[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Hiroshima fallout
[Pardon the reposting. I was bitten by the email "From" bug. GAC]
I don't presently have the information or have taken the time to assess the
health impact from fallout at Hiroshima. I continue to question your
statements (your wish?) that "there was not any" fallout (perhaps, this is a
settled question?) and "it's obvious . . . fallout . . . did not play any
role in carcinogenesis among the A-bomb survivors."
The Sep 1996 HPJ article concludes, "The results were in good agreement with
estimations from the early external radiation measurement." But, a cursory
reading of the text finds the following statements: "[T]he number of samples
are not enough to estimate the rainfall area over the whole city, but the
Cs-137 deposition should be closely related to the rain fall area. . . .
These results indicate that the rainfall area was wider than Uda's map and
verifies Masuda's map. . . . These results reflect the fact that Cs-137 was
not uniformly deposited even in the rainfall area. . . ."
_From the excerpts I provided, it is clear (assuming the HPJ is a credible
source) that there was fallout at Hiroshima, but it's not at all obvious that
fallout "did not play any role in carcinogenesis among the A-bomb survivors,"
especially since the 1996 HPJ article (the only article I have presently
available) presented only Cs-137 sampling results and exposure estimates and
did not even discuss cancer or cancer risk. And, given that you originally
claimed "not any" fallout, I wonder whether the obviousness you perceive is
based on fact or what you wish fact were.
Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
glennacarlson@aol.com
> Subj: RE: background vs man-made emmissions - fallout
> Date: 4/30/2000 3:37:33 PM Central Daylight Time
> From: frantaj@aecl.ca (Franta, Jaroslav)>
>
> Glenn,
>
> I presume that you have noticed the difference in wording between the quote
> in your initial posting on this thread ( "High levels of residual
radiation"
> etc. ) and those you cite below ( "Out of 22 samples, 137Cs was detected
> for 11 samples", "Some of the rock and roof tile samples...had a small but
> detectable amount of 137Cs activity", "levels of 90Sr
> > contamination were too low to allow a discussion of the exposure risks."
> > ).
> >
> ....everything we eat and drink and are made of has "small but detectable"
> amounts of radioactivity, including K-40, C-14, U, Th, Po-210, Ra, etc.
>
> > The message from Norman & Karen Cohen[SMTP:norco@bellatlantic.net]
> > which was posted on Saturday
> > April 29, 2000 8:11 PM was about "what long-term doses of radiation does
> > in the form of latent cancers."
> ..its obvious from your most recent information that whatever trace amounts
> of fallout may have been detected did not play any role in carcinogenesis
> among the A-bomb survivors. Seems to me you've answered your own question ?
>
> Jaro
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: GlennACarlson@aol.com[SMTP:GlennACarlson@aol.com]
> > Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > Sent: Sunday April 30, 2000 3:41 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Re: background vs man-made emmissions - fallout
> >
> > I thought the existence of fallout at Hiroshima was well established,
> > though
> > the levels and the health impact are still debated. Is this incorrect?
> >
> > Consider also the following:
> >
> > Health Phys 1996 Sep;71(3):340-6; 137Cs concentration in soil samples
from
> > an
> > early survey of Hiroshima atomic bomb and cumulative dose estimation from
> > the
> > fallout. Shizuma K, Iwatani K, Hasai H, Hoshi M, Oka T, Okano M Faculty
> > of
> > Engineering, Hiroshima University, Japan.
> >
> > Low background gamma-ray measurement has been performed to determine the
> > 137Cs content in soil samples collected in a very early survey of the
> > Hiroshima atomic bomb. These soil samples were collected just 3 d after
> > the
> > explosion within 5 km from the hypocenter and were not exposed to the
> > global
> > fallout from nuclear weapon tests. Out of 22 samples, 137Cs was detected
> > for
> > 11 samples, and their radioactivities ranged from 0.16-10.6 mBq g-1 at
the
> >
> > time of the measurement. A comparison of the 137Cs deposition with the
> > rainfall area within Hiroshima city indicates that the rainfall area was
> > wider than the previously proposed one. Cumulative exposure by the
fallout
> >
> > has been estimated to be 0.31 mC kg-1 (0.12 R) in Hiroshima city except
> > for
> > the heavy fallout area and at most 1.0 mC kg-1 (4 R) in the heavy
fallout
> > area.
> >
> >
> > J Radiat Res (Tokyo) 1991 Mar;32 Suppl:32-9; Studies of radioactivity
> > produced by the Hiroshima atomic bomb: 2. Measurements of fallout
> > radioactivity. Hasai H, Hoshi M, Yokoro K Faculty of Engineering,
> > Hiroshima
> > University, Japan.
> >
> > Three studies of fallout measurements were reviewed for the discussion
of
> > possible radioactivity intake from the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The first
> > study
> > discussed correlations between enriched 234U and 137Cs specific
activities
> >
> > from the measurement of soil samples collected in the "black rain" area.
> > The
> > second study measured 137Cs activity on the rock and roof tile samples
> > collected in the hypocenter area immediately after the explosion. Some of
> > the
> > rock and roof tile samples collected near the hypocenter had a small but
> > detectable amount of 137Cs activity. However, it has been determined
that
> > 137Cs exposure, for example, was negligible compared with DS86 dose
> > estimates, since these activity levels were low. The third study
detected
> > 90Sr activity in some of the specimens of human bones exhumed on
Ninoshima
> >
> > Island. This study compared the difference in activity between the bone
> > head
> > and shaft, with higher activities obtained in the bone head. This fact
> > suggests a short intake period for this activity, however, the levels of
> > 90Sr
> > contamination were too low to allow a discussion of the exposure risks.
> >
> <SNIP>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <server@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Received: from rly-st03.mail.aol.com (rly-st03.mail.aol.com
[172.31.34.2])
> by air-yg04.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 16:37:33
-0400
> Received: from rly-ye04.mx.aol.com (rly-ye04.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.201])
> by rly-st03.mail.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0)
> with ESMTP id QAA10758;
> Sun, 30 Apr 2000 16:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
[128.174.74.24])
> by rly-ye04.mx.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Apr 2000 16:30:47 -0400
> Received: (from server@localhost)
> by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29680;
> Sun, 30 Apr 2000 15:33:54 -0500 (CDT)
> Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 15:33:54 -0500 (CDT)
> Message-Id: <A1C6903E2378CF11A60900805FD4DDF2019E7886@drs02.crl.aecl.ca>
> Errors-To: melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> From: "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: RE: background vs man-made emmissions - fallout
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment: RADSAFE Mailing List www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
>
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html