[ RadSafe ] Plutonium from Ibaraki not in lung

Brad Keck bradkeck at mac.com
Mon Jun 12 10:30:21 CDT 2017

Most recent update from today's news: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003755769

It is being reported today that the initial estimate was likely the result of skin contamination, which has now been removed.  


Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 11, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Jaro Franta <jaro_10kbq at videotron.ca> wrote:
> "devastating levels of radiation"
> https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentOnline/posts/10154888060076636
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-nuclear-plant-plutonium-b
> ag-open-radiation-levels-expose-oarai-ibaraki-tokyo-contamination-a7783331.h
> tml
> Jaro
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Miller
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 10:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 2281, Issue 1
> The large internal Plutonium contamination incident widely reported earlier
> this week, may actually be entirely incorrect. The National Institute of
> Radiological Sciences (NIRS) in Chiba has examined all of the men. NIRS says
> they can find no internal contamination of the lungs in any of them!
> That's right! Nothing detectible!
> The alleged internal radioactivity activity(s) reported earlier this week
> disappeared after the NIRS administered "proper decontamination". The JAEA
> said it believes the initial readings resulted from transuranic
> contamination detected on the men's skin prior to undergoing
> decontamination.
> http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201706100022.html
> Numerous possibilities immediately come to mind. First, JAEA might possibly
> have the most incompetent HP staff imaginable. Second, Japan's decidedly
> antinuclear Press may well have made another mountain out of a mole-hill,
> a-la the "soaring radiation levels" in F. Daiichi unit #2 broadcast earlier
> this year. It's been more than six years since the nuke accident, and they
> still have no clue. Third, even if the dude actually had 22,000 Bq of
> Plutonium in his lungs, it appears that the reported 1.2 Sievert exposure in
> the first year and 12 Sieverts lifetime are gross exaggerations. Fourth,
> Nuclear Regulation Authority commissioners criticizing the workers for
> "complacency", will have considerable egg on their faces. I could go
> on-and-on!
> What a ridiculous mess!
> _______________________________________________
> 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 mailing list