[ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima

Tue Jun 21 15:20:29 CDT 2011

Chris,

There will always be some entity that over estimates or under estimates any situation. I don't recall any credible study that concludes there have been any significant deaths documented in the numbers you state below. Now if someone wants to include any death that occurs in a geographical area as a result of Chernobyl, they can make whatever conclusion that they want to. However, there is absolutely no credible evidence to support this contention, even remotely.

Regards,

Sandy

-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
+1 (949) 296-1130 (Fax)

Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/
"Protecting people, property and the environment"

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 9:45 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima

Well, so far on the basis of death toll, you will excuse me if I say Chernobyl outweighs all of these by orders of magnitude. I know you guys think only a few firemen died, but this isnt so.. Alexey Yablokov is right. Gogman calculated 980,000 in 1990. All the studies have been done. Here is my paper on the issue.
Cheers
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Jeff Terry
Sent: Mon 20/06/2011 23:24
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima

Well, if we are using radiation related fatalities to date as the metric in Fukushima, we cannot leave out:

"Jackass" co-star dies in car crash in Pennsylvania as its one fatality exceeds the radiation tally in Fukushima.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-jackass-dunntre75j4u2-20110620,0,5962651.story

Jeff

On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:

> Here are some from Wikipedia.  I am not saying these are the biggest, as they only cover a brief slice of time, are mostly Northern Hemisphere, and are mostly catastrophic events, as opposed to long term health crushers like Black Lung Disease (so if you are going to say, "but Fukushima potentially will have long term effects," I suspect I could come up with 10 of those without much problem, too.)
>
> December 3, 1984: The Bhopal disaster.  Estimates of its death toll range from 4,000 to 20,000. The disaster caused the region's human and animal populations severe health problems to the present.
>
> April 16, 1947: Texas City Disaster, Texas.  A minimum of 578 people lost their lives and another 3,500 were injured as the blast shattered windows from as far away as 25 mi (40 km). Large steel pieces were thrown more than a mile from the dock. The origin of the explosion was fire in the cargo on board the ship. Detonation of 3,200 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer aboard the Grandcamp led to further explosions and fires.
>
> 1932-1968: The Minamata disaster was caused by the dumping of mercury compounds in Minamata Bay, Japan. The Chisso Corporation, a fertilizer and later petrochemical company, was found responsible for polluting the bay for 37 years. It is estimated that over 3,000 people suffered various deformities, severe mercury poisoning symptoms or death from what became known as Minamata disease.
>
> August, 1975 The Banqiao Dam flooded in the Henan Province of China due to extraordinarily heavy rains, killing over 26,000
>
> April 26, 1986: Chernobyl disaster. At the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Prypiat, Ukraine a test on reactor number four goes out of control, resulting in a nuclear meltdown. The ensuing steam explosion and fire killed up to 50 people with estimates that there may be between 4,000 and several hundred thousand additional cancer deaths over time. Fallout could be detected as far away as Canada. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, covering portions of Belarus and Ukraine surrounding Prypiat, remains poisoned and mostly uninhabited. Prypiat itself was totally evacuated and remains as a ghost town.
>
> January 15, 1919: The Boston Molasses Disaster. A large molasses tank burst and a wave of molasses rushed through the streets at an estimated 35 mph (56 km/h), killing 21 and injuring 150. The event has entered local folklore, and residents claim that on hot summer days the area still smells of molasses.
>
> March 25, 1911: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City. This was a major industrial disaster in the U.S., causing the death of more than one hundred garment workers who either died in the fire or jumped to their deaths.
>
> March 10, 1906: Courrières mine disaster in Courrières, France. 1,099 workers died, including children, in the worst mine accident ever in Europe.
>
> October 21, 1966: Aberfan disaster was a catastrophic collapse of a colliery spoil-tip that occurred in the Welsh village of Aberfan, killing 116 children and 28 adults.
>
> September 21, 2001: Toulouse, France. An explosion at the AZF fertilizer factory killed 29 and injured 2,500. Extensive structural damage to nearby neighbourhoods.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:39 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
>
> What industrial catastrophes are bigger than Fukushima?
> I cant think of one. But maybe there is one. Certainly not 9.
> I mean Industrial right. Not earthquakes and stuff like that.
> If we call the atmospheric tests an industrial catastrophe then that one certainly.
> Also the use of uranium weapons in GW2.
> But thats probably not as bad in terms of health effects as Fukushima will be. You wait.
> Chris Busby
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
> Sent: Mon 20/06/2011 21:35
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
> While I don't choose to guess at the amount of activity released at either Chernobyl or Fukushima beyond "a whole hell of a lot", I don't think I agree that Fukushima has or will result in "higher collective exposure".  Firstly, there was some hours between the end of criticality and the beginning of release at Fukushima.  This means that many of the isotopes with the shortest half-lives had enough time to decay away before release began, unlike Chernobyl.  Second, at Fukushima the first portion of the release, which is potentially the hottest, was blown out to sea, as opposed to at Chernobyl, where there was inhabited land in every direction (some, obviously, more densely inhabited than others).
> Third, a significant portion of the released activity is in water, going to the ocean, where the impact on human health will be limited.
>
> I am not for a moment saying that Fukushima isn't a disaster.  I am not even saying that it is unreasonable to compare it to Chernobyl.  Heck, I am not even saying that something can't happen and make Fukushima worse than it is.  However, I don't believe that it is useful to engage in hyperbole.
>
> This morning a concerned citizen sent me an article from Al Jezeera in which an activist claimed, "Fukushima is the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind".  It certainly is not, and probably isn't in the top ten.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:15 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
>
> My estimate is
> Chernobyl
> about 10^19 Bq
> Fukushima about 10^19Bq but more local so density greater and higher collective exposure due to Tokyo Hiroshima more difficult, maybe 10^14 including the Uranium But I agree, not easily comparable with Hiroshima since that involved high level prompt gamma and neutrons Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike
> (DOH)
> Sent: Mon 20/06/2011 17:41
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
> I am not sure if the question of how much radioactivity was released at Hiroshima is a meaningful question, at least when trying to put it in perspective with Chernobyl and Fukushima.
>
> There are several reasons for this.  The first is that the explosion at Hiroshima produced blast and heat that killed people (though not
> everyone) out to a range past where the radiation dose would cause acute problems.  At Chernobyl the blast killed a few people (I am not sure how many), and at Fukushima no one was killed by blast.
>
> Second, at Hiroshima much of the radiation was produced by fission, so "curies" isn't an appropriate unit, in much the same way it isn't for machine produced radiation.  There was a substantial amount of radioactive material produced, and there was some exposure to people from the fallout, but that wasn't the main source of dose.  At Chernobyl a reactor core that was (for a brief time) at more than 100% power was blasted into the air, then roasted in a graphite fire for days.  At Fukushima there was a release into the air some hours after criticality ceased, and a large amount of the radioactive material has been trapped in water that either went into the ocean or is still on site.
>
> Third, the isotope mix of what was released is very different between the three.  This come into play in that the release of, say, 1,000 Ci of
> I-131 has different consequences than the release of 1,000 Ci of I-129.
> Weapons tend to have a higher percentage of very short half life isotopes, reactor fuel that has been use a while has a higher percentage of longer half-life isotopes.  Also, with reactors the amount of time between the end of criticality and the release will impact both the amount of activity and the isotope mix.
>
> I bring all this up because it is a natural tendency to ask questions like this, then equate "more" with "worse".  In this case, I don't think that the intentional attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be
> meaningfully compared to Chernobyl and Fukushima.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Theo Richel
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 11:17 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
> Could anyone please give me some facts on how much radioactivity
> (curies) was released in: Fukushima, Hisoshima, Chernobyl
>
>
> Much appreciated
>
> Theo Richel
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

Well, so far on the basis of death toll, you will excuse me if I say Chernobyl outweighs all of these by orders of magnitude. I know you guys think only a few firemen died, but you are wrong. Alexey Yablokov is right. All the studies have been done. Here is my paper on the issue.
Cheers
Chris

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE:   This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its affiliates.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made.  Thank you.