US gov’t estimate showed 40,000 microsievert thyroid dose for California infants from Fukushima — Data not released to public — “Very high doses to children”
"Thyroid screenings detect relatively high exposure
Experts have detected radioactive iodine in the thyroid glands of 80 percent of the people who used to live near the Fukushima nuclear plant. Five of them had dosages of more than 50 millisieverts.
The scientists at Hirosaki University in Aomori Prefecture conducted checkups last April of 65 people who were living near the Fukushima plant at the time of the nuclear accident. They found radioactive iodine in the thyroid glands of 50 of them.
The team calculated the amount of radioactive iodine exposure for each resident. The calculations assumed that the residents had inhaled radioactive iodine on March 12th, just one day after the accident.
Most of the residents had an estimated dosage of 10 millisieverts or less, but 5 had dosages of more than 50 millisieverts. The International Atomic Energy Agency recommends taking iodine tablets for this level of exposure.
The person with the highest dosage of 87 millisieverts stayed within 30 kilometers of the Fukushima power plant for more than 2 weeks after the accident.
The team leader, Hirosaki University Professor Shinji Tokonami, says the levels of radioactive iodine were relatively low compared to the scale of the accident.
But he says some residents face potential health risks from the exposure, and they should have continue to have regular health checkups by professional researchers.
Friday, March 09, 2012 13:04 +0900 (JST)"
If people living in the fallout path in fukushima received between 10,000-50,000 micro Sieverts from I-131 then people in the US would have received much less. Normal yearly exposure from natural background is 3,500 micro Sieverts.
True. The US would have received a lower dose because of the greater distance. However, the red flag this FOIA accessed NRC transcript raises is that the highest levels of NRC admin projected a possible maximum thyroid dose at this lethal level and suppressed their intelligence. They did not issue even a cautionary advisory pending plume arrival and actual west coast measurements. They issued an "all clear," and crossed their fingers. Just because we (relatively ) lucked out doesn't eliminate the NRC's gross dereliction of duty. This and the RadNet shut down is our SPEEDI coverup.
It is important that we recognize this proof that the NRC is guarding some other henhouse.
1) This is 4 rem thyroid dose over a year. That is made clearly - full source term 1 yr, which did not happen. Maybe 4 weeks, maybe, of I-131, so less than 0.5 rem TEDE. Not insignificant.
2) This could have been much worse. It could have all went, no mitigation. The guys who went in there have stones, regardless of how lousy TEPCO is. They may well have saved your life.
Another item I would like to make - I know that the NRC transcripts make your (and my) skin crawl. But here's the deal as far as not inducing panic or evacuating........you CANNOT evacuate Tokyo, nor the West Coast. These populations are far too large to relocate in a short time. Could they have advised cautions to far reduce the I-131 exposure, and maybe the others as well here stateside? Yes. Did they have to weight this against panic? Yes.
The only way to win is not to play, esp. the most dangerous gambles (ie, this obviously junk containment). What we need to do is clear but difficult to implement. Here is some inspiration...we are all downwind.
I am not able to to identify who is responding to these articles. I would like to hear from someone at the Nuclear Engineering Department who is educated on this topic. I am a mother of three children and want to know what the truth is an how I can protect them from further contamination. This article was horrifying and I want to know what the truth is. There is no other place to go for information but to you Berkely Nuclear Enginerring Department.
I just read another article which I will copy the link, that states California just received the worst radiation so far, last week that is more than 2 times the hazardous level for humans. Its states that Berkley has measurements for Northern CA. which will not be released until April. I need to know now how to protect my children. What can I do after the fact. Please inform what the actual levels were and dont wait for another month.
Article:
Subject: Highest radiation EVER in Calif just last week. 2 times hazardous level!
From: Truth-in-the-Law
The website you listed is full of misinformation. The article you linked to is complete BS. The person is comparing a months worth of air collected through a filter to normal background rates. That is not an equal comparison. Filters collect everything, including natural decay products from uranium/thorium decay chains. Collecting for a month will increase the count rate due to capture of these products. This is the same as when people swiped their cars after a rainstorm. The rain causes the decay products from natural decay to accumulate. It gives a high reading because it is concentrating all the natural radioactivity into a small area. If you know the air flow, you can back calculate the actual radioactivity per m^3 of air, which would be within normal statistical limits.
I am no authority or expert, but throwing out the idea: Has anyone considered the possibility that these recent spikes may be due to the recent CME's coming from the sun? Is this even a possibility?
CMEs result in large ejection of high energy charged particles. That's why the airlines rerouted many flights to avoid the Earth's poles. The Earth's magnetic field helps to shield us; but the magnitude of the shielding depends on your latitude. The magnetic force on a charged particle is maximum when the particle's velocity is 90 degrees to the magnetic field line. The magnetic force is ZERO if the angle between the particle's velocity and the magnetic field line is 0 degrees.
The Earth's magnetic field lines are horizontal ( parallel to the surface ) at the equator. Therefore, downward directed particles meet the field lines at 90 degrees and deflection force is maximal.
At the poles, the Earth's magnetic field lines are diving into the Earth, and hence are almost vertical. Therefore, downward directed charged particles are aligned with the field lines, so deflection force is minimal. So airlines avoid the poles at such times.
At California's latitude(s), the field lines are neither parallel nor perpendicular to the surface, but in between. California receives partial shielding from charged particles.
The reporters that are reporting this are using survey meters and not spectrometers like BRAWM uses. BRAWM can distinguish between these natural sources and radioisotopes from Fukushima. The reporters can't do that; they don't have the right equipment. In fact, on their website they are asking for donations to get a radiation detector based on a sodium iodide crystal, so they can do some degree of spectroscopy.
However, even then; they won't match the capabilities of BRAWM. BRAWM has the cryogenic solid state detectors that are the "gold standard" for radiation spectroscopy. BRAWM also has people who are trained in radiation detection and know the mathematics for getting accurate measurements of stochastic quantities like those from radiation detection.
I was hoping they would be able to answer too but it's not like they have THAT much time on their hands. ;o)
Thanks, though, for your answer. It just never ceases to amaze me that it always seems to be the worst possible scenario that is always the immediate fallback, when there could be any number of explanations. I have no doubt we will be dealing with the Fukushima "incident" for years to come but the real question is how MUCH of what you here is the accurate truth. It's so much fun trying to determine what to believe and not to believe, as a concerned parent of wee ones, without reverting to panic every time I log onto one of these sites.
CMEs and solar flares don't add very much to our radiation exposure on the earth's surface because the atmosphere shields us; it's when you go up in altitude (as with an airplane) that dose from cosmic rays and solar activity can start to become appreciable. The other poster was right about the magnetic field lines — you get more radiation exposure in flights around the polar regions than near the equator. A source for this is the UNSCEAR 2000 Report, Annex B, starting around paragraph 11.
Actual data
From NHK world news:
"Thyroid screenings detect relatively high exposure
Experts have detected radioactive iodine in the thyroid glands of 80 percent of the people who used to live near the Fukushima nuclear plant. Five of them had dosages of more than 50 millisieverts.
The scientists at Hirosaki University in Aomori Prefecture conducted checkups last April of 65 people who were living near the Fukushima plant at the time of the nuclear accident. They found radioactive iodine in the thyroid glands of 50 of them.
The team calculated the amount of radioactive iodine exposure for each resident. The calculations assumed that the residents had inhaled radioactive iodine on March 12th, just one day after the accident.
Most of the residents had an estimated dosage of 10 millisieverts or less, but 5 had dosages of more than 50 millisieverts. The International Atomic Energy Agency recommends taking iodine tablets for this level of exposure.
The person with the highest dosage of 87 millisieverts stayed within 30 kilometers of the Fukushima power plant for more than 2 weeks after the accident.
The team leader, Hirosaki University Professor Shinji Tokonami, says the levels of radioactive iodine were relatively low compared to the scale of the accident.
But he says some residents face potential health risks from the exposure, and they should have continue to have regular health checkups by professional researchers.
Friday, March 09, 2012 13:04 +0900 (JST)"
If people living in the fallout path in fukushima received between 10,000-50,000 micro Sieverts from I-131 then people in the US would have received much less. Normal yearly exposure from natural background is 3,500 micro Sieverts.
True. The US would have
True. The US would have received a lower dose because of the greater distance. However, the red flag this FOIA accessed NRC transcript raises is that the highest levels of NRC admin projected a possible maximum thyroid dose at this lethal level and suppressed their intelligence. They did not issue even a cautionary advisory pending plume arrival and actual west coast measurements. They issued an "all clear," and crossed their fingers. Just because we (relatively ) lucked out doesn't eliminate the NRC's gross dereliction of duty. This and the RadNet shut down is our SPEEDI coverup.
It is important that we recognize this proof that the NRC is guarding some other henhouse.
Please note two things - 1)
Please note two things -
1) This is 4 rem thyroid dose over a year. That is made clearly - full source term 1 yr, which did not happen. Maybe 4 weeks, maybe, of I-131, so less than 0.5 rem TEDE. Not insignificant.
2) This could have been much worse. It could have all went, no mitigation. The guys who went in there have stones, regardless of how lousy TEPCO is. They may well have saved your life.
Another item I would like to make - I know that the NRC transcripts make your (and my) skin crawl. But here's the deal as far as not inducing panic or evacuating........you CANNOT evacuate Tokyo, nor the West Coast. These populations are far too large to relocate in a short time. Could they have advised cautions to far reduce the I-131 exposure, and maybe the others as well here stateside? Yes. Did they have to weight this against panic? Yes.
The only way to win is not to play, esp. the most dangerous gambles (ie, this obviously junk containment). What we need to do is clear but difficult to implement. Here is some inspiration...we are all downwind.
BC 3/7/12
Highest radiation EVER in Calif just last week. 2 times hazardou
I am not able to to identify who is responding to these articles. I would like to hear from someone at the Nuclear Engineering Department who is educated on this topic. I am a mother of three children and want to know what the truth is an how I can protect them from further contamination. This article was horrifying and I want to know what the truth is. There is no other place to go for information but to you Berkely Nuclear Enginerring Department.
I just read another article which I will copy the link, that states California just received the worst radiation so far, last week that is more than 2 times the hazardous level for humans. Its states that Berkley has measurements for Northern CA. which will not be released until April. I need to know now how to protect my children. What can I do after the fact. Please inform what the actual levels were and dont wait for another month.
Article:
Subject: Highest radiation EVER in Calif just last week. 2 times hazardous level!
From: Truth-in-the-Law
http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/03/highest-radiation-in-l-a-air-yet/
Readings were taken in Southern Calif. N. Calif readings due out by Berkeley in April.
The website you listed is
The website you listed is full of misinformation. The article you linked to is complete BS. The person is comparing a months worth of air collected through a filter to normal background rates. That is not an equal comparison. Filters collect everything, including natural decay products from uranium/thorium decay chains. Collecting for a month will increase the count rate due to capture of these products. This is the same as when people swiped their cars after a rainstorm. The rain causes the decay products from natural decay to accumulate. It gives a high reading because it is concentrating all the natural radioactivity into a small area. If you know the air flow, you can back calculate the actual radioactivity per m^3 of air, which would be within normal statistical limits.
Hmm...
I am no authority or expert, but throwing out the idea: Has anyone considered the possibility that these recent spikes may be due to the recent CME's coming from the sun? Is this even a possibility?
- JS
It's possible
CMEs result in large ejection of high energy charged particles. That's why the airlines rerouted many flights to avoid the Earth's poles. The Earth's magnetic field helps to shield us; but the magnitude of the shielding depends on your latitude. The magnetic force on a charged particle is maximum when the particle's velocity is 90 degrees to the magnetic field line. The magnetic force is ZERO if the angle between the particle's velocity and the magnetic field line is 0 degrees.
The Earth's magnetic field lines are horizontal ( parallel to the surface ) at the equator. Therefore, downward directed particles meet the field lines at 90 degrees and deflection force is maximal.
At the poles, the Earth's magnetic field lines are diving into the Earth, and hence are almost vertical. Therefore, downward directed charged particles are aligned with the field lines, so deflection force is minimal. So airlines avoid the poles at such times.
At California's latitude(s), the field lines are neither parallel nor perpendicular to the surface, but in between. California receives partial shielding from charged particles.
The reporters that are reporting this are using survey meters and not spectrometers like BRAWM uses. BRAWM can distinguish between these natural sources and radioisotopes from Fukushima. The reporters can't do that; they don't have the right equipment. In fact, on their website they are asking for donations to get a radiation detector based on a sodium iodide crystal, so they can do some degree of spectroscopy.
However, even then; they won't match the capabilities of BRAWM. BRAWM has the cryogenic solid state detectors that are the "gold standard" for radiation spectroscopy. BRAWM also has people who are trained in radiation detection and know the mathematics for getting accurate measurements of stochastic quantities like those from radiation detection.
Your best bet for accurate information is BRAWM.
Thanks
I was hoping they would be able to answer too but it's not like they have THAT much time on their hands. ;o)
Thanks, though, for your answer. It just never ceases to amaze me that it always seems to be the worst possible scenario that is always the immediate fallback, when there could be any number of explanations. I have no doubt we will be dealing with the Fukushima "incident" for years to come but the real question is how MUCH of what you here is the accurate truth. It's so much fun trying to determine what to believe and not to believe, as a concerned parent of wee ones, without reverting to panic every time I log onto one of these sites.
- JMS 03/11/02
CMEs and solar flares don't
CMEs and solar flares don't add very much to our radiation exposure on the earth's surface because the atmosphere shields us; it's when you go up in altitude (as with an airplane) that dose from cosmic rays and solar activity can start to become appreciable. The other poster was right about the magnetic field lines — you get more radiation exposure in flights around the polar regions than near the equator. A source for this is the UNSCEAR 2000 Report, Annex B, starting around paragraph 11.
Regarding the air filter measurement, I just posted an answer on another thread.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Clearly the truth is being
Clearly the truth is being suppressed. Can you handle the reality of that? Probably not. Most likely better than you could the truth itself.
What exactly is that supposed
What exactly is that supposed to mean!