Help please
Hi,
I am an OCD therapist and have a client who has extreme concerns about radiation to the point of not being able to go out in the rain etc. I was hoping someone here could help me by giving me a layman's definition of the actual risk from fukushima and if there are actual behaviors or avoidances that are ok and make sense in regards to what have happened? My background research leads to me thinking that Gunderson is trying to make a buck and that background levels are not that unchanged, but it would be nice to have an expert opinion on this to refer to. Located on the west coast, if that matters for looking at risk.
Gunderson
The time to be concerned was right after the meltdown and the best thing to do is to stay indoors as much as possible.
Right now there is virtually no risk in the Homeland (US mainland).
There still may be concern about food imported from Japan and Pacific fish, but I'm sure our overly protective Homeland Security won't let any bad stuff come in the country.
Checkout these
Testimony of eminent radiation epidemiologist Dr. John Boice to Congress:
http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf
The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor.
The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent.
Also from the Health Physics Society at the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Exposure due to nuclear power ( "nuclear fuel cycle" ) is < 0.03% of background exposure. Mother Nature is the average person's number one source of radiation exposure.
Good to see this out of proportion concern for radiation treated as what it probably is; a manifestation of OCD. Anti-nukes should see a psychiatrist.
Question
Should I?
Should you?
How is anti-nukes the deciding factor? Why not republicans? Or environmentalists? Catholics? Teaparty members? Limbaugh fans? Prius owners?
Seriously, if you think that people who are against nuclear power and (and doubly so for nuclear weapons) need psych help, well, where does it stop?
I am asking you because you seem to believe that you are fully in possession of the facts. Seems like a great place to be, I imagine the view is wonderful.
READ within context.
How is anti-nukes the deciding factor? Why not republicans? Or environmentalists? Catholics? Teaparty members? Limbaugh fans? Prius owners?
=======================
The post above yours stated that irrational fear of radiation was a manifestation of OCD - Obsessive Compulsion Disorder; and was treatable by a psychiatrist.
Who has irrational fear of radiation?
Do Republicans, as a class, have an irrational fear of radiation? Is that what defines someone as a Republican? NOPE!
Do environmentalists, as a class, have an irrational fear of radiation? Is that what defines someone as a environmentalist? NOPE!
Do Catholics, as a class, have an irrational fear of radiation? Is that what defines someone as a Catholic? NOPE!
Do Teaparty members, as a class, have an irrational fear of radiation? Is that what defines someone as a Teaparty member? NOPE!
Do Prius owners, as a class, have an irrational fear of radiation? Is that what defines someone as a Prius owner? NOPE!
Do anti-nukes, as a class, have an irrational fear of radiation? Is that what defines someone as an anti-nuke? BINGO!!!
Therefore, the anti-nukes should consider seeing psychiatrists.
QED
===============================
You should see a psychiatrist for your obsessive use of ==============.
QED
By using the abbreviation QED are you referring to Quality, Excellence, Design or quod erat demonstrandum or Richard Feynman or quantum electrodynamics?
Risk from Fukushima extremely small
Hi, I am a member of the Berkeley team that has made measurements in the Bay Area of the fallout from Fukushima. Only trace amounts of radioactivity arrived on the West Coast due to releases from the Fukushima reactors. We were able to see these traces, but it required the use of very sensitive and expensive detectors to detect them — the problem is being able to see the tiny increases above the naturally occurring radioactive background that we are constantly exposed to.
The radiation doses someone could have gotten from the tiny amounts of radioactivity from Fukushima are very small. For example, even when Iodine-131 was seen in milk back in early April, it would have required drinking 2,400 liters of the milk to get the same dose as a 10 hour airplane flight. At the present time we still see very tiny levels of Cesium-134 and 137 in milk, but there we're talking about having to drink 20,000 liters or more to reach the dose from a 10 hour airplane flight.
For rain, we performed measurements and the results are here. There were trace amounts of radioisotopes from Fukushima present in rainwater from mid-March to mid-April, but in the handful of rains we have had since then we have not seen any radioisotopes from Fukushima. Our most recent rain measurement was in November, and it was also clear.
You can find more measurements on our monitoring website if you are interested. Some of the information on our FAQ page might also be helpful.
We have not endorsed any particular changes in behavior to avoid the radiation. None of our team members changed anything in their lifestyles, simply because the excess radiation levels were so small. However, I know from this forum that there are people who have taken our information and decided to avoid certain foods for the time being.
Please let me know if this helps and if you have any more questions.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
thank you
Thank you so much Mark. This was incredibly helpful in my session and it was really great to be able to present the data and allow my client to process that. The one question that was brought up is how representative do you think Berkeley data is for the rest of the United States? My client's concern is that there may be "hot spots" based on weather patterns. I made the argument that the radiation is diffusing, like a drop of perfume in a large mall. My client wanted to know if things like jet stream patterns could affect those concentrations etc? This website has been especially helpful, so thank you so much. It is helpful to be able to approach this like a scientist and look at cold hard data points.
Best,
Jamie
Hi Jamie, I am very glad that
Hi Jamie, I am very glad that this information was helpful to your client. There are other data out there, and our measurements more or less agree with other measurements. A good example is the EPA RadNet system, which tested air filters and other samples such as milk and rainwater, all around the country. Their data are publicly available from this webpage. The data available to the U.S. government through the EPA and other sources led them to conclude that there were no radiation levels of concern. This was our conclusion as well.
Your comparison to the radiation diffusing like perfume in air is a good one. The vast majority of the atmospheric releases from the power plants were in mid- to late March, which means that the concentrations in the air on the West Coast were at their highest in late March and early April, and they decreased over the following weeks until they were about one thousandth of their peak values by late June. This decrease happened because the radioactive particles were carried out of the atmosphere by rain or by settling on the ground. This pattern also held for most of our other measurements, including rainwater, milk, and produce — the highest levels were in late March or early April, and the levels decreased thereafter as the radionuclides diffused through the environment.
Lastly, the jet stream definitely affected the concentrations that we measured here, just as one can more easily smell perfume if one is downwind. However, after the major releases were done occurring in late March, the jet stream had less and less of an effect. Presently, any releases from the reactors are so small that not even the jet stream would bring any appreciable amount over the ocean.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Kansas 700% higher
Yes, there was at least one hot spot in the US:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5883
Please don't be offended by our resident professor pro-nuke if he takes a pot shot at you for asking!
Thank goodness for BRAWM and the other wonderful testing on the West Coast, to help keep it in perspective. The I-131 was the major concern and was completely gone long,long ago and, at the time, was insignificant on the West Coast according to all the test results here and elsewhere.
Good point re: Kansas
I'd like to chime in and add that there are very few data points. Pretty much BRAWM and University of Seattle and a few others here and there. I have been deeply concerned by the fact that this event has generated so little interest in not only the public but academia...I would have expected legions of scientists, many of them gov't funded, to be all over this and let us know what we got and where we got it in terms of fallout.
The concerns of the patient mentioned are not completely without merit - there is a paucity of data, and that hotspot in Kansas is a great example of that. The milk that came out of that rain-out was way worse than anything BRAWM saw, and we have no way of knowing where else this may have (and almost certainly did) happen.
That having been said I would also like to add that much of the current blogging and what-not about "current" fallout in the USA is garbage. BRAWM hasn't seen anything in the wind or rain for a long while, nor has anyone outside of Japan. I regard with suspicion anyone out there who claims otherwise.
One last thing - I feel pretty sure that if not for this small place of knowledge and some of the good folks that have posted here (esp. Mark) I may have lost my mind completely. It may likewise help your patient.
BC 2/13