[ RadSafe ] Fwd: NY State Inhalation Doses due to Fukushima

[Brad Keck]

All,

I did find the paper in "Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry” by Kitto, et. al.    

As I read it, the levels of 131I seem quite comparable to data from the same authors in 2005 and 2002,  so I don’t really see a Fukushima connection, seems more like a continuation of medical procedures/waste, as attributed in earlier years….    

The units reported in the paper are indeed millibecquerels per cubic meter (which seems to be the most commonly used unit).  These have been recalculated in microbecquerels per cubic meter, presumably to get a higher ordinal number.

There aren’t many EPA radnet number reported for this isotope, but ones reported seem to be generally much lower, which would argue for a local, rather than a global source, yes?   

Brad







> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Brad Keck <bradkeck at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: NY State Inhalation Doses due to Fukushima
> Date: February 3, 2016 at 3:50:49 PM EST
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing	List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Reply-To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing	List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> 
> Chris,  Interesting idea- I wonder if anyone can find the original report...  
> 
> The numbers I have seen for 131I are in the range of .1 to 1 milliBq per cubic meter, so 
> If These are converted to microBq per m3, they are still quite high.  The actual measurements may be informative...   
> 
> Brad 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Chris Alston <achris1999 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Folks
>> 
>> Could they have originally meant millibecquerel (mBq) and not "micro",
>> rightly or wrongly?
>> 
>> Cheers
>> ca
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Conway Lowe Family <conlowe at bell.net>
>> Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 2010, Issue 1 - NY State
>> Inhalation Doses due to Fukushima
>> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" <
>> radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> For perspective on the concentrations, the dose from inhaling 3000 uBq/m3 of
>> I-131 (gas) would be less than 1 uSv (microsievert) per year for an adult
>> member of the public.   The doses from the other radionuclides noted below
>> would be even lower.  Doses via other pathways (e.g. food) would obviously
>> be different but probably also insignificant.
>> Leo Lowe
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brad Keck [mailto:bradkeck at mac.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:01 PM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 2010, Issue 1
>> I wonder how many "Fukushima equivalents " are represented by a single New
>> York hyperthyroid treatment?
>> Brad
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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