No subject

Wed May 18 15:38:07 CDT 2011

fit an airborne dispersion pattern.  More recently, I have heard multiple =
presentations, in particular one by the Department of Energy (DOE) =
official responsible for the group that did the airborne measurements in =
support of the Japanese government, that have suggested that the observed =
plume is not consistent with the weather patterns observed during the =
accident.  The DOE official actually stated "the plume could not be =
explained."  Has anybody else heard similar statements?
In pondering this, I came up with a potential alternative explanation, but =
do not have direct access to information that could support or disprove my =
idea, so I am sharing my thoughts to see if anybody can answer them.
First, refer back to figure 2 in Chris' paper.  You will see that all of =
the data points are taken along the main roads that access and crisscross =
the region.  You will also see that the highest measurements appear to =
correspond to the forks in the road that occur at about 25 km and 30 km =
from the site.  If you look closely at the DOE's airborne measurements, =
you will see that the plume overlays the main road that goes off to the =
northwest from the site.=20
Is it possible that the measurements are actually a result of contamination=
 being tracked out of the area by vehicles during the evacuation?  I know =
that if I were running the evacuation, I would send the people inland, and =
I would channel them through only a few routes so that I could set up =
checkpoints at the boundaries to the evacuation areas (20 and 30 km) where =
I would scan the vehicles and wash them down, if necessary, before they =
were allowed to go into the uncontrolled area.  Those two forks in the =
roads would be the perfect spot for those checkpoints.
I suspect that the footprint of a contaminated road would look like a =
plume from a passing aerial surveillance system, but it would actually =
represent a much smaller and more controllable footprint than what would =
be implied by the airborne measurements.
Does anybody have details about the routes and procedures used for =
conducting the evacuation?  It would be interesting to try to match that =
with the various sets of survey data.
Once we have a better understanding of the plume pattern and its meaning, =
then we could go back to this paper and ponder the validity of its =
Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP

>>> "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at> 6/28/2011 2:03 PM >>>
Here is the paper

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at on behalf of Ken Savitz
Sent: Tue 28/06/2011 02:31
To: radsafe at
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Dr Busby - 30%

I'd like to weigh in on the discussion with Sandy and Dr Busby -

population of Japan        - 128,000,000 (2009 -
ki/Demographics_of_Japan )
population of Fukushima -   2,030,000 (2010 -
Fukushima_Prefecture )

death rate (all causes) - ~10 per 1000 (2006 -
atabase/mort/table1_process.cfm )
infant mortality (all)        - ~2.8 per 1000 (2010 - http://en.wikipedia.o=
rg/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan#Infant_mortality_rate )

(if someone can find data for the same year, that might be better)

Dr Busby,

Would you please put a number on your prediction of "greater than 30%".  =
Does that mean, of the 2 million
in the Fukushima prefecture, in a 'normal' year, we would expect ~20300 =
deaths; you expect to see 26000 or 13%?
or, are you speaking only of an increase in infant mortality?  from all =

As of April, the tsunami had accounted for 1113 deaths and 4626 missing in =

Please be specific so that the readers do not distort the .

Ken Savitz
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:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings =

More information about the RadSafe mailing list