Measurement of Fallout from Nuclear Weapons, Power.

[link to nuclearfreeplanet.org]

Revised 4 April, 2011 A discrepancy in the figures given in the article and the source cited has come up. It looks like the forecast was 417,000 cancers for Fukushima containment zone, not 17,000 as stated in the article:

[link to www.llrc.org]

Friday 1st April 2011
417,000 cancers forecast for Fukushima 200 km contamination zone by 2061
Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), Professor Chris Busby, has released calculations of the cancer incidence to be expected in fallout areas of Japan. Using data from the International Atomic Energy Agency and official Japanese web sites he has used two methods to estimate the numbers of cancer cases. He compares these results with estimates derived from ICRP modelling.




Numbers Magic?

[link to www.llrc.org]
"This post is about radio-Iodine but we have doubts about going with it. If the authorities can get us all thinking about Iodine and then reassure us that actually it's not a problem except for people in Japan (which is broadly true) then we might not realise that the really dangerous isotopes - Plutonium, Uranium, Strontium, Tritium in particular - are not even being reported. This is a massive failure of Governments' duty of care.
However, with that caveat, we'll fall into the Iodine trap because we have received many requests for advice since the Fukushima emergency began.
Our early advice on taking stable Iodine is unchanged. It is here.
The European Committee on Radiation Risk has published a method for calculating doses from drinking water or milk contaminated with Iodine 131. ECRR's main message is reassuring about the risks, so far as USA and Europe are concerned. They are not much different from what you hear from official sources."



" Black Ops on CRIIRAD?

In the last few days many websites and newspapers have misreported Iodine dose figures from the French NGO CRIIRAD. It is claimed that CRIIRAD has said if a child under 2 years ingested 50 Becquerels of Iodine 131 the dose would be 10milliSieverts. At best, this is a transcription error; at worst it's a propaganda attack intended to discredit good sources of independent advice by making them look like scaremongers.
CRIIRAD actually said:

Les enfants en bas âge (0 – 2 ans) sont les plus vulnérables : l’ingestion d’une cinquantaine de becquerels d’iode 131 suffit à délivrer à leur organisme une dose de 10 µSv. (Children under the age of 2 are the most vulnerable. Ingesting about 50 becquerels of Iodine 131 is enough to give them a dose of 10 µSv.)
That's 10 microsieverts, a thousand times smaller than 10 millisieverts.

We have checked the calculation. It appears that CRIIRAD has used ICRP dose and risk coefficients and a ten-fold multiplier to correct for the small body mass of these little children. This is reasonable (for any given intake, a small body mass means a larger dose). According to LLRC's arithmetic the effective dose to the child is 11µSv. Using ECRR dose coefficients it would be 27.5µSv.
So beware of nonsense on the net. The micro / milli confusion can arise..."


[link to www.thepowerhour.com]
Dr. Chris Busby On Fukushima Radiation Risk

ECRR Risk Model And Radiation From Fukushima
By Chris Busby

Scientific Secretary
European Committee on Radiation Risk
3-20-11


Radioactivity form the Fukushima Catastrophe is now reaching centres of population like Tokyo and will appear in the USA. Authorities are downplaying the risk on the basis of absorbed dose levels using the dose coefficients of the International Commission on Radiological Protection the ICRP. These dose coefficients and the ICRP radiation risk model is unsafe for this purpose.

An old Prediction method above.

Below is the new model.

[link to www.euradcom.org]

These calculations have been shown to be accurate in the case of the population of Northern Sweden exposed to fallout for the Chernobyl accident, and also are accurate for the increased in cancer in northern hemisphere countries following the 1960s weapons testing fallout (the cancer epidemic). The public and the Japanese and other authorities would do well to calculate exposure risks on the basis of these approximations and to abandon the ICRP model which does not protect the public. This was the conclusion of a group of international experts who signed the 2009 Lesvos Declaration (this can be found on [link to www.euradcom.org)]

Visit these sites for comprehensive knowlege and my thread on the dangers to you from Fukushima, if you haven't already.

Thread: [UPDATED]Dr. Caldicott and others: Nuclear Catastrophe in Japan and You. News and realtime info.

Thank you. I will update when I have had time to accept this all.

Last Edited by Goodbye2You on 04/17/2011 10:06 PM