06.pdf

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-Becker-IJLR-06.pdf

Antonio I've also been reading all the papers and communications I could find about the issue. It just seems that "scientists" are not able to reach any consensus, but there's a clear division. On one side you have studies presented mainly by nuclear engineers or individuals connected with the promotion of nuclear industry, which state that anything under 100mSv/year is perfectly safe. On the other you have doctors and epidemiologists that state that any dose of radiation already increases the risk of cancer (to which extent, nobody seems to know).

James Oh no not Chris Busby again.....

Tokyo Radiation Levels Thank you Marcela for researching those papers and sharing them. I appreciate reading those. It is indeed hard to say how much radiation is bad in the long term. I firmly believe that it is possible for 1 cosmic ray (naturally occurring) to damage the DNA of a cell and set the stage for cancer in later life, while at the same time someone could be exposed to 80 milli-Sieverts in 1 year and never develop cancer. Frank's story about risk (based on walking across the road) beautifully illustrates the concept of risk and chance. 

So essentially it is my position that statistically 100 mill-Sieverts in a year is the cancer risk level and staying below that is the goal. Therefore 50 milli-Sieverts (the nuclear worker's yearly limit) is acceptable but with small risks. I don't think it's acceptable normally but given the current circumstances I don't find the 20 milli-Sieverts a year for citizens unacceptable (though I DO find it unacceptable for children or pregnant women). I think the nature of the contaminants complicates things though since it's an indication of some unpleasant elements like Caesium-137 in the environment. So maybe 20 milli-Sieverts per year is OK for radiation but doesn't take into account the quantity of contaminants. Here I would look at the contamination factor of the soil. If it's below 2000 Bq/kg (the Japanese limit) then it's less risky.

So my view is that if that ground contamination (in a non food growing area) that is below 2000 Bq/kg, water contamination is under the limits and background radiation below 20 milli-Sieverts dose over the course of a year, it is acceptable in the current circumstances. I would not feel the need to move from the area if it was under those limits.

Frank Sanns Would you also like to eat and be exposed to the plutonium, uranium, americium, strontium and all of the other isotopes that were tossed into the air by #3? It is not just the dose rate which in itself is above the noise, but ingestion and inhalation of the above.

Charles ‎@Frank, no I would not want to, and I hope I am not.

Frank Sanns I hate to break the news to you but nuclear core material was detected even on the East Coast of the US including americium-241. Remember that it was the same with I-131. Trace. If it was trace on the East Coast of the US then how much I-131 must have been present in Japan and even in Tokyo for the levels of radiation that was detected there? You can use your imagination to figure out how much of core material also fell in across Japan and even into Tokyo during roughly March 19th to 23rd that could not be detected by TRLs measurement EXCEPT his beta experiment that implied some alpha that could have only been there from core material. Sorry for the heavy post but I must say what the evidence reveals.

Antonio Frank, thank you very much for your post. Maybe this is a stupid question, but, does this new information change the picture radically or is just a confirmation of what you previously suspected?

Tokyo Radiation Levels Frank: Where did you read about core material being detected in America? I'm having trouble getting reliable links from Google.

Tokyo Radiation Levels So far I've been able to find info from the EPA radiation monitoring unit that say uranium detected in air samples that is consistent with natural levels but nothing about other core material detected. Anyone else got any further info: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/rert/radnet-cart-filter-final.pdf

Antonio TRL. I have only seen the Fairewinds video, in which Gundersen mentions the Americium detected in New England. The guy seems to be quite level-headed, but what do I know.

Charles If detected in New England, then it most likely would be present across Canada/America as this is the way the winds blow...

Tokyo Radiation Levels Gunderson (the person who appears in the fairewinds videos) has very good credentials. He's been coming out heavily with dramatic stuff from day 1 of this crisis though. I'm inclined to believe what he says but would look for fairewinds results to be verified independently before accepting them, personally. If anyone hears more about Americium or core material in New England (or US), please share.

Encarnita the kyodo article: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/87835.html - sorry...

Charles ‎@Encarnita - that is an opinion piece written by "(Tilman Ruff is chair of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and associate professor at the Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne, Australia.)"

Encarnita ‎@Charles- I know, he is working on the effect of nuclear weapons and biological weapons. But I do not agree, it is not an opinion, but rather a summary of some studies (probably not pro nuclear...but epidemiological studies... which is what we are talking here).

James Frank: Your posts here alarm me a bit. Let me put this bluntly, what is your assessment of Tokyo currently? It sounds like you have reassessed your opinion.

I ask this because I have been only seeing the steady decrease of radiation in the air, water etc. I feel that Tokyo is currently safe for anyone including children and pregnant women. Am I being naieve?

Frank Sanns I have not changed one bit my evaluation since March. There was core material released and I have tried since that time to express that with facts to back it up. People in Tokyo SHOULD HAVE BEEN told to stay indoors from March 19th (northern Tokyo) through the 23 rd. A radioactive cloud most likely containing core material moved over the city on that day. All of the other radiation before and after that is a non factor for people in Tokyo. I also think the risk of breathing in that cloud is not huge but it was avoidable. However, for the people near the reactor, it is a greater problem both then and now. From the DOE map that I have said I would not eat the food from those colored regions on the map, I still stand firm and I would not live there either because it is not just the external radiation but the short term inhalation risks and the long term ingestion risks that worry me. Hope this clears up what I am saying and explains why I have been so adamant about getting the people and government to recognize that core material is in the extended environment and only looking at external radiation from cesium-137 is not correct at indicating the true exposure risks.

‎@TRL, before I post, I cross check so called credible sources. Neither of them was Fairewinds. One was the EPA which had late April data. It was late yesterday when I posted and today, even though I bookmarked that particular page, as well as the press release on that data is now down. I am not suggesting coverup or conspiracy but they may be reevaluating the data that was put up. Perhaps an error, perhaps not. Lets give them a couple of days as their data update is due. It should not really change much as Hawaii reported Strontium milk so more dangerous elements than cesium are present. Here is a link on Forbse that discusses it as well as mis reading the two decade long original EPA and FDA statistics on Plutonium in the US.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Just a quick clear up: 19-20th of March I was up north so it's expected to be higher. The increase came on the 21-22nd March with rain from the north. About the core material: It's only been reported that there may have been some within the actual Fukushima plant and very close to it. Outside of that and in Tokyo there has never been reports of plutonium, uranium, americium or strontium. I suspect strontium to be around in some degree but the heavy metals have not been reported. With the great amount of international attention and people coming here to do independent test, if those materials were present we would have heard by now. It's been almost 2 months now and I personally have met with one team of independent testers in Tokyo (Radtech Services) doing testing and they didn't find evidence of those elements yet either. It could be omitted or not reported yet, but I would imagine independent testers would love to be the ones to break news of those previously unreported elements being detected.

Jamie Don't know if this is relevant, daw it yesterday http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/27/radioactive-strontium-found-in-hilo-hawaii-milk/

Charles Interesting. There have been a lot of strong winds blowing from Japan to the US, much more so than from North Japan to South Japan.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Jamie: That is relevant and backs up a point Frank raised.

フォームの終わり

After reading the posts and PM I believe I understand what is happening. This site was created for Tokyo but there appears to not be another site like it so TRL has become the clearing house for information Japan wide. I try to stay focused on specifics of the reactors and the situation in Tokyo only and I think this has made it seem like we are insensitive to others need for reliable information. Perhaps TRL would like to expand the information to include information for those closer to the reactor site or perhaps not. My person feeling is that since Tokyo is now in the safe portion for the moment, maybe it is time to talk a little more about the contamination and food supply and conditions very close and in the reactor complex as well as the ocean. Maybe some discussion would help TRL to make a decision or maybe it is not his vision. Either way will have my total support.

フォームの始まり

It's fine to keep this site radiation related about anything in Japan. I started it for my friends to give them updates but it doesn't have to just be about Tokyo. I'm living in Tokyo so I give measurements of this area, which is the heart of what this is about. But anyone can ask anything, or express concerns. I'm hoping you can express your opinions and thoughts too or use your knowledge to answer people's questions. Thanks for bringing this up. Please do.

(However I'm a little tired of the "what are your thoughts on this" posts about known... I won't say nut jobs, but unreliable sources.)

Jill  My brother in Seattle is afraid to visit Japan, and particularly here because we're a mere 90 miles from Fukushima. I've shared a few of the URLs with him saying this is all right, but he noted they were written by folks in Tokyo, and that with the internet you can easily find any article to support your point of view. Also he pointed out how people really don't want to admit they're wrong. Of course he's referring to me and not himself. My brother also said that Seattle's radiation count is 11 gross beta counts per minute. Now I have to look that up in sieverts.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Jill: roughly 11 cpm = 11 micro Roentgens/h = 0.11 micro Sieverts/h. These results diverge at high levels.

Jill Well, that should make him happy. I'm checking in with the Tochigi International Association to see today's readings. At 10am ours was 0.066 micro sieverts, and no water issues.

Frank Sanns ‎@Jill, I think he is detecting gammas rays at that level and not betas. It is very rare to find an isotope that emits an alpha or a beta without a gamma. I think Sr-90 is one of the very few beta only isotopes. @TRL and the rest, the CPM is actually CPM/cm^2. A bigger detector will get more counts but it needs to be normalized down to a detection area so it can be converted to R or Sv or Gy or rem.

Jill  Post getting eaten again? I don't know where he got his data from. Hm. Ah. "Washington has four sensors: in Seattle, Tumwater, the Tri-Cities and Spokane. The Tumwater station on Thursday reported levels of overall radiation, measured as counts per minute of gross beta radiation, ranging from 11 to 30. On March 7, before the earthquake and tsunami that damaged the nuclear plants, the same instrument logged beta counts between 11 and 61." All these different measurement systems. I hate searching for information about this, because the engine returns several of the asinine freak-out posts.

Frank Sanns My bad. I thought he was using his own detector. I understand now. Here is a link to the data that he is most likely referring to: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-seattle-bg.html . These stations are all over the US and draw air through a filter to concentrate any airborne radioactive materials.

If your brother is concerned, have him look at the readings of some other cities on the network that their low levels and then he may not be so concerned with the levels in Japan. http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-coloradosprings-bg.html

5/14 and 13: Arnold Gundersen's Fairwind video discussed

3 discussions on Gundersen's claims on Fairwind videos.
Specifically, this post covers discussions on the following:

1. Fukushima - One Step Forward and Four Steps Back as Each Unit Challenged by New Problems (5/14)
2. Another video from the Fairewinds site this one regarding radioactive particles. Question for those of us in Tokyo: In the end of the video Mr. Kaltofen mentions the only way to know where the radioactive particles are is by using expensive monitoring systems not your average geiger counter. There is a site that lists the amount of fallout in Tokyo, I will add the link below the Fairewinds one. Isnt this helpful in knowing how much radioactive "dust" is in Tokyo? (5/13)
3. Gregory A Bournet posted links to two pdf files from Fairwinds. This is simply just another "what do you think about this" thing.

Alright, here it is.

5/14  Le Chef De Tokio

Any comments, objections, criticism or denials ?
Fukushima - One Step Forward and Four Steps Back as Each Unit Challenged by New Problems
Gundersen says Fukushima's gaseous and liquid releases continue unabated. With a meltdown at Unit 1, Unit 4 leaning and facing possible collapse, several units contaminating ground water, and area school children outside the exclusion zone receiving...

Antonio I think it's a good summary of the situation. I'm not so sure about underground water from the plant reaching the sewers of Fukushima city, like he seems to indicate. It's a pity that he has no access to Japanese sources.

Tokyo Radiation Levels I get the feeling he is throwing around predictions so he can be the "I told you so" guy, though I have a lot of respect for his credentials. What he says about unit 1 state is a good description. Anything else is educated guess. But an educated guess is still a guess and I'm waiting on the facts.

Frank Sanns Two weeks ago, I wrote this gent with some numbers that showed one of his pet theories of criticality in pool #4 was wrong. He has adjusted course and is no longer claiming that. NOW HE IS CLAIMING #3 pool went critical. I can not answer the latter for sure because I am not privy to important test information that could confirm or deny it but the evidence is against it. Look at the debris that was IN THE POOL. an explosion of the magnitude that he is claiming would have ejected or crushed what was in there. Instead there is debris from the roof in there. No matter, there is a leak in #3 reactor and just like the other reactors, the core has melted between 30% and 60% from the IAEA website. Nothing is really new with this. There is steam and continued air and water contamination that needs to be addressed. The volume of water they are dealing with is around 190,000 liters per day to treat. This is large but not outrageous amount of water.

Manuela Let see.....where there is smoke there is fire.....if it walk like a duck and, squaks like a duck.........I could go on and on. Why all the readings, denials reporting......... If it's all good. Something is wrong, if they are trying so hard to convince us it's all good.

Frank Sanns ‎@Manuela, There is smoke but no fire. It is steam into the humid air. When you see your breath on a cool day does that mean there is fire in your lungs? The situation is essentially the same as it has been since the last week in March. It is a serious accident with many challenges but as time passes the fuel cools and more corrective actions can be taken. Those are the facts.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Frank: You wrote to Arnold with some facts? Nice!

David I really do wish that nuclear accidents were treated as an international disaster with an international response and oversight. It highly disturbs me that children are going to school in a potentially dangerous area. During the war they got many of the children out of London, might not be a bad idea now.

Frank Sanns ‎@TRL, Yes, I sent him an email with the data I posted here on April 22nd that was a thread started by Roman Piquois. Mr. Gundersen did not reply to me but he quickly stopped claiming criticality in #4 so I think he realized he was in error.

Manuela OOOOOOOHHHHH ! okay I feel better now.

Romain Actually Frank, I am pretty deceived that he did not answer you. I mean, if people want to be accurate, it is a must that discussion occurs (= as bidirectional communication). By just saying things and NOT answering you, given his exposure in the media, I feel more that he is just trying to use it for his credit more than finding the truth and helping people.

5/ 13

Another video from the Fairewinds site this one regarding radioactive particles. Question for those of us in Tokyo: In the end of the video Mr. Kaltofen mentions the only way to know where the radioactive particles are is by using expensive monitoring systems not your average geiger counter. There is a site that lists the amount of fallout in Tokyo, I will add the link below the Fairewinds one. Isnt this helpful in knowing how much radioactive "dust" is in Tokyo?

James

Here is the video about the particles: http://vimeo.com/23186557

Here are the radioactive material readings for Tokyo: http://ftp.jaist.ac.jp/pub/emergency/monitoring.tokyo-eiken.go.jp/monitoring/f-past_data.html

And throughout all the mild panic they create, does Fairewinds give any advice for the millions of people who live in Tokyo?

Charles I see the plan is to cover reactor 1, so hopefully that will help reduce the airborne radioactive leaks. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/14_02.html

Antonio I wrote a mail to Marco Kaltofen (the guy in the fairewinds interview) a while ago asking if he could compare his data to the one being made public by MEXT or KEK at Tsukuba. I specified that I was living in Tokyo. His reply was that they were measuring different things (indoor dust Vs outdoor dust). That's all. He didn't recommend evacuation. So either he doesn't care or the situation is not very dangerous.

Speaking of which, KEK released a new report on air monitoring: http://www.kek.jp/quake/radmonitor/GeMonitor8-e.html

Frank Sanns

The good news and the bad news. The bad news first. On or about March 21 a less than insignificant amount of radioactive particles from the innards of the reactors found its way to the air of Tokyo. By the end of March, the levels quickly decreased to essentially negligible levels. The good news is, the human body does a good job of filtering out dust from getting to the lungs. Big particles are trapped by the nose and the small particles go in and go right back out. Everything on the outside of the body will wash off with time and is a trivial dose and can be ignored. I am and have been concerned for the food in the fallout areas of the DOE maps (north of Tokyo but in a mostly elliptical and sometimes sporadic pattern). Chances are very high that there are bad materials in food coming from there or from the ocean in the vicinity of the plant. If possible, I would avoid it.

To assess what MIGHT have the potential to become airborne in Tokyo, it would be interesting to use a broom to sweep up an area of sidewalk or road of around 20 or 30 square meters. Then take the geiger counter and scintillator to it and see if anything is concentrated over background. If nothing is really concentrating then the rain has already washed the loose particles away.

James Ill help sweep if TRL measures it ;) To be honest its been a real pain trying to evaluate the dangers here in Tokyo. The levels are all down or Not Detectable, but this boogeyman of radioactive particles on the ground has been the last thing Ive been stressed over.

Alessandra I was under the impression that basically if after the rain there is no trace of those isotopes it means that maybe for the past days we've been free of those in Tokyo? Is this only a wishful hope?

Frank Sanns ‎@Alessandra, I think there is no problem in Tokyo but the experiment that I propose would give the firm answer especially with the reading from the geiger counter (no plastic bag) and the scintillator.

Charles ‎@James - That's where I'm at as well with this issue. Plus, I stress that what is there is mostly Cesium which has a half-life of 30 years (I believe), and will be with us for quite some time blowing in the wind.

Daniel There was a report today about an isotope found in incinerator ashes in a Tokyo sewage plant today. Apparently, it was discovered in late March and has already been recycled.

Jamie That would be this story, fyi. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110514a2.html

Frank Sanns None of this should be surprising. The rain washes everything to lower levels and to the drains and to the sea so it is not blowing around. Of course it does not help if it finds its way to the sanitary sewer and then get incinerated and made airborne again.

James ‎@Charles Yes Im right with you. As Frank mentioned, the more rain and time passes, the more everything gets washed away. The particle situation is more confusing that the other things that are easy to get readings on. I do think that the actual percentage of these things being dangerous to human health in Tokyo is pretty low. That is the only conclusion I have come to after studying about them.

Charles ‎@James, yes, I'm hoping that is the case - that being that the levels aren't dangerous to human health. But dang, it would help if TEPCO could cap those loose cannons and stop the emissions.

Gregory A Bournet

http://www.fairewinds.com/sites/default/files/fukuhealthrept.pdf

http://fairewinds.com/sites/default/files/fukuhealthrept.pdf

David Extrapolations from extrapolations are by their very nature v hypothetical hoewver I can't see this figure in this report being ignored for long "This is an extremely conservative set of assumptions...103,329 extra cancers due to the Fukushima exposures."

James They don't really discuss the predictions for Tokyo (250km outside) maybe I missed it though. Anyone else get a sense of their assessment of the big city?

David PS Chris Busby who authored that report appears to be a fringe scientist of minority reports - i'm not saying he's necessarily wrong - but clearly he's not mainstream http://junksciencewatch.wordpress.com/

James I thought I recognized that name before... he has been on Alex Jones prison planet before as well.  Here he is on BBC: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhlgks_radiation-risk-from-nuclear-power-station-in-japan_news

Antonio It would have been nice if he had used the data on beta contaminants (Radioactive Iodine and Cesium) by prefecture also published by MEXT, instead of deducing it by the increase of gamma radiation. I mean, the data is on the same website a couple of clicks away and it's being updated regularly.

Frank Sanns From the radiation that TRL has shown on this site, it is ridiculous to talk about cancer risks. So far, Tokyo is around 3% above its normal background for the year. The rain soon will wash away what is there in the urban environment. For very specific areas that are not necessarily the closest to the reactor, the levels there will be problematic and some living and farming exclusions zones will be mandated. Cancer statistics will be applied to those regions but it is way premature to see how expansive those areas are and to what extent.

Carlo ‎@Frank, some reported the "normal" background radiation in Tokyo to be 0.04μSv/h prior the accident so can you please develop how did you calculate your 3% above "normal" (TRL today's pic is showing 0.238μSv/h ) ?

Warren Frank, I saw another article in NHK World yesterday saying that it will take months for them stop the release of radioactivity from the plant. Last time we saw readings increase after it rained (both in air and especially tap water). With constant emissions from the plant, can't we deduce that instead of washing it away, the rainy season will actually cause spikes in radioactivity again? What are your thoughts?

Tokyo Radiation Levels

Carlo: The normal background in Roppongi hills is 0.14 uSv/h and 0.12 uSv/h in Kita-ku and Yoyogi Koen. 0.04 is probably taken higher up in the air or over cement. I've only even seen 0.04 uSv/h in the train (above ground).

Warren: It could. I wouldn't deduce it though. I'd speculate. The radiation emissions from the plant were massive around the last rain. The emissions are continuing on a smaller scaler now. Though we will likely have depositional contamination like we did before if they don't stop the emissions by June. The Rainy Season here is essentially a stationary front though so if it rains it's likely to be a problem around the Fukushima, Ibaraki and Tochigi. And it could find it's way to Tokyo if the wind blows it this way. It really depends on wind and emission quantity.

Frank Sanns @Carlo, the correct way to calculate is to integrate all of the individual measurements for each day. I do not have that data and it would be beyond what many in this group would easily grasp so let's use an easy to do estimation. Suppose the radiation level for two weeks were 6 times over normal background. That would mean that for each day of living in Tokyo, you would be getting 6 days of radiation in 1 day. That happened for 14 days so that means you had radiation equal to 84 more days than you actually had so 365 + 84 = 449 days of radiation in 365 days. So 449/365= 1.23 times or 23% more radiation than you normally would have. This is a far over estimation based on TRL numbers and the background number of 0.04 uSv is exceptionally low. Still, 23 % over a very low background and is far below what many people's normal background yearly dose would be.

‎@Warren, I find it unacceptable for TEPCO to let the reactors in their current state for months. There are options that should have be already done but many bad decisions were being made. I do not know why efforts to reuse the water are not underway. Pumping that water back over the reactors would be the normal scheme of cooling the reactor so why pump into barges and then take it away? I know there is a leak at an underground tunnel around #2 but pouring wet concrete over something flowing at that rate is really futile. I also do not know why a remote crane has not been brought in and some of the fuel removed to reduce cooling loads. I do not know why the radioactive water can not be diverted or pumped from above or below the leak and before it goes into the ocean. Gravity flow out of an 8" pipe is not that much volume of water to deal with. I do not know why the source of the radioactivity from uncovered fuel rods is not being covered. I do not know why many decisions are being made but much like the BP oil well spill in the Gulf of Mexico, this is new ground and the engineers are learning as they go. My biggest complaint is that time if of the essence then a one at a time approach is not acceptable. Multiple sound approaches need to be in the works simultaneously. The rate that this problem is fixed will be directly related to the amount of permanently contaminated area and health impact on the population. High stakes need parallel solutions.