Published: July 18th, 2012 at 12:59 pm ET
|
(.pdf) Thyroid doses for evacuees from the Fukushima nuclear accident
Shinji Tokonami, Masahiro Hosoda, Suminori Akiba, Atsuyuki Sorimachi, Ikuo Kashiwakura, Mikhail Balonov
Published July 12, 2012
We made I-131 activity measurements in the thyroid for examinees from two different areas. Seventeen were residents in Tsushima District of Namie Town, heavily contaminated with radioactive materials released from the crippled plant. Forty five were those evacuated from coastal areas including Minami-soma City located to the north of Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant. We measured activity in the thyroid during the period from April 12th to 16th, 2011…
The maximum I-131 activity detected in the thyroid of an adult was 1.5 kBq. Assuming the inhalation exposure took place for 4 hours on the afternoon of March 15th (see above), we estimated that this person could inhale as much as 85 kBq of I-131. Using the thyroid activity and breathing rate, the maximum atmospheric I-131 concentration was estimated to be 23 kBq m. In our data analysis, we did not consider I-132 exposure due to lack of information.
“We did not consider I-132 exposure due to lack of information”
>> Information:
- Absorbed radiation dose of iodine-132 was 10 times higher than iodine-131 in Northern Japan after Fukushima meltdowns -- Plus iodine-132 is 9 times more 'effective' at irradiating thyroid
- Asahi: Iodine-132 not considered in tests showing high thyroid radiation levels in Fukushima residents -- Dose could be much greater
Published: July 18th, 2012 at 12:59 pm ET
|
sending...
No way to know. It's all guesswork. One hot particle can find you, where ever you are.
Report Comment
Hot particles do not discriminate in any nationalist way..
Report Comment
so in the first three months the cumulative dose was actually 393 milisievert when taking iodine 132 into account and the iodine 132 is 9 times more effective at damaging the thyroid…
heres some lies from nature magazine
Thyroid doses for evacuees from the Fukushima nuclear accident
Shinji Tokonami, Masahiro Hosoda, Suminori Akiba, Atsuyuki Sorimachi, Ikuo Kashiwakura & Mikhail Balonov
Received 19 June 2012 Accepted 28 June 2012 Published 12 July 2012
".. Here we report for the first time extensive measurements of the exposure to I-131 revealing I-131 activity in the thyroid of 46 out of the 62 residents and evacuees measured. The median thyroid equivalent dose was estimated to be 4.2 mSv and 3.5 mSv for children and adults, respectively, much smaller than the mean thyroid dose in the Chernobyl accident (490 mSv in evacuees). Maximum thyroid doses for children and adults were 23 mSv and 33 mSv, respectively…"
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120712/srep00507/full/srep00507.html
490mSv evacuation for belarus etc
393 mSv NO evacuation for the citizens of fukushima and their CHILDREN!!
NATURE MAG IS RUBBISH….. UNSUBSCRIBE NOW!!
Report Comment
BARBECUED from within – good luck with that outcome.
Report Comment
Japanese Government criminal nuke apologists have sold out the public once again by making certain that no biopsies are performed on Fukuized children with enlarged thyroids. Next, the so-called medical establishment will not be testing thyroid cancers for their radiation load even after thyroid cancers actually kill these children. So the ONLY information available is from academic and government scientists/shills/sellouts and is based on lowball "estimated thyroid equivalent dose" based on "assumed atmospheric I-131 concentration", blah, blah, blah. No real data to base their study on, because TEP.gov has made certain that no data is available. No data for I-132 (though I-132 dose was 10X higher than I-131). Based on 4 hours (when these people have been experiencing Fukuiodine for more than 16 months.)
Now, the academics who did this study may mean well. And if they mean well, I believe they could be doing a much better job if they started to collect some actual data on which to base their studies, instead of using estimates and assumptions. Or they might be a part of the paid coverup, with funding from government or nuke industry. If you still live in Japan, begin collecting obits, monitor radiation daily. When people in your neighborhood or town die, record what they died from. Go to the funeral service and ask the family. Document your illness and death. All you will get from Government and Academia is criminal coverup lowball lies.
Report Comment
That is evidence for your speculation about iodine 132.
Iodine 131 half life is 9 days, so after 16 month there is only 1e-17 of it has left.
Your statement is pure speculation and opinion, without any support. Such kind of speculation, with inventing imaginable conspiracy is called conspiracy theories.
If you can prove your statement, when I'm listening.
Report Comment
Iodine-131 on the increase http://optimalprediction.com/wp/iodine-131-on-the-increase/#comment-5
There has been quite a bit of support for the existence of biased research, especially on the effects of radiation conducted by MIT affiliated researchers
See Goddard's Journal on MIT No Evacuations Study
http://www.iangoddard.com/journal.htm
Report Comment
Right, dunno, when you are listening, you would know that Philipupnorth is quite seasoned with nuclear energy. If you want a conversation with Tepco, the queen of england,japan gov't or W.H.O , why come here? and insult a seasoned member by questioning their knowledge? I assume you are knowledgeable as well, if you do more research and weed through the BS. This has been the most informative forum.
Report Comment
in fairness to 'dunno', i think the intended word was 'then', not 'when'.
i like having 'dunno' around, stirs up the convictions
let's be kind to opposition arguments, it's good to sharpen our talons.
@dunno, i did leave a reply and question on your suggestion that 300 years is okay to pollute …
http://enenews.com/large-outbreak-of-jellyfish-swarm-japans-only-restarted-nuclear-plant-may-delay-full-operation-of-reactor/comment-page-1#comment-269874
Report Comment
That is your sources, how much they are reliable?
Maybe your source is rubbish? How you have determine, that Nature, which is one of the most respected journal, is rubbish.
That is your credentials?
Report Comment
It is indeed unfortunate that leading scientific journals such as Nature and Scientific American would publish biased research, but that have been proven to the the case
(although certainly not all they publish is biased)
For explanations of how bias in science occurs see:
See Bending Science by McGarty and Wagner (Harvard Univ Press)
See Doubt is their Product by Michales (Oxford Univ press)
Report Comment
hi dunno
heres anorther rubbish article by this sarc{"prestigious"}/sarc journal..
what say you?? did you like the strontium tea article??
one lump or two
Report Comment
link to another rubbish article by nature (courtesy of advertising revenue ref WPP ogilvy and maher {cheques in at the end of the month- industry standard).)
http://enenews.com/now-35-8-of-fukushima-children-have-thyroid-cysts-or-nodules/comment-page-1#comment-271828
Report Comment