Where we are now?

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-04-14 12:23

Berkeley Radiological Air and Water Monitoring Forum

What is the verdict, are we looking at an estimated dose of 1 rem over the year from Japan (excluding any further major issues)?

Is it possible to work out how much we have had so far?

Thanks for all your help.

Add new comment

How less than 1mrem?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-14 20:12.

Thank you so much for the estimate Dr Chivers. I know you are endlessly being asked these questions and ultimately each person must work out the math of risk/reward for himself. And I wish I could manage the math but I'm a sleep-deprived mama. I just don't understand how that European NGO is calculating much higher levels when the contamination is much lower there. And just adding up all the picuries it seems like the mSV would be much higher. Can anyone on your team do a sketch of the math?

Thanks again

Thank you Dr. and the entire

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-14 19:30.

Thank you Dr. and the entire team. Let us know how to donate funds if you need them!

There is just not enough

Submitted by dchivers on Thu, 2011-04-14 19:23.

There is just not enough data to make any solid conclusions to dose as of yet. However, my conservative estimate for dose fell at < 1 mrem. I don't see anything from the last couple of weeks of data that allows me to increase that amount. This included ingestion and dose conversion factors for I-131. Cs137 levels were a factor of 10 less in the rain water and the dose conversion factor is much lower than I-131. However, we are maintaining an eye on Cs137 levels in milk which seems to be the major pathway. I still feel 1mrem is very conservative and this is around 1/400 of the normal effective dose we receive every year.

Thanks, Dr Chivers for you

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-16 11:32.

Thanks, Dr Chivers for you estimation. Please can I ask if the 1 mrem is the same for all age groups, including fetuses? I read somewhere that the ingestion amount depends on your age group. Is that right?
Thanks once again for everything you and your team are doing.

This estimate, and I

Submitted by dchivers on Sat, 2011-04-16 12:15.

This estimate, and I reiterate that this is rough at this point without all of the data, was for the "reference man" drinking rain water at our highest readings for 2 months straight at 1L per day. Corrections for children and pregnant women have not been done primarily because this really crosses over from our role as information providers. Please consult your doctor and provide this information if you have concern. I will say that even though the dose conversion factors are higher for children for I-131 exposure (by a factor of 10), the amount of water ingested is less, on average, I would assume.

Should my kids drink less

Submitted by Astor (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-16 02:11.

Should my kids drink less milk then if Cs 137 is what we have to keep an eye on?

milk

Submitted by Percy (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-16 13:42.

"...doses [of I-131], taking into account all exposure pathways, essentially are proportional to the amount of milk ingested. This result is due to the fact that the dose from ingestion of milk is much larger than the dose from all other exposure pathways."

Without knowing details of the exact conditions in your area, nobody can tell you the potential long-term health risk, but why risk letting them drink it at all if you are concerned? This low-level exposure may be going on for a long, long time and children are the most vulnerable.

There are substitutes for milk, including rice milk, oat milk, soy milk, almond milk, etc. There is nothing magical about cow's milk that they require it nutritionally.

The potential risk of exposure to low-dose radiation is not predictable. Read what you can on the subject and get information from as many different sources as possible and decide what risk you are personally comfortable with. Keep in mind that the agricultural lobby is an extremely powerful one. And some people are overly paranoid. Websites repeat the same stories over and over and over--try to find the origin of the information.
http://www.naturalnews.com/032048_radiation_milk.html

I'm not changing my diet, but I don't drink cow's milk. But it is the first thing I would eliminate if I were concerned about my kids.

your expertise is much appreciated!

Submitted by Percy (not verified) on Fri, 2011-04-15 08:25.

I depend on this site in order to remain in the "reality based" world.

Does your analysis include

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-14 20:08.

Does your analysis include Strontium 89&90 and other sources like Cs 134?

My initial analysis did not

Submitted by dchivers on Sat, 2011-04-16 09:51.

My initial analysis did not include strontium isotopes as we have not observed that and thus we could not make any reasonable estimates. We have results for Cs134. We know that there have been some references for Sr90 in the air but we would need to review the detection methods to make an estimate. We still believe that the cumulative dose estimates will be dominated by exposure to I-131 and Cs-137. There is much to study here and we are laying the foundation for this work.

Where we are now?

How less than 1mrem?

Thank you Dr. and the entire

There is just not enough

Thanks, Dr Chivers for you

This estimate, and I

Should my kids drink less

milk

your expertise is much appreciated!

Does your analysis include

My initial analysis did not

Dr. Chivers, If your team

thank you

what he said...

Thank you, I really

Many thanks, Dr. Chivers, and BRAWM Team, as always [nt]

many thanks

Search