High internal radiation exposure detected in young children — 16 people with internal exposure over 1 millisievert

Published: October 22nd, 2011 at 12:58 pm ET


Oct. 22 — “Two boys in Fukushima Prefecture have been internally exposed to the highest levels of radiation among the nearly 4,500 residents who were checked amid the nuclear crisis,” reports Kyodo.

“The level of exposure is estimated to be equivalent to 3 millisieverts during their lifetime, which is not expected to harm their health, prefectural officials said Thursday,” according to Kyodo.

“The local government has not disclosed the boys’ exact ages, saying only that they are between 4 and 7 years old.”

The checks were conducted between June 27 and Sept. 30 in 13 high-risk municipalities.

Read More: Two boys found with high internal radiation exposure


  • 8 people measured 2 millisieverts
  • 6 registered 1 millisievert
  • 4,447 residents had less than 1 millisievert

How much radiation exposure do you need to get over 1 millisievert (1,000 microsieverts)? Keep this in mind: “TEPCO says 2 male workers… were showered with highly radioactive water… they had no internal radiation exposure.” –NHK, August 31

h/t xdrfox

Published: October 22nd, 2011 at 12:58 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. 229 millisieverts/year of cumulative radiation in town outside exclusion zone — Exposure limit for ordinary people is 1 millisievert/year August 20, 2011
  2. WSJ: Many in Fukushima exposed to radiation well above permitted level, new research shows — “Survey did NOT look at internal exposure” December 13, 2011
  3. Study finds 12 millisievert average thyroid doses of INTERNAL radiation in Fukushima children — Gov’t had assured “the levels of such doses were zero” — Gov’t won’t notify parents of results July 11, 2012
  4. All 10 children tested in large city 60 km from Fukushima meltdown have radioactive urine — “High possibility” that children in and near city exposed to internal radiation June 30, 2011
  5. NHK: 42% of residents’ radiation exposure tops annual limit — Survey excluded people working in places with high radioactivity — Only used 4 months of data February 21, 2012

16 comments to High internal radiation exposure detected in young children — 16 people with internal exposure over 1 millisievert

  • Daruma

    For those who wondered about situation in reactor 5 and 6 at fukushima-daiichi, there is an interesting link that might interest anyone over there:
    it is a fukushima resident now evacuated to Hachijojima (japanese island in the philippine sea) raging about what is really going on in the plant and around. He had personal problem way before fukushima daiichi exploded and it got worse with the explosions. a young 21-year-old worker in fukushima plant died over there but it wasn’t reported. Many Policemen taking care of the so called 20km no go zone died, and are not informed about radiation survey, and it is still not reported, and about Iodine release found in sludge throughout Eastern Japan such as Tokyo, Nagano or Iwate prefectures since one or two months might have a link with a possible criticicality with unit 5 and 6. Hitachi sent some staffs for solved it but it was stopped

    • StillJill StillJill

      Awesome reporting Daruma!!! I believe very single, solitary word! And,…..like the infanticides,…this is only the tip of the ICEBERG ‘coming to light’. Like birth pains,….there’s no turning back!

    • lam335 lam335

      I have no doubt that they are making their workers under-report how much exposure they have received. I have seen/heard that in other reports before. I don’t know if any more unreported deaths have occurred (but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they have).

      I had a very strange thought the other day. I remember this summer that someone posted the link to one of theTEPCO webcam videos because there was a huge number of large crows/ravens all over the place. Those things are scavengers and they are attracted by the carcasses of dead creatures. So something dead must have been in the vicinity. It was probably just an animal/animals, but who knows?

      • Sickputer

        I think the radioactive steam is frying small insects by the billions and the birds are having a field day eating the corpses. Then the birds fly away and crap out most of the radioactivity all across Japan.

  • Dr. McCoy

    G e t t h e h e l l o u t o f t h e r e !

  • Cindy

    The article states that the boys recieved 3 milliseiverts during their lifetime, and it wasn’t going to pose a problem…

    ‘ During their lifetime ‘?

    How do they know the boys won’t be exposed to more radiation ? that is a ridiculous comment …

    did they move to a new area , won’t eat contaminated food … GRRR !!!

    • Al-Chemisto

      And, pray tell, what age did they “assume” these lovely children would live to? 400? 10,000? That averaging just makes my day!

  • StillJill StillJill

    You nailed it Cindy! Remember their new montra? Move around,…radiation can’t find you, right? Why worry about hot spots,…just shuffle your feet over a few ‘clips’, and you’ll be fine. Happy, Happy, Happy!

  • StillJill StillJill

    Yes, that’s the time frame I’m seeing, through my limited intelligence and life’s experience. I guess we might have to ‘eventually’ do what another poster suggested,…break up all info. into two categories,…what happens/happened to the 1)sick, elderly, young, and unborn. And 2). What happens/happened to the strong, healthy people?

    The one to two years ‘sentence’ from me, is directed toward myself and others in that first group.

    I have no frame of reference for person’s within the second group. Their survival will depend on their ‘good health reserves’, something nearly impossible to measure or gauge. Heredity, lifestyle, proximity to hot spot(s),…all the variables will transpire to ‘end’ or ‘extend’ life.

    The posters who say we should live, laugh, love,…win this argument, to my mind!

  • arclight arclight

    if the sea is also contaminated that will also contaminate the land further

    Chris busby mentions sea to air transfer here!! near the end of the video…….

    EIS of the final nuclear waste repository in Sweden – ECRR, prof Chris Busby

    “The video, of the Baltic Sea regional office of the ECRR, draws attention to the fact that the SKB employs the obsolete and erroneous radiation risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP. Prof Chris Busby argues that this risk model, which predicted no harm from the Chernobyl accident and no problems associated with living near nuclear sites has now been overtaken by experimental and epidemiological evidence.
    Astonishingly, the SKB:s EIS barely mentions radiation risk.


    There is one section (3.4, page 37) where the document refers to the ICRP model: however no modelling of dose or exposure is to be found anywhere in any of the documents examined. Even where the radiation exposures are discussed, the EIS makes very erroneous statements and gives misleading information. …..
    The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) model provides means of modifying current dose/risk estimates to compensate for some of the shortcomings of the ICRP. http://www.euradcom.org


  • arclight arclight

    to explain sea to land transfer…this!

    Contaminant passage through the land-ocean interface as seen by ELOISE and IMPACTS
    “An opposing atmospheric transport, from the sea to the land, occurs with sulphur. The coincidence of determining factors can render coastal seas a sufficiently important atmospheric source that in certain areas these emissions can have dominate local terrestrial acidification. ELOISE observations have found higher coastal water concentrations of sulphurous compounds than previously recognised.
    Relevant to global scale environmental change, river plumes transport the greenhouse gases methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide etc. Estuaries/coastal zones also represent a coincidence of factors arising from their land use, drainage, population, industry, etc. which favour the biological production of greenhouse gases.
    The interplay of transport routes can be complex, e.g. with the riverine supply of contaminants to coastal waters which results in gas release to the atmosphere and subsequent transport back to land.

    Contaminants moving from land to sea generally concerns substances of anthropogenic origin. Releases from the sea to the atmosphere conversely often involves naturally occurring contaminants, although their production may be subject to anthropogenic influence.

    Movement in groundwaters of terrestrial origin with subsequent seabed release has received much less attention, but has illustrated the potentially long time scale of contaminant release – decades.”


  • arclight arclight

    and this

    “The land-to-sea transport of mercury has been discussed, and its volatile nature commented. Here the reverse sea-to-land transport is described. Simple observation data on the marine source can be found in the MOE project. Whilst essentially a model evaluation (Schmolke & Petersen, 2003) uses 3 coastal stations for the purpose, allowing areas supplying peak and background levels of observed atmospheric mercury to be estimated. Atlantic and Mediterranean waters are shown to be supersaturated with Hg and thus to emit mercury to the atmosphere (Reschke et al., 2002). This agrees with other opinions that air from the Atlantic and Mediterranean have elevated Hg content, whilst air further from oceans (e.g. over Scandinavia) have low levels (Wängberg et al., 2001). The implication is the potential for sea to land transfer within a coastal strip. Mechanisms are not fully quantified, but a possibility is the over-sea formation of particulate HgCl2. Not only would this form experience higher rates of dry deposition through its large particle size, but scavenging by precipitation would also not be inconsiderable (Petersen et al., 2001). Coastal meteorology in particular could then be expected to be of consequence. A shift to more turbulent air flow as air masses make landfall would encourage dry deposition, and any increase in precipitation would enhance removal.”


  • arclight arclight

    Chris Busby Explains Why Uranium Is Bad For You (Part 1)

    “The presentation was made in February 2008 as part of the public interventions in the environmental assessment of AREVA’s proposed Midwest uranium mine in northern Saskatchewan. Busby was asked to present by the Saskatoon-based Inter-Church Uranium Committee Education Cooperative.”


    Chris Busby Explains Why Uranium Is Bad For You (Part 2)