A quick read of the ICRP report makes me question the post from a blog that is avowedly anti-nuclear energy. Particularly, there’s this passage from “Report of ICRP Task Group 84 on Initial Lessons Learned from the Nuclear Power Plant Accident in Japan”:
In the aftermath of the accident, claims were raised by groups and the media that the actual risk of radiation exposure is much higher than the nominal risk coefficients recommended by ICRP. In particular, the dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor used by ICRP for estimating radiation risk at low doses were questioned in the media, notably, during a television show with a wide viewing audience in Japan.
The substantial biological, epidemiological, and ethical foundations supporting the basic notion of the nominal risk coefficients used for radiological protection purposes were misunderstood by the public at large in Japan, and the media unfortunately contributed to this misunderstanding. The concept of a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) was notably not understood; in part because its wording is somewhat convoluted, even in English, but particularly after translation into Japanese and other languages. Following a review of the biological and epidemiological information on the health risks attributable to ionising radiation, the new ICRP Recommendations reconfirm previous estimates of the combined detriment due to excess cancer and heritable effects, which remain unchanged at around 5% per sievert of effective dose. This value is coherent and consistent with international estimates of radiation risk, e.g. the estimates of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and the claims that radiation risks have been underestimated by ICRP are thus not substantiated.
This just goes to show – read the report, and don’t trust a blog too lazy to quote!Q
November 25th, 2012
Some data has been released about the external radiation monitoring program going on in Fukushima. These programs involved issuing glass badges to school children then periodically handing them in for testing. This does not record the children’s internal radiation doses from what they breathe in, eat or drink. Those levels are in addition to what is recorded by the badges.
What the new round of testing found is that 76% of school children in Nihonmatsu are above the government goal of 1 mSv/year with just their external radiation exposure. The government goal is based on the ICRP guidelines but many consider the ICRP levels to be too high. Some actually saw their levels go up compared to their 2011 levels. One researcher assumed this is due to children being allowed outside more now than before.
As the disaster evolves people are still struggling to understand how and…
View original post 28 more words