If you don't subscribe to the various news feeds that I do, I bet you have not heard this story.
I've talked about the lack of evidence that low dose radiation, even over a long term, is harmful. In the light of this historical research by University of Massachusetts environmental toxicologist Edward Calabrese, this lack of evidence makes even more sense.
Unfortunately it not just people with pocketbook interests that cook their scientific data. People with strong beliefs in various areas do it too.
In the case of nuclear power, and in fact, nuclear everything, it has a long, long history.
Calabrese, whose own research had not been able to show the same damage from low dose radiation that Nobel Laureate Muller showed, obtained Muller's papers, which were recently declassified. Muller's original data does not support the Linear No Threshold Theory.
And what he found was that Muller lied about his data in his zeal to stop atmospheric atomic testing.
It was a good cause, but the falsified science has affected our entire regulatory structure and assumptions about the health effects of radiation.
Calabrese's work was published in a peer-reviewed journal recently.
http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/newsreleases/articles/136706.php
UMass Amherst Researcher Points to Suppression of Evidence on Radiation Effects by 1946 Nobel Laureate
Sept. 20, 2011
AMHERST, Mass. - University of Massachusetts Amherst environmental toxicologist Edward Calabrese, whose career research shows that low doses of some chemicals and radiation are benign or even helpful, says he has uncovered evidence that one of the fathers of radiation genetics, Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller, knowingly lied when he claimed in 1946 that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.
Calabrese’s interpretation of this history is supported by letters and other materials he has retrieved, many from formerly classified files. He published key excerpts this month in Archives of Toxicology and Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis.
Muller was awarded the 1946 Nobel Prize in medicine for his discovery that X-rays induce genetic mutations. This helped him call attention to his long-time concern over the dangers of atomic testing. Muller’s intentions were good, Calabrese points out, but his decision not to mention key scientific evidence against his position has had a far-reaching impact on our approach to regulating radiation and chemical exposure.
Calabrese uncovered correspondence from November 1946 between Muller and Curt Stern at the University of Rochester about a major experiment that had recently evaluated fruit fly germ cell mutations in Stern’s laboratory. It failed to support the linear dose-response model at low exposure levels, but in Muller’s speech in Oslo a few weeks later he insisted there was "no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold." To Calabrese, this amounts to deliberate concealment and he says Stern raised no objection.
Calabrese adds, "This isn’t an academic debate, it’s really practical, because all of our rules about chemical and low-level radiation are based on the premises that Muller and the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) committee adopted at that time. Now, after all these years, it’s very hard when people have been frightened to death by this dogma to persuade them that we don’t need to be scared by certain low-dose exposures."
There's more, and it's worth a read.
This is data that has strong application to the fear people are feeling in Japan, even those that are in areas where contamination is not sufficient to cause any real risk.
So to reiterate the usual handout that the Japanese MEXT appends to its releases on radiation, interspersed with some comments by me:
The maximum difference between the average background levels of the different prefectures 400 microSieverts per year.
If you travel from Tokyo to New York, you will absorb a dose of 200 microSieverts
ETA, Should pilots and stewardesses be forbidden from flying more than 5 one way flights from Tokyo to New York per year? After all, that would be 1,000 microSieverts per year. In fact, are women allowed to be stewardesses at all in Japan? Do you remember when women were fired at Daiichi, back in the relative beginning of this?
Proposed limit for the general public 1,000 microSieverts per year
ETA does it make any sense whatsoever to have a limit that a lot more than 50% of the world fails, just naturally? Should all the children be evacuated from over half the world?, not to mention all the women who might be pregnant?
Global Average dose from background radiation 2,400 microSieverts per year
A CT Scan 6,900 microSieverts per year
[Does it make any sense to treat medical imaging procedures as somehow not to be considered? If you believe 1000 microSieverts per year is bad for a child, isn't it unconscionable to allow a child to have a CT scan?]
Radiation dose in Guayapara, Brazil 10,000 microSieverts per year
[ETA these people show no more susceptibility to cancer than people living anywhere else]
Dose originally set by the Japanese authorities to force evacuation outside of the original evacuation zone 20,000 microSieverts per year.
Normal dose for radiation workers allowed 50,000 microSieverts per year
[ETA Normal dose in parts of Ramshar, Iran, 77,000 microSieverts per year These people also show no more susceptibility to cancer than people living elsewhere]
Emergency allowed dose for radiation workers 250,000 microSieverts per year
[ETA Limit below which it is impossible to show any effect from low dose radiation 100,000 microSieverts per year]
100,000 microSieverts per year.
There are 8766 hours in a year.
That's 11.41 microSieverts per hour.
At Guayapara, Brazil, everyone gets 1.14 microSieverts per hour every day of their lives.
In Ramshar, Iran, 8.8 microSieverts per hour.
People in Japan getting 1.14 microSieverts per hour will be getting only about 70% of that after 2 years when the Cesium 134 decays to half its amount. Guayapara gets that every day, every year.
Just to put this in perspective.
So here's the MEXT data:
Outside of Fukushima, no data is being shown by prefecture by MEXT that's current
This data is not that current. It goes back to August 7th.
(this is a 16 page report), but I have only listed sites with 1.0 microSievert per hour or higher
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/08/07/1309508_080718.pdf
Ssites in their list that should be of significant concern, as they are more than 100,000 microSieverts per year, are 4 sites in Namie.
Futaba county Namie town Akougi Kunugidaira 33.0 microSieverts per hour (24 km north and west of Fukushima)
These three sites will be below 100,000 milliSieverts per year in 8 years without decontamination
Futaba county Namie town Akougi Kutsukubo 22 microSieverts per hour
Futaba county Namie town Akougi Ishikoya 20.4 microSieverts per hour
Futaba county Namie town Akougi Teshichiro 18.9 microSieverts per hour
These two sites will be below 100 microSieverts in 2 years.
Futaba county Namie town Akougi Teshichiro 15.6 microSieverts per hour
Soma County Iitate Village 15.3 microSieverts per hour
Less than 100,000 microSieverts per year, but still more than Ramshar, Iran
Futaba county Namie town Akougi Shiraoi 10.7 microSieverts per hour
More than Guayapara, but less than Ramshar, Iran
Soma county Iitate village Komiya Kariyaniwa 7.6 miroSieverts per hour
Futaba county Namie town Shimotsushima Kayabuka 7.4 microSieverts per hour
Soma county Iitate village Komiya 6.6 microSieverts per hour
Futaba county Namie town Tsushima Nakaoki 6.2 microSieverts per hour
Soma county Iitate village Komiya 5.5 microSieverts per hour
Soma county Iitate village Komiya Nodegami 5.1 microSieverts per hour
Futaba county Namie town Tsushima Taikougi 4.3 microSieverts per hour
At or below the 20, 000 microSieverts per hour that was the criteriorn for evacuating Iitate Village, etc.
Date City, Ryozen town 2.8 microSieverts per hour
Minami Soma city Haramachi ward Ohara Daihata 2.0 microSieverts per hour
Date County Kawamata town 1.9 microSieverts per hour (other readings in Kawamat are below 1 microSieverts per hour)
Date City, Ryozen town 1.8 microSieverts per hour
Motomiya city Wada 1.8 microSieverts per hour
Koriyama city Toyota town 1.7 microSieverts per hour
Minami Soma city Haramachi ward Baba Shimonakanouch 1.4 microSieverts per hour
Fukushima city Onami Takinoiri 1.4 microSieverts per hour
Futaba County Katsurao village Kaminogawa 1.4 microSieverts per hour
Koriyama city Tsurumidan 1.3 microSieverts per hour
Iwaki City 1.2 microSieverts per hour
Tamura city Miyakoji town Iwaizawa 1.2 microSieverts per hour
Equal to or less than Guayapara, Brazil. This includes everywhere else that is currently not evacuated, and a lot of the places that are evacuated, including a lot of the area around Daini
Nihonmatsu city Kamikawasaki Itouchi 1.0 microSieverts per hour
Koriyama city Saikon 1.0 microSieverts per hour
Futaba county Kawauchi village Shimokawauchi 1.0 microSieverts per hour
And while we're looking at this, the whole
Daini site, 5 km from Fukushima Daiichi, is at or below 1.7 microSieverts per hour these days.
Seven peripheral sites (1.7, 1.2, 1.7, 1.5, 1.4, 0.9, 1.0) microSieverts per hour
And some of the sites at Daiichi's border are not that unhealthy (and some are very unhealthy)
Eight peripheral sites ( 5, 21, 13, 12, 15, 34, 100, 77 ) microSieverts per hour
Close to the reactors, it's still very bad. It's important to know what levels are really dangerous and which aren't: when people are afraid of everything, they either do nothing, or treat dangerous things and innocuous things as equivalent.
Neither result is good.
Office Building
295 microSieverts per hour
Main Gate
35 microSieverts per hour
West Gate
11 microSieverts per hour