[ RadSafe ] Comments on Japan reactor accident and initialinjuries
C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Sat Mar 26 09:43:47 CDT 2011
The trouble with banana doses is not that it is silly, but that it is untrue. K-40 is probably fairly uniformly distributed and so comparison with external dose may be justified but there is no scientific justification at all in comparing local tissue ionisation density at DNA from particulates, or DNA doses from atoms bound to DNA through chemical affinity (UO2++, Sr-90++, Ba-140++) with external doses, something which is conceded by ICRP, IRSN et al but not acted upon. This is not scientific (inductive, experimental) method. Absorbed dose gives the same value (J/kg) warming yoursef by a fire or eatuing a hot coal. Therefore all predictions about health effects based on ICRP et al are scientifically unsound. And indeed, Jack Valentin conceded that in a video interview with me in Stockholm in 2009 (google vimeo, valentin, busby and look about half way though the video. The ECRR approach ( www.euradcom.org )predicts significant health effects in these internally exposed populations. Incidentally, IAEA say that surface contamination out to 70km is between 0.2 and 0.9MBq/sqm. If we do a simple calculation based on average 0.3MBq there has been a release of 5E+15Bq so far, compare Chernobyl 50E+15 for the Caesiums. But with Chernobyl the stuff didnt go over the nearest centre Kiev to the extent it is going over Tokyo, pop 36M. Note that cancer increase effects in Sweden reported by Tondel 2004 correlated with local Cs137 at 11% cancer increase per 100kB/sqm. That is roughly the factor predicted by ECRR2003 which also supports the Yablokov Chernobyl book published by New York Academy of Sciences which some of you find so laughable. That means that for those living on 0.2MBq/sqm, there will be a 22% cancer increase, assuming LNT.
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of shima
Sent: Sat 26/03/2011 11:12
To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Comments on Japan reactor accident and initialinjuries
On 03/26/11 08:03, Scott Davidson wrote:
> We probably should ask members from those forums to put in their 2
> cents and resist speculation and silly threads like banana dose
> equivalents and focus on how we in the community of professionals
> dedicated to worker protection can offer our collective experience to
> address the current and imminent issues.
> B. Scott Davidson, CHP, CSP
While I do regard that banana equivalent dose and it's wholesale use to
"relativise" the dangers of radiation, the thread was far from "silly".
It is an attempt to get some categorically sound science of this issue.
This, IMHO , rather stupid notion seems to have originated on this very
list in 1995. This is also a list where there should be qualified
expertise to give a clear, definitive, documentable answer to whether
this calculation has any scientific legitimacy.
Two recent postings on What's Up With That web site , which has a huge
global following, were totally committed to propagating this idea. They
received enthusiastic applause from a guffawing red-neck sector of his
audience. They seem to take it at face value (as any reasonable person
may who does not have sufficient expertise to question it's validity).
So, I agree the idea is silly but it can and will mislead a lot of
people about the safety of their food.
That is why, in all seriousness, I would ask anyone with competence on
this to reply to that thread (not here) to help get a definitive
documented answer to the question.
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
More information about the RadSafe