nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry

ICRP, WHO and UNSCEAR and their effect on the Fukushima children

“….the Ordinance on Prevention of Ionizing Radiation Hazards in Japan,
which requires that areas where radiation dose shall not exceed 50mSv/year and 100mSv/5years ….”

Published by nuclear-news.net

By Arclight2011

28 May 2013

Image source ; fukushima-appeal-70-years-high-conference-in-chicago-with-summary

Below are some extracts from the recent report responding to the report that Anand grover compiled in November 2012.  The extracts describe The Japanese Governments responses and requests for amendments. As i read through the document and especially the section at the end of the document, highlighting all the changes that were requested and acted on, it became apparent that the ICRP, WHO and UNSCEAR were quoted.

Doses were not including internal doses of released radionuclide’s. The Japanese Government also noted that they had no interest in specific isotopes such s Strontium 90 .

The normal background level in Japan is said to be 2.1 mSv/y and the USA and Europe are quoted  as being nearly as bad at approx 3 mSv/y, making an extra 1 mSv/y from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan seem normal.

Oddly enough, as i sit here typing i am getting a steady 0.11 mcSv/hr after rain in London (one of the worst polluted cities in Europe because of nuclear MOX processing and waste – NO2 and associated radon Daughters), that gives me a normal background of just under 1 mSv/y. So how do the Japanese (supported by the ICRP and UNSCEAR) work the annual doses out to 3 mSv/y?

Also, according to Safecast citizen radiation monitoring, the levels are more in line with my London reading in many parts of Japan presently. The Japanese officials would have us believe a 3 mSv/y is only 1mSv/y more than background??

So, the citizens of Fukushima and Myagi have three times normal (not including hot spots – A term banned on the Japanese critique) than measured in the “real world” and added to that locals are also more likely to accumulate isotopes through their environment (food, air and water).

It is likely that these areas have statistically higher than the nationally estimated 50 percent of contaminated food (the reason for the lower allowable levels of Cesium in Japan at 100 bq/kg as opposed to the standard 1000 bq/kg elsewhere)

The blood tests that were mentioned may have included the recent chromosome based blood test for damage from ionising radiation that the Japanese government has recently rejected for the People of Fukushima on ethical grounds (It might find illegitimate children) . In this reports response the Japanese representatives do not want any blood tests at all it would seem.

I hope this helps to stimulate some discussion. The children of Fukushima need us to discuss this health issue as the nuclear lobby is having a lot of meetings and not telling anyone. They are changing the rules to suit the nuclear industry and mitigate any future legal claims made against them. No media are challenging this or even reporting it.

The rest of the report s here..

Mission to Japan:
comments by the State on the report of the Special Rapporteur
24  May 2013
[Extracts]

(c) Incorporate validated independent data, including that from the communities, to monitor radiation levels.

Japanese response
Concerning radiation monitoring, the central government has implemented
precise monitoring activities in cooperation with relevant organizations in line with the Overall Coordinated Radiation Monitoring Plan developed by the central government . Under the plan, it is required that the quality and validation of monitoring data taken and provided by relevant organizations should be ensured by making them open to the public. In this regard, the
organizations of radiation monitoring have been required to adhere to the plan described above . The central government has continued to implement radiation monitoring activities with the ensured quality and validation of monitoring data.

79. Regarding decontamination, the Special Rapporteur urges the Government to
adopt the following recommendations

(a)Formulate urgently a clear, time – bound plan to reduce radiation levels to less than 1mSv/year; It is a long – term goal in the areas with less than 20 mSv/year that additional exposure dose would become less than 1 mSv/year.

Japanese response
It is a long-term goal in the areas with less than 20 mSv/year that additional exposure dose would become less than 1 mSv/year.

81.
In relation to compensation and relief, the Special Rapporteur urges the
Government to implement the following recommendations:

(a) Formulate, with the participation of the affected communities, the implementing framework under the Victims Support Law;

Japanese response
The Government of Japan is currently studying it. In the process, we are
listening to the views of victims.

(b) Include cost of reconstruction and restoration of lives within the relief package;

Japanese response
The Government of Japan has taken and will continue to take necessary measures for alleviating the burden on the victims.

One of the corrections to this document on Page 26

“…the Ordinance on Prevention of Ionizing Radiation Hazards in Japan,
which requires that areas where radiation dose exceeds 1.3mSv/quarterly
be designated as controlled zones the radiation exposure dose
Changed to…
“…shall not exceed 50mSv/year and 100mSv/5years…”

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-41-Add5_en.pdf

One of the documents  recommended by the ICRP to prove their case and edit Anand Grovers report.

The annals of the ICRP Special Japanese nuclear disaster edition

http://www.icrp.org/docs/p111%28special%20free%20release%29.pdf

About these ads

May 31, 2013 - Posted by | Uncategorized

8 Comments »

  1. You must remember that geiger counters cannot detect radon, the major contributor to exposure in the US and Europe. Also, background radiation levels rise after precipitation -the rain or snow absorbing radon higher up in the air and bringing it down to the ground – so I would not use the reading after rainfall as a standard. If you check the “Natural Radiation Atlas of Europe” you will see that 3mSv per year is pretty average for Europe, with Finland having around 8mSv per year. Most of this exposure is from Radon.

    Comment by Eamon | May 30, 2013 | Reply

    • Radon Alpha and Beta (Bismouth and polonium) and gamma from Radon so giegers can measure radon increases)
      Totnes is the highest at ) 0.13 mcSv/h
      or just over 1 mSv/y

      thats a fact
      even Criirad france has to note the Radon NORM on its graphs
      Finland does not have those levels of dose on the eurdep map that measures Gamma as well as individual daughters in beta and alpha
      They also measure for
      cesium, iodines and many other isotopes
      looking at page 4 of your link it shows most of finland comparable with totnes
      only a small part of finland (by the lakes) has heavy radon but is all this radon natural? we get alot of radon in the uk from MOX processing.. as well as NO2.. in fact, one of the worst levels in europe.. NORM spikes are removed in the UK unlike CRIIRAD in france who note them at least.. The Uk covers this up because of the increased emmissions from sellafield since 2006 or 2007
      So most of europe has below or just above 1 mSv/y as far as i can see

      i have an inspector alert
      it is very accurate and responsive
      i also have other gieger types too
      peace

      Comment by arclight2011 | May 30, 2013 | Reply

      • Well, the Natural Radiation Map of Europe is in the peer-reviewed journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry. And there’s more:

        “The annual effective dose equivalent for the average member of the UK population arising from all sources is 2.5 mSv, to which exposure of the lungs by radon and its daughters contributes about half”

        – Essentials Of Medical Geology: Impacts Of The Natural Environment On Public Health, page 230

        “The average person in Europe UK receives an annual effective radiation dose of 2.8 millisieverts”

        – Radon: sources, health risks and hazard mapping, J D Appleton, British Geological Survey

        Feel free to disregard these and use your commercial geiger counters, obviously all the scientists are involved in this conspiracy you have uncovered.

        As for your geiger counters, they are not suitable for measuring radon gas, that’s a standard in the field. Check out the abstract of the conference paper “World History Of Radon Research And Measurement From The Early 1900’s To Today”

        Comment by Eamon | May 31, 2013

  2. Phew!
    just been supping a cuppa tea and pondering the wonderful world of statistics and pretty diagrams and graphs.. UNSCEAR etc have some cool graphics specialists imo

    As to the average as opposed to median data shows on your euro radon map an average of 200 bq/m3 for the UK for example. However if we get a median statistic from the UK report measuring actual homes the actual figure (and the discrepancy in my gieger readings imo ) of the majority of peoples homes is a tenth of what the “average” would have us believe.. High radon areas = low population. So real data gives me a clue as to the real measurements.
    this accounts for 55 percent (average statistic)or 5 percent (real measurements) of the total dose in the UK as it effects humans and not sheep :) (though i sometimes fail to distinguish the difference).

    As to the effectiveness of the inspector alert in tracing radon and its progeny it can be done!.. it is very possible that while in its 22 year dormant state as Pblead 210 that it might be difficul though,,(just prior to a wonderful 120 day polonium 210 life :0 – (not very much talked about at EDF`s processing plants :) for some reason?)

    Shame i couldnt have pointed this out here :) .. On the comments, i was blocked from answering.. i am glad you turned up!

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/05/28/lifestyle/281_anti-nukes-anger-at-authority-is-at-a-critical-mass/#.UafNZddx0xD

    Extracts from damming evidence of statistical exuberance imo :)

    On the basis of the results, the mean measured radon concentration taken over a period of a year in UK dwellings was estimated to be around 20 Bq m–3 (Wrixon et al, 1988), and the median measured radon concentration was lower, at around 10 Bq m–3. The distribution of measured radon concentrations was found to be approximately log-normal (Gunby et al, 1993), as in most other large surveys of indoor radon concentrations (see Figure 2.1). The distribution implied that the measured radon concentration would be above 200 Bq m–3 in 0.4% of the UK housing stock, or approximately 100,000 houses.

    , it must be remembered that radon concentrations are variable and that maps indicate only where high concentrations are likely. Adjacent and apparently similar homes can have quite different radon concentrations which can be determined only by measurement.

    The review by Wrixon et al (1988) considered concentrations of radon and its decay products in the UK outdoor air. Several authors have presented data
    which indicate that the mean outdoor radon concentration in the UK is about 4 Bq m–3. This is lower than that in many other countries. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation quotes a world average of 10 Bq m-3 but with a wide range from 1–100 Bq m–3 (UNSCEAR, 2000)

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1243838496865

    look forward to your reply!
    many thanks, once again for getting back to me!
    look forward to more! :) and another cup of tea of course
    namaste!

    Comment by arclight2011 | May 31, 2013 | Reply

    • the gieger can also easily pick up bismouth.. hence, all the hot gieger readings from rain! imo

      Comment by arclight2011 | May 31, 2013 | Reply

  3. […] WHO and UNSCEAR and their effect on the Fukushima children http://nuclear-news.net/2013/05/31/icrp-who-and-unscear-and-their-effect-on-the-fukushima-children/   *Japanese rebuff Human rights council with lies!! – 24 May 2013 […]

    Pingback by URGENT PETITION: For Protecting Human Right of Fukushima Disaster Victims « nuclear-news | June 2, 2013 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 863 other followers

%d bloggers like this: