[ RadSafe ] NRC Press Release and suggested PAGs

[radbloom at comcast.net]

I have to agree with other commenters - something seems odd with the postulated numerical values, but it's hard to tell because the assumptions are not included.  The attachment shows that the postulated doses are larger for the 1-reactor site than for the 4-reactor site out to 40 miles and at 50 miles the 4-reactor site postulated doses are larger.  This might have to do with the assumed geometries and assumed releases from each reactor, but mostly it just seems confusing without the underlying assumptions.  Also, without the underlying assumptions, it's not clear if the model is reasonable for estimating population doses based on current conditions of the Japanese reactors.  (Which way is the wind assumed to be blowing, how much material is asumed to be released, are people assumed to be sheltered for some fraction of time, etc?) 



Cindy Bloom 




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Egidi" <Phil.Egidi at dphe.state.co.us> 
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:58:35 PM 
Subject: [ RadSafe ] NRC Press Release and suggested PAGs 


It is suggested one look at the most recent NRC press release and accompanying modeling with respect to suggested PAGS for US Citizens in Japan.  The numerical values postulated are sobering... 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2011/11-050_Attchmt.pdf 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2011/11-050.pdf 


Phil Egidi 
CDPHE 
_______________________________________________ 
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