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