sce56
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-11 11:27 PM
Original message |
| High level of radiation exposure estimated. NHK WORLD NEWS |
|
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/24_02.html A group of doctors has found that the estimated level of accumulated internal radiation exposure for people living in Fukushima Prefecture has exceeded 3 millisieverts. The researchers, including doctors who have provided medical care to A-bomb survivors, conducted analysis on the food and urine of 15 residents in Iitate Village and Kawamata Town in Fukushima Prefecture. These areas are about 40 kilometers from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. They estimate that residents have been internally exposed to up to 3.2 millisieverts for about 2 months, measuring from the date of the accident in March until early May.
Three millisieverts is 3 times higher than the long-term annual limit for ordinary people recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. One of the researchers, Nanao Kamada, says people should refrain from eating vegetables grown in the area where high levels of radiation have been detected.
Friday, June 24, 2011 07:00 +0900 (JST) They are truly screwed!
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-11 11:38 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. 3 millisieverts is not a "high level of radiation." It won't even notably increase risk of cancer. |
|
In comparison, a potentially fatal dose of radiation starts at 1,000 millisieverts. That's for people with compromised immune systems, and the elderly. Otherwise healthy people require 2,000 to 5,000. Substantially increased risk of cancer begins around 200 millisieverts.
|
nebenaube
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-23-11 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 2. This is internal not external... |
|
Edited on Thu Jun-23-11 11:54 PM by nebenaube
n/t
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-11 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. An internal dose is not automatically hundreds of times higher than an external dose. nt |
AndyTiedye
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-11 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 7. For Alpha Particles, Internal is Thousands of Times Worse than External |
|
Edited on Fri Jun-24-11 01:33 AM by AndyTiedye
|
Sirveri
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-11 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
| 9. In this case the particles of concerns tend to be standard beta decay emiters. |
|
Which means beta/gamma flux. Also both Sieverts and Rem are already corrected for quality factor, so this is a total effect amount and not a flux level. Uncorrected units are typically in CPM or roentgen or some other reporting method.
There are very few fission products that decay via alpha emission, and I can not think of any off the top of my head. Typically alpha is derived from radon decay daughters and other heavy elements. Coal likes to send some of this stuff out. The Plutonium MOX from #4 spent pool IS a concern for this, however it also has a relatively lengthy half life and so requires a larger amount to produce a similar dose compared to I131, Co60, Sr90, and Cs137. I131 is a beta/gamma emitter, and is likely the primary nuclide for the currently reported dosages. Fortunately thyroid cancer has a 96% 5-year survival rate on average and Japan has a strong health care system.
The Uranium is not an element of concern, other than for it's properties in regards to heavy metal poisoning. The particle strength is quite weak and the half life is so long it is listed as stable on the periodic table of elements.
|
Sirveri
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-11 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 8. 3 mSv is a years dose on average. |
|
So yes, it is significant. 1 Sv = 100 Rem. So we're talking 300 mRem. Doubling the yearly dose is a significant increase.
|
Art_from_Ark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-11 12:59 AM
Response to Original message |
| 4. The English translation needs to be cleaned up a bit |
|
At first the article makes it seem like residents throughout the entire 5500-square-mile prefecture are exposed to these radiation levels, but further reading indicates that tests were conducted on 15 people in two municipalities that are about 40km/25 miles from the reactors and have long been known to be "hot spots". I would be interested in further data, such as the results of studies conducted on residents elsewhere in Fukushima Prefecture (such as Iwaki, Aizuwakamatsu and Kitakata), as well as neighboring areas in Ibaraki and Miyagi prefectures.
|
RandomThoughts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-11 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
1000s of posts posted, and every couple days, someone posts something like they have not read a single post I have made.
And it is not them that will pay, but the control systems trying to censor that think the ground floor is all there is.
|
DeSwiss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jun-24-11 01:22 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Feb 26th 2026, 06:55 PM
Response to Original message |