Fukushima’s doses tallied

[FBaggins]

11. No... I didn't talk about the term at all.

Yes, I got that your crude understanding of the situation was matched by your crude deportment (do you get the drift / play on words?). Yes, I get that you think you're quite clever. What you don't get is that you're making yourself look foolish.

What you don't get is that your post isn't logical. Neither report is in any way based on the total release estimates for Fukushima... and therefore there isn't any need to redo them in light of the changed figure.

Both the reevaluation of the total release and the dose estimates are based on figures that haven't changed That is, the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of activity readings taken over the last year. The recent international reviews did look at those numbers and say that the earlier estimates of total release were reasonable to within a factor of ten. The new estimate of total release is well within that statement... so again, nothing needs to change in their conclusions.