WSJ: Many in Fukushima exposed to radiation well above permitted level, new research shows — “Survey did NOT look at internal exposure”

Published: December 13th, 2011 at 10:20 am ET
By

13 comments


Many In Fukushima Exposed To Radiation Above Permitted Levels -Survey, Wall Street Journal by Yuka Hayashi, Dec. 13, 2011:

  • Official survey released Tuesday
  • By the Fukushima Prefecture local government
  • Looked at the cumulative external radiation exposure
  • In the four months following the March 11
  • Residents of Namie, Iitate and part of Kawamata towns
  • Towns are not the closest to the troubled plant

Breakdown

  • Survey of 1,589 residents
  • 998 residents were less than 1 millisievert
  • 549 people were within the range between 1 and 5 millisieverts
  • 38 people in the 5-10 millisievert band
  • Four residents received exposure of at least 10 millisieverts
  • Highest dose at 14.5 millisieverts

Compare [Emphasis Added]

  • Hundreds of Fukushima residents were exposed to radiation well above the level permitted for the general public
  • Confirming the accident’s broad impact on local communities

Contrast

  • No residents were exposed to radiation above levels tolerated during nuclear emergencies
  • They were well below the 20 millisievert threshold the government sets for forced evacuation of residents in nuclear emergencies

Shunichi Yamashita, vice president of Fukushima Medical University and one of the prefecture’s senior nuclear advisors

  • Latest result indicated the accident’s “impact on the health of the general public is extremely small”

Last sentence of article… though most important

The survey did not look at internal exposure–radiation taken into human body through contaminated air, water or food.

Published: December 13th, 2011 at 10:20 am ET
By

13 comments

Related Posts

  1. High internal radiation exposure detected in young children — 16 people with internal exposure over 1 millisievert October 22, 2011
  2. 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
  3. Gov’t kept child radiation survey secret — Thyroid glands of Iwaki kids exposed to doses up to 35 millisieverts in March alone — Headquarters didn’t want to alarm families February 22, 2012
  4. “Highest Level Yet”: Soaring cesium level in Iitate soil, survey finds — So radioactive it would have to be buried in ferroconcrete partitions -Kyodo March 19, 2012
  5. 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

13 comments to WSJ: Many in Fukushima exposed to radiation well above permitted level, new research shows — “Survey did NOT look at internal exposure”

  • Captain Quark Captain Quark

    I don’t see how a nuclear reactor with tons of highly radioactive material exploding could possibly cause anyone in the surrounding vicinity to be exposed to radiation. Pish posh. Flimshaw. Terrorism….

  • Whoopie Whoopie

    Jaczko and the four other NRC panel members will appear before Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday
    ANYONE KNOW IF THIS WILL BE TELEVISED?

  • Bobby1

    The residents of Fukushima will be fine as long as they don’t eat, drink or breathe.

  • goathead goathead

    The mad thing is, they treat this kind of accident as if the threat of radiation only comes from the nuclear reactor! That its all about relative distance! The fact is we now have in effect, trillions of miniature nuclear rectors blown all around the planet in the form of radioactive particles! The threat is now from every angle and its practically invisible as well. Geiger counters will only pick up certain types of radiation so we are constantly dabbling with a sense of false security! What to do?

  • PayAttention

    !!! And if the DOE has its way, you’re going to have smaller nuclear reactors all over the place

    “Chu Touts Small Module Reactors as Answer to Nuclear Hazards”

    “Conventional nuclear reactors may not be safe enough to operate near cities—if you take Energy Secretary Steven Chu at his word—but small module reactors are “much, much safer,” he said at a Pew Environment Group forum in Washington this afternoon.”

    !!! Note that CHU says conventional reactors may not be safe near cities

    Well, read this:

    Among the 100 most populous U.S. cities on the new census map, 26 have a nuclear plant within 50 miles: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia (3 different plants nearby), Phoenix, San Diego, Fort Worth, Charlotte (2 plants), Detroit, Baltimore, Boston (2 plants), Washington, Virginia Beach and Norfolk, Omaha, Raleigh and Durham, Miami, Cleveland, Minneapolis and St. Paul (2 plants), New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Toledo (2 plants), Newark, Baton Rouge, and Rochester, N.Y.”

    116 MILLION Americans who live within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear power plant !

    The modular reactors are more dangerous, imo, because:

    1. they use smaller containment buildings !
    2. they’ll string as many together as is needed in an area !

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/03/23/chu-touts-small-module-reactors-as-the-answer-to-nuclear-hazards/

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42555888/ns/us_news-life/t/nuclear-neighbors-population-rises-near-us-reactors/

  • pure water

    I would like to know more about the methodology of this survey. Did they just ask questions and refer them to tepco data?
    http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112090007

  • pure water

    I tried to find more about this survey and just get confused. No details on what exactly has been done. Several sourses with different conclusions.

    • or-well

      As per your nice link, it’s a pilot for a 30 year study of estimated external exposure levels for the Prefectures’ population.

      30 years.
      Estimated.
      External.
      With who knows what protocols.
      Done by an independent international body ?
      I think not !

      I wonder if they’re testing water wells ?

  • pure water

    They do not explain their methodology in details. And internal exposure is not included most probably. They avoid this topic and we know the reasons.

  • jimbojamesiv

    Yamashita is playing fast and loose with the facts, it seems to me.

    If people were detected with 4, 5 or 10 millisieverts four months after the accident, then they’ve surpassed the annual “emergency” limit of 20 millisieverts.