Two questions re: new statement by Physicians for Social Responsibity Re: risk
Here is the statement url:
http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/psr-concerned-about-report...
First, they report their expectation for cancers in the following way:
"As the crisis in Japan goes on, there are an increasing number of sources reporting that 100 milliSieverts (mSv) is the lowest dose at which a person is at risk for cancer. Established research disproves this claim. A dose of 100 mSv creates a one in 100 risk of getting cancer, buta dose of 10 mSv still gives a one in 1,000 chance of getting cancer, and a dose of 1 mSv gives a one in 10,000 risk.
"Even if the risk of getting cancer for one individual from a given level of food contamination is low, if thousands or millions of people are exposed, then some of those people will get cancer."
What is the correlation of the levels you ar finding in milk, food and water in Sieverts. Do they exceed the 1 mSv either in any sample or collectively (cream of spinach soup, say, with milk and tap water), etc.
I am math challenged and converting, even with tools, is really beyond my comprehension.
Second, do these risk assessments match up with what you understand with respect to your position that these levels are so low we need not be worried about them.
Just in conclusion, the Physicians for Social Responsibility extimate of cancer incidence (not mortality, but just getting cancer) is very general and I know different isotopes are different and react or absorbed (or not) in different ways in the body. But this is the first place I have seen such a risk assessment and wonder how what you are measuring compares to this assessment in terms of mSv in milk, water, spinach, etc at their highest levels.
If the whole US is dosed at, say, 1 mSv, (adding together all of the sources of exposure including milk, spinach, air, water etc) then we can, according to this estimate, expect qapproximately 35,000 cancers (if the US population isd 350,000,000). If half are fatal then this amount would result in 17,500 deaths. If it accumulates in the soil for years and adds to our bio-load of exposure, then we could expect these numbers to increase substantially. Right? If their estimate is correct, these doctors?
Submitted by Bill
Good in depth analysis of risk here:
http://www.psr.org/resources/health-risks-releases-radioactivity.pdf
New Info Shows Magnitude
Add This new info to your personal calculations of risk:
"The Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan released a preliminary calculation Monday saying that the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant had been releasing up to 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials per hour at some point after a massive quake and tsunami hit northeastern Japan on March 11.
The disclosure prompted the government to consider raising the accident's severity level to 7, the worst on an international scale, from the current 5, government sources said. The level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale has only been applied to the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe.
Haruki Madarame, chairman of the commission, which is a government panel, said it has estimated that the release of 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials per hour continued for several hours."
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84721.html
it should have been rated at
it should have been rated at a level 7 several weeks ago. and that would be for only one reactor, there are three reactors that have breached and damaged/broken cores, broken containment systems and are leaking radioactive contamination. this is just on the amounts of radiation from the leaking reactors at fukushima. the reason it hasn't is pretty suspect. they haven't done the proper readings according to IAEA guidelines. craziness.
Seems pretty high
and the fact that there's still ongoing releases of 1 terabecquerel/hour doesn't seem good, particularly since officials have said the situation could go on for months...
any consumption adds to the cumulative risk of cancer and other
The factors that will affect the radioactivity in food after the Fukushima accident are complicated.
These include the radionuclides that the nuclear reactor emits, weather patterns that control the wind direction and where the radionuclides are deposited, characteristics of the soil (e.g., clays bind nuclides, sand does not) and the nature of the food(leafy plants like spinach are more likely to be contaminated than other plants like rice that have husks, etc.).
However, radiation can be concentrated many times in the food chain and .
http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/psr-concerned-about-report...
Thank you so much. I know it was the weekend! Here's a ...
chart I am using to understand all this and to correlate it to the Physicians for Social Responsibility position (which also uses the LNT - linear no threshold model)
Highly recommended source/chart from the Mayo Clinic:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-ch...
One issue which arises from your response is that accumulation in milk and vegetables such as spinach and mushrooms ADDED together may begin to reach the levels of drinking rainwater at a high level of exposure for a year. IF radiocesium (or, God forbid, Strontium 90) and other radionuclides are uptaken into the food chain through rain and soil then we MIGHT see an overall increase in our entire diets to levels of concern and bioaccumulation in our bodies up to the level of 1 mSv per year or more.
The Physicians for Social Responsibility estimate, using the LNT model of risk, one cancer per 10,000 people for every 1 mSv of exposure.
IF the amount from drinking rainwater alone is .37 mSv (370 microSeiverts) then this would mean, using LNT) 1 cancer per 30,000 people or 3.7 cancers per 100,000 (or nearly 30 per 800,000, the population of S.F.)
SO
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE
This makes it much easier to calculate the risks.
My primary concern now is the cumulative exposure from all sources which MIGHT be relatively equal to drinking the tainted rainwater for a year will result in additional risks, especially to infants and fetuses. If we get dosed in produce, water, air, milk etc it all adds up.
370 microSeiverts (your sort of worst case rainwater annual dose) is equivalent (for adults, and I assume the risks to children and infants and fetuses in utero would be much more serious, especially if ingested), according to the chart I linked (again, based on the Mayo clinic numbers), to the following:
3.7 chest xrays
74 dental xrays
120 microSeiverts MORE than release limit permitted for one nuclear power plant per year (limit is 250 microSeiverts) (Remember we now have more than 100 nuclear power plants in the US)
37 times the dose an average person recieves on an average day
More than 1/3 the EPA yearly limit the EPA allows to the general public.
That said:
LET US ALL HOPE AND PRAY THAT THE DOSES GO DOWN
and
that the cesium etc is NOT accumulating in the soil and veggies.
IF the Physicians for Social Responsibility is accurate and we DO accumulate ingested radiation to levels which reach even 1/3 of a mSv over the course of a year, we can expect on average, in adults, more than 11,000 cancers across the US.
IF the levels stay high and bioaccumulate in us, in food, in plants, in animals, etc. The rates may be higher for children by many factors, I would expect. Niot to mention birth defects, hypothyroid disease and other health problems, metabolic disorders and illnesses caused by radiation exposure.
Finally, there is one bone of contention, Joseph, although I do not expect a response from BRAWM on this really because it is a standard analysis you are following: a substantial part of the current cancer epidemic globally is, according to some sources such as the Physicians for Social responsibility, the European Commission on Radiation Risk, the Radiation and Public Health Project, a direct consequence of radionuclides in the environment since the beginning of the Nuclear age and results not only from nuclear testing but from nuclear power plant emissions (after all each one is permitted to release 250 microSeiverts per year and we have over 100 such plants in the United States alone, and they also have accidental releases on top of this limit all the time). That is an additional 25 milliSeiverts per year (from OUR OWN NUKE plants).
So comparing the risk of cancer due to excess radiation from Fukushima in your anlysis to the already existing cancer epidemic is, in my opinion, one way of obfuscating the issue and minimizing the risk, thereby enabling the industry to keep polluting ("because the risk is so minimal"). Not to be critical,as I am grateful for the response, but I noticed this also in EPA documents where they say "the increased risk COMPARED to the already existing rates of cancer is small".
I just think THAT analysis hides the true story: that the cancer epidemic is due in large part to more and more man made radioisotopes in the environment since the dawn of the nuclear age nightmare.
THANKS again, Joseph, your post was very useful in at least giving me some way of comparing the risks for adults and for my kids. I STILL Plan to do ALL I can to get my kids and my loved ones to minimize ingestion of bioaccumulative irradiated milk and produce etc. I see no end in sight for the releases and ther potential always exists for further major releases into the air (not to mention the seafood chain).
THANKS and bravo for ALL you are doing (even though we may differ on the seriousness of the risk - I could not begin to assess that risk without all your hard work and responses).
Let's hope these levels drop and drop for good in the rain and air and milk and spinach and mushrooms SOON!
And is anybody testing EGGS???
Cheers!
Bill
In the accident Baneberry
In the accident Baneberry 12/18/70 the highest levels of I-131 was recorded from hens in Draper, Ut
This news article about Banebury "accident" release of radioncul
http://stopdivinestrake.com/1970leak.pdf
It is EXACTLY the same BS we are getting in the media today:
Radiation released was "very low levels" and "weithin permissible limits"
also the AEC (precursor to the NRC) refused to say whether the plumes would spread.
Radioactive explosion of "underground" nuclear test blew dust and debris 6000 feet into the air.
This was in 1970.
I'd never heard of this before. Thanks for the info.
What was irradiated first: the chicken or the eggs?
Joseph, Thx.Data at Radiation & Public Heallth Project site
has lots of research, peer reviewed articles etc on commercial and other reactor emissions and their impact on health.
www.radiation.org is their site which I HIGHLY recommend.
Their epidemiological data on cancer clusters near nuke sites and baby teeth studies are rather alarming.
I have worked with them and trust their data and anlyses. but I do believe that the European Commission on Radiation Risk has the best analysis and their conclusions are truly alarming (they factor in emissions and releases from nuclear power plants as well as weapons testing).
One problem is that we do not have adequate testing of emissions from nuclear plants and have to rely on the companies to provide that for the most part. But they are PERMITTED to release what I consider to be unsafe quantities of radioeffluents and emissions into the air and water at their plants which gets into the food chain and environment.
Even so, some scientists I have worked with on this have said ONE additional and excess cancer is too much and any birth defects and miscarriages are unacceptable.
i do hope epidemiologists will use your data and all the data available in assessing if there are increases in infant mortality rates, miscarriages (spontaneous abortions), birth defects etc.. We will NOT see many cancer rates rising for up to a decade or longer (with the exception of childhood leukemia) BUT we will know within a year or so whether infant mortality, miscarriages, biorth defects etc have risen due to these low" exposures in San Francisco and across the nation and the globe.
My main concern now is not just the iodine in milk and food (a serious problem potentially) but the cesium and its persistance in the food chain. BUT at least, if you folks stay on top of this, we will have data to learn from and will know better when at least YOU cannpt detect these things in food, milk etc anymore.
I HOPE you can start testing for Strontium 90 which, according to the scientists I work with, is the most pervasive and peristent contaminant as it enters the bones and teeth and is locked into a fetuses teeth during gestation where it remains its entire life.
Cesium, as bad as it is, will at least pass out of the boy sooner or later. Strontium gets into the bone marrow and blood and has a half life of 30 years or so.
Once again, thanks for your patience.
The explanation of chronic vs. acute exposure...
...Is very helpful, Dr. Chivers.
One question, to clarify, please. As I understand it, cesium is going to aggregate in the bodies of animals that consume it from ALL sources. Do the FDA models -- and your own calculations -- consider, when establishing, say, the number of bequerels / liter or kilogram in a particular medium, that, due to the extremely long half-life of these isotopes, they will be CONTINUOUSLY GENERATING a certain mRem or whatever INTERNAL EXPOSURE?
...In other words: As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong, and forgive me if this has already been explained), these calculations of radiation / energy being generated as these isotopes decay toward a stable form, are being equated to a ONE-TIME exposure to, as you say, a medical x-ray. But isn't this an "apples to oranges" comparison... Instead of looking at a SINGLE x-ray over the course of a given year, aren't we looking at, in the aggregate, something like a CONTINUOUS X-RAY due to the energies being constantly emanating from the cesium and other isotopes that will continue to aggregate in our bodies over the long term, seeing as EVERYTHING in our physical environment has now been contaminated and is likely to continue to be?
...It is THIS QUESTION, btw, that is responsible for a substantial fraction of my current worry. I find this to be a singularly horrifying posit, and one that's not being discussed ANYWHERE, as far as I can find. Am I on the wrong track here? Am I crazy?
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
Question to Joseph re: "Hey Rick, that's good" post
Hi Joseph,
Thank you for your explanation about the biological half-life. I have one question for you regarding this. Does this mean that Cs-137 should clear from milking cows after a few months (if there were no further exposure from fallout)? Thank you in advance for your response.
The reply about a biological
The reply about a biological half-life answers the question about a single exposure but it begs the question about subsequent or ongoing exposures that likely would be/are encountered in the real world. Though the idea of not accumulating Cesium-137 from a one time exposure is comforting, it seems that a comprehensive model that takes into account air, water, and food intake over time as an ongoing exposure would me most meaningful. From Seattle, thanks UCB for the good works.
Wow... That explanation really helps ease my mind.
THANK YOU, Joseph. I am actually achieving something more like clarity, I hope.
My apologies for my constant questions and security-blanket-seeking. All I can do in return is say how very much I appreciate you guys (and I bet you're tired of hearing that, also).
One quick aside -- I flatter myself to think that this explanation, and a couple others you guys have provided in the last day or so dealing with cumulative exposures, accumulations from all sources, biological half-lives and their relationship to half-lives generally, may be REALLY helpful to "noobs". Not like you folks have any spare time, are getting much sleep or are pursuing anything LIKE "normal" existencies, right now -- hey, talk about "half-lives", har, har -- but maybe making these recently "published" explanations "sticky", and more focused, would help reduce the long-term pestering of your personnel by repetitively argumentative and cloying people like me. Naturally, I want you guys to remain tightly focused on the testing and results-explaining you're doing, however. Sorry if that's contradictory / hypocritical of me.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
Sorry... I meant, Joseph.
Stressed, tired, out of my mind. Sorry.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
Congrats!
Bravo, Rick - you achieved a new (I hope!) personal best of 11mins between posts! Mixing up the addressee name surely is of very little significance in the light of this literary achievement!
Please...
...STOP ADDRESSING ME. You've made your point. I'm a fool, a flake, a fanatic. Believe it or not I have considered your perspective and will continue to... I am far from "at my best" or even near my "normal" mental state right now. In time I may even end up agreeing with you; I'd actually be happy to.
I have no desire to bother you. With the exception of initial posts, I sign my name -- my real name -- to everything I write here. I will start putting my name at the very top of OPs also to save you the time and trouble of reading anything of mine.
If your intention is to continue to torment an already, even admittedly, tortured mind, there's nothing I can say that will make you stop, so I won't. But if you can see your way clear to cutting me a break, here, I would appreciate it greatly, and would harbor no hard feelings. Believe me, I am aware of how ridiculous, weak, and inferior I must seem to you, Kazoo, and others. You all have made your point exceedingly comprehensively.
I might also point out that for those persons who think that posts like mine are a DISTRACTION from this Forum's stated and initial purpose -- and I am hardly in a position to disagree with you, honestly -- continued posts like yours above only contribute to the mayhem, irrelevancy and congestion, and only incite fruitbats like yours truly to respond, further clogging up the drain. If I'm as corrosive as you apparently think I am, or as much of an attention-whore, or crybaby, or whatever, then the best thing to do would really be to ignore me. Most of what I post is intended for the BRAWM staff, anyway. If they choose to ignore me, that's their call, and I will actually "get the point" if that begins to happen, as I trust in their judgment, discernment, and perspectives far more than my own at the moment.
Regardless -- I am not going to respond to any more personal slams here. I'm done. But you are NOT going to drive me off this Forum. E-mail me if you like; I WILL respond, if nothing else I am both a man of my word, and one who is not afraid of being wrong, or looking foolish, or even being a complete moron. I've lived more than long enough to realize that I'm not the sharpest tool in the box.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
Rick, don't let this loser
Rick, don't let this loser who can't attack you without revealing their identity spoil your mood. It's called troll-syndrome: invading forums and bashing others without ever producing any content. I wish there was a way to get this brat off the forums.
It's all right...
...But thanks, UCB. My "mood's" pretty spoiled, these days, anyway, and truth be told I've NEVER had a problem with this sort of thing, or sensitivity to criticism / contradiction / childish spamming or flaming, before. Like I've said: I'm nowhere NEAR my best, right now, strung out and stressed out and worried and anxious and depressed. (And I never would have admitted THAT, before, either!)
Appreciate the chuck on the shoulder. But I'm just going to do what I said I'd do: Fail to rise to the bait anymore.
I don't want people banned, btw, or "required" real-name or consistent-handle or whatever accounts to become mandatory, here. The bots and spammers would be nice to see the back of, yeah -- it's hard to feel otherwise but that a concerted effort is being made by SOMEBODY to reduce the effectiveness and accessibility of this site, which is worrisome. But then again, it could just be commerce, after a fashion, and guerilla marketing, or the efforts of folks with literally nothing better to do, too. But even Kazoo contributes, and anonymity is the ONLY way certain people will feel secure or comfortable enough to contribute -- and, anyway, registration offers no REAL "protection" at all, hardly even a disincentive, and you people have SO many better things to be spending your time on right now.
It's fine. Sorry to be such a distraction. I shouldn't be the focus of anything, here, but I guess it's my own darned fault, really.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
And by "you guys", I meant, UCB scientists generally [nt]
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
BRAWM team
I really was hoping one of you fokks would read through this thread and address the main issues I raise here.
If you have no comment at least let me know. I realize its Sunday night and I postedf this on the weekend when you have lives aside from this, but I am posting this post to bump it up to see if one of you can respond.
still looking for conversion or a way of determining 1mSv exposure equivalent if ingesting X amounts of pCi/L or pCi/Kg and/or Bcq.
Any way to approximate the conversion in layperson terms?
If you read the entire thread (my posts anyway) you'll get the gist of what I am asking.
THX
Jim or anyone from BRAWM?
I am still hoping you can read the questions I raise here and give me a clue.
I have seen some models from the French report and elsewhere but wanted your team's thoughts on how much it takes to accumulate to 1 mSv (and a mSV means a milliSeivert, right?)
Thanks
this post is a bump as I have not had a reply over the weekend, so I hope naysayers will avoid attacking me for this request for a response.
Yes their estimate is
Yes their estimate is correct, if not a bit conservative. The well-known studies after Chernobyl show a marked increase in the number of cancers and genetic abnormalities. There are also US Gov. studies referenced elsewhere in this forum that show the pronounced increase in cancers and other abnormalities as a result of nuclear weapons testing.
There will be negative health effects to a number of people in the US as a result of Fukushima - as it stands now. The effect will only increase as more radiation is released.
BRAWM? Anyone around who can address this?
Questions are more specific below but the real question is to determine how much of the spinach, milk etc would you need to ingest at the highest levels you have measured to equal 1mSv.
And at average levels.
I know that this is accumulative but this is the only way I know to assess the risks to my family based on the PSR model, especially if the deposit on grass and soil means the radiocesium etc stays in the environment for the foreseeable future.
Thanks
thanks
thanks
Can somone from BRAWMrespond please?
thanks
If Physicians for Social Responsibility are correct
then the exposures reported here:
http://investmentwatchblog.com/25-miles-northwest-of-the-facility-radiat...
are terrifying
10 mSv/hr (external but in the air and water as particulates, I would expect) is accumulating at the rate of 240 mSv per day. which will result in 24 cancers per 1000 people.
I know we are nowhere near those levels here yet, but since these things are cumulative and seem to be ubiquitous now in air, water, soil, spinach, etc., aren't we approaching leels where we will reach 1 mSv or how long will it take if the cesium remains at current environmental levels and if they keep releasing new plumes of iodine at the cuurent avergae rates?
cool chart for comparisons of risk
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-ch...
Keep your units straight.
Keep your units straight.
1 microsievert = .001 millisievert
You do realize that mere
You do realize that mere living carries the inherent risk of dying, right? Your total odds of dying is 100%, and no amount of running around being terrified will change that. Just ask your shrink.
Quality of Life
Yes, but it's the way you live before you die. For example, do you want your child or grandchild be born deformed or without lymph glands, brain outside their skull or a tumor the size of a basketball, or die
a slow death from leukemia at age 17, like the second generation of the children of Chernobyl.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/japan-radiation-chernobyl_n_846...
And how exactly do the the
And how exactly do the the numerous posts here on the same subject, over and over and over, like a broken record, improve your quality of life?
Multiple posts give idiot
Multiple posts give idiot trolls like you a chance to come out and play in the sunshine.
i am embarrassed - lol
yes these insane amounts of radiocesium are going to be a big problem in the food supply. same for radioiodine.
mSv= how many pC/li or Bq/L?
Putting aside for the moment whether anyone agrees with the Physicians for Social responsibility:
Is there a way to determine how many picocuries per liter or becquerels per litre (or kilo) will result in 1 mSv if ingested and absorbed in milk, water, spinach, etc (assuming the entire amount is ingested).
I.E. How much milk would one have to drink at 1 pCi per Liter if radioiodine or radiocesium to reach 1/1000 of a Sievert?
anyone?
btw I think this is a better way to describe the risk than an exray or cross country flight. REAL amounts. Ingested. Risk rates. Simple, and it comes from physicians who have studied these issues.
that's what i want to know
that's what i want to know concerning the listed tellurium-132 amounts found by the EPA in rainfall amounts in the east bay.
FDA website: 10 mSv = 1 in 2000 fatal cancers (same as PSR)
Risk Estimates
"In the field of radiation protection, it is commonly assumed that the risk for adverse health effects from cancer is proportional to the amount of radiation dose absorbed and the amount of dose depends on the type of x-ray examination6. A CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (abbreviated mSv; 1 mSv = 1 mGy in the case of x rays.) may be associated with an increase in the possibility of fatal cancer of approximately 1 chance in 2000."
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsa...
One study I read (NY Academy of Sciences) says for each fatal cancer expected from radiation exposure there is one nonfatal cancer on average so 1 cancer per 1000 at 1 mSv looks kind of right (one is fatal and one is not fatal (2 cancers) out of 2000 people.
Again, I am really having trouble converting actual exposure to dose and I really do not understand the symbols used.
Is there a straight mSv to BequeraL OR PICOCURIE per liter/kg conversion (assuming you consume the entire kilo or liter)
This is a very real question to see IF you can extrapolate from the BRAWM results how much milk or spinach or mushrooms or water you would need to consume to reach 1 mSv?
This is for the protection of my children because I choose to try to limit exposure for them and my loved ones.
ANY risk rate estimation
ANY risk rate estimation would be based on a model. And, while an argument can be made that quantitative risk models are useful, they are NEVER perfect. You may spend a lifetime turning over stones and not get the answer that you think you want.
The specific question about converting between Sieverts and picoCurie has been addressed multiple times already. They are units of measure of two different things (biologically effective dose and activity of radioactive source, respectively), and if you really were interested in the subject (and not merely writing up novels here in a distasteful attempt to get some attention), then you would have already figured that out. It's all in the FAQ, the dose calculation page, in the posted data tables (for ex. via the numbers of liters of rain water one needs to consume to accumulate internally a total effective dose equivalent of 5mrem, or 5x10^-5Sv).
So get out, get some air (or a life) and find something better to do than to nag these students. They might not mind, but I find your persistence annoying, and I presume I'm not alone.
I find your persistence
I find your persistence annoying, and I presume I'm not alone.
Who made you king of the forums? You are the disruption here. Write a novel about that, moron!!
earache my eye
oh sweet candycorn bejeezus.
you pointed someone to the FAQ. that's holyroller bfd material. if it's anything at all.
no actually it's self-righteous head in the sand "out of sight out of mind" gradeschool commentary, laced with drunken strawmen and/or deformed macho horseyapples, that i find irritating, completely annoying and supremely childish. this is supposed to be a technical discussion, crybabys aren't much use here.
eat a banana, go to jail. that is the answer.
You do realize your whining
You do realize your whining right?