ScribbleLive

Here this came up as a question recently (NISA report, fukushima.grs.de , page VII-7): “Fukushima Prefecture distributed necessary iodine (pills: about 1.51 million pills (for about 0.75 million people), powder: about 6,100 g (for about 0.12 to 0.18 million people)) to cities, towns and villages with administrative districts within 50 km of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station.”

Another factoid from the report: “Also, from March 26 through March 30 the Nuclear Emergency Response Local Headquarters
implemented a survey on thyroid exposure for infants in Iwaki City, Kawamata Town and Iidate Village in cooperation with Fukushima Prefecture in order to understand more precisely the current exposure dose, particularly the health effects to infants who are highly-sensitive. In its implementation, exposure of infants was measured in areas where residents were instructed to stay in-house or in areas whose equivalent dose in thyroid glands was rated as high by the estimation derived by SPEEDI (announced on March 23), and technical advice was received from the Nuclear Safety Commission on the measuring method. From the results among the 1,080 children from 0 to 15 years old that were surveyed for thyroid exposure, there were no children exceeding the screening level of 0.2 μSv/h (equivalent to 100 mSv as thyroid gland equivalent dose for a 1-year old baby).”

@elainekirk , and here is their policy:
“The Chief of Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters will, on receiving advice from the Nuclear Safety Commission, give instructions to the related cities, towns and villages on the dose of stable iodine by evacuated residents, although the designated cities, towns and villages will distribute stable iodine to residents for administration in the presence of
medical experts. This is due to concerns for side effects associated with the dose administration such as allergies. Stable iodine is stored in the offices of cities, towns and villages and it is necessary to decide on the procedure to precisely distribute the stable iodine to residents in the event of a real evacuation. In this case, because the preliminary distribution of stable iodine to residents is not appropriate, the cities, towns and villages are to adopt necessary measures so that they can securely distribute iodine to their residents according to various types of evacuation as described below. It is also required that the local government do not unnecessarily stir anxiety among residents while keeping them fully informed. ”

Slowly the bad news from Japan are spreading. More and more every day. This was post on Gizmodo Australia : Japanese Nuclear Emergency Director: You Have No Right To A Radiation-Free Life:This footage, from a recent meeting of indignant Japanese citizens and feckless Japanese government types should be a little shocking. Sadly, it’s just more of the same – ineptitude and inaction. By denying the right to avoiding radiation? OK, shocking.
The Tokyo meeting was meant to broach the push to expand the evacuation zone around Fukushima – a zone that’s proven inadequately and dangerously narrow. One Fukushima resident asks, “As other people do, people in Fukushima have the right to avoid the radiation exposure and live a healthy life, too. Don’t you think so?”
A Nuclear Safety Commission Of Japan rep, when pushed to go beyond his canned non-answer, deadpans “I don’t know if they have that right.” The crowd reacts as you would expect when told they nuclear-threatened welfare isn’t a concern. www.gizmodo.com.au

@ elaine, @ lilly, the NISA descriptions do not give enough detail on where, when and who received those pills. As I understand the pills must be taken immediately after the beginning of the release of iodine-131 in order to provide protection.

@all Good Morning...Good Evening...Hello!

@elainekirk , “The Chief of Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters will, on receiving advice from the Nuclear Safety Commission, give instructions to the related cities, towns and villages on the dose of stable iodine by evacuated residents, although the designated cities, towns and villages will distribute stable iodine to residents for administration in the presence of medical experts.” The central gov. seems to absolve itself from its responsibilities.

@lillymunster I think it would have to be casked for transport...

@lillymunster Like you, I've hit the wall a bit as well. Everything that I've run across in document translation comes down to circumstancial inconsistancies. I am still intentional about finishing the translations and presenting the comparison/contrast...

@elainekirk I would hope so! Something tells me that Japan won't let go of its Plu-thermal plans though, it will become a matter of pride (I think).

If I understand the icrp paper correctly, they came to these conclusions. 1) evidence of effect at 10mGy. Strong evidence at 100mGy 2) At low and very low doses there is not enough evidence to definitively show a correlation to cancers (however, see further conclusions). 3) There is no reason to think that there is a low threshold for radiation, and certainly not a 'universal' one. I.E. There's no low dose that doesn't have the potential to adversely effect cells. Even if there were, it wouldn't be a set amount for everyone. (Linear, No Threshold Theory). 4) Some organs seem to be a bit less likely to get cancer at low/very low doses, to include small intestines, bone and skin. 5) Damage to DNA occurs in key genomic regions, and occurs early in the process. 6) Ionizing radiation is capable of producing a unique type of damage where there are multiple lesions close together. 7) Even one track may cause these multiple, close lesions. 8) Since this is not a frequent exposure, there hasn't been strong selective pressure to facilitate the development of good DNA/cell repair mechanisms, as exist for other threats to cell health. Though some of the cell's natural repair mechanisms will eliminate some of the damage. "In particular, a high lower limit attests to the reality of danger associated with a given exposure, and a low upper limit provides assurance as to the relative safety, and presumably the acceptability, of the exposure when seen in the context of other hazards of daily life." www.icrp.org

@elainekirk I think it could be a motivating factor, if KK was not going to use the MOX, and yet Fukushima was intending to move to a 1/3 MOX core in 3 operating cycles. The only thing that puzzles me a bit, is how they would make adjustments to 28 FAs to make them usable in a reactor that was planned to use 32 FAs?