Country/Chernobyl Comparison
Are the figures from this list of post-Chernobyl fallout available at ttp://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad7b.html similar to the levels we're seeing now (and can expect to see in the coming weeks/months as the crisis contines)?
Thanks,
WH
Take a look at the numbers
Take a look at the numbers for America.
They are much higher than the numbers being detected now here, in the 20s, 30, 80s, of Bqs.
huh.
Can anyone verify this site?
The amount of Cs-137, for
The amount of Cs-137, for example, emitted according to that data in Austria is 5 orders of magnitude more than what we're reporting. If we convert from uBq/m^3 to Bq/L we see that Vienna was experiencing 9.7E-3 Bq/L. We have reported 5 orders of magnitude less; that is, we see 100,000 times less radiation.
Here is I-131 data to compare
Average level in river water near nuclear plants in Russia: 0.05 Bq/L
Safe level according WHO: 1 Bq/L
Observed level in Bay Area as of today: 9 Bq/L
Russian evacuation threshold levels child/adult: 100/300 Bq/L
Level in Pripyat river near Chernobyl plant first weeks after accident: 5,000 Bq/L
Level in Pacific ocean near Fukushima plant as of yesterday: 5,000 Bq/L
Another information on food chain attenuation of Cs-137 (Chernobyl studies):
Soil -> Grass -> Cow Meat -> Cow Milk
1.0 Bq/Kg -> 0.2 Bq/Kg -> 0.1 Bq/Kg -> 0.037 Bq/Kg
So total factor is around 27. For I-131 it is lower (i.e. more will get to milk).
WHO "guidance level" is 10 Bq/L for I-131
Hello Dmitry,
According to this paper, the WHO "guidance level" for radionuclides in drinking-water for I-131 the maximum is stated as 10 Bq/L. This is for adults.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241546387_chap9.pdf
Can you site another publication where they report it as 1 Bq/L ?
--
Raj
I assume some of these numbers are wrong....
How is the WHO safe level 1 and we are at 9?
What do you mean by "how is it"?
The numbers simply tell you that rain water here is not safe, i.e. above WHO guideline for river contamination.
It is important to mention
It is important to mention that most of the water standards are based on long-term exposures over many years and has many levels of safety factors built in. Also, there has not been a study that indicates any measurable health effects at these low levels, even in continuous exposure situations. I am not a health physicist, but I can perform the linear extrapolation model here on effective dose. If I use the European Nuclear Society number for mortality rate from radiation exposure of 5.5% per Sv exposure, then the 0.01mSv effective dose (which is our estimate what you should get if you drink this water continuously for the next two months as the I-131 will be gone by then), results in a 1 in 1.8 million shot of dying from this exposure. That is of course assuming this is linear at low exposures, which has never been proven. In contrast, if you live in California, according to the CDC you have a 1 in 835 chance of dying of cancer this year (based on 2007 statistics). Hopefully, I did this correctly. If anyone has a different calculation, please inform. To me, I am more worried about the air pollution emitted everyday by fossile fuel waste. I ride the numbers.
The I-131 will be gone in
The I-131 will be gone in two months??? That's GREAT news!! Could I ask how you've come to this conclusion, I was under the impression that there was still on ongoing release of iodine-131.
Thanks...
That really helps put things in perspective here!
WH