Japan Earthquake

Japan Earthquake | Page 2154

@RBeaner is there a gy equivalent of the 35msv?
by elainekirk 8/15/2011 11:48:12 AM

@RBeaner Well, but even if that was what Dr Yamashita was talking about he wouldn't use those expressions and he wouldn't tell incorrect information about radioactive exposure. Unless he's lost his mind. I'm not arguing about the importance of the mind set in our overall health. We know mind and body are interrelated and interfere with one another's physiology.
by Pedro Jesus 8/15/2011 11:48:14 AM

www.llrc.org radioprotectiveprotocols.wordpress.com
@ all, I was going to post a couple of sites concerning dose risks, and things that can be done
by dean 8/15/2011 11:49:32 AM

@dean ty dean just reading
by elainekirk 8/15/2011 11:50:04 AM

Maybe I spend waaay too much time reading Japanese news. This guy was all over the more mainstream news a few months back when he started his 100msv is safe campaign. I remember seeing this measure way back when and people were scratching their heads. No this isn't something a few fringe groups cooked up to smear the guy. He made these statements to the media. If you think were wrong in the accessment please take some time and do some web searching on the mainstream Japanese media sources.
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 11:53:12 AM

The Japanese authorities are publishing data on contamination levels in the form of hourly dose rates from Cesium137. It is therefore possible to calculate the cancer yield using the same criteria as used by Tondel and colleagues in a robust but conservative study of cancer in Sweden after Chernobyl. Sweden is known to have been contaminated with Uranium fuel although fallout mapping generally used data for Cesium, just as in Japan now, exactly 25 years later. Tondel and colleagues found an 11% increase in cancer incidence for each 100 kiloBecquerels Cesium137 on each square metre of ground. The cancers were expressed (diagnosed) in a ten year period;..........A QUOTE FROM THE RADIOPROTECTIVE LINK
by dean 8/15/2011 11:53:40 AM

Accusations on Yamashita aside the study is crap. It does nothing to actually help people deal with their health. It treats them as guinea pigs for his cellular cancer research that is highly theoretical and won't result in any direct improvement of the lives of the people impacted by the disaster. This is just his new cohort to study.
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 11:55:30 AM

@dean Oh Dean I could kiss you! That is exactly what we need!
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 11:56:51 AM

@lillymunster But if you take things out of context it makes them look a lot worse than they are. There is no context in that video. We don't know where nor where it happened and, apart from the subtitles added to the video, we have no idea what he is talking about because none of us can speak fluent Japanese. I'd like someone who actually understands Japanese to attempt translating that to English without looking at the subtitles.
by Pedro Jesus 8/15/2011 11:57:59 AM

read through those links to pull out useful data and information @ lilly, when I found it I thought... lilly will do cartwheels
by dean 8/15/2011 11:58:10 AM

well done Majj on the interview
by dean 8/15/2011 11:58:58 AM

@dean That was not me . I just copy and past the text of the web page. But after I post it I realise that look like that was my interview ;-)))
by Majj 8/15/2011 12:01:20 PM

www.llrc.org @ lilly
by dean 8/15/2011 12:01:42 PM

@Pedro Jesus I think the better method would be to find some similar unedited video of Yamashita and have someone who can translate do a literal for ys.
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 12:02:31 PM

Majj, I know you could do that with Gunderson so maybe we better invite him to come and get interviewed... :)
by dean 8/15/2011 12:02:43 PM

@elainekirk for external, most gamma exposure (like cs137), the gy and sievert is the same thing (so .65 gy = .65 sievert= 650 mSv). for internal it depends on the specific isotope or nuclide involved.
by RBeaner 8/15/2011 12:04:15 PM

Full text of the Tondell study in Sweden www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 12:05:20 PM

I had a thought on the radiation levels this morning. The US issued protocol changes for CT scans a year or so ago where they stated the risk was much higher than originally thought and people should limit their CT scan exposure to fewer scans and only when medically necessary. It was due to cancer risks. How does this compare to environmental exposures?
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 12:11:04 PM

@lillymunster I agree. But if you trust my instinct (was I ever wrong before regarding fake news?), I think that translation on the video clip has been manipulated. The video itself has been manipulated. It's a cut and paste of different statements on at least two different situations. I even suspect one of the interventions as nothing to do with Fukushima nuclear crisis. In my opinion, the video should be unpinned until credibility can be evaluated. The only sources I've seen were personal blogs of dubious credibility, some of which have already been exposed here before, at different times, for spreading misinformation. The man works for the World Health Organization. If that intervention were to be true this should be exposed to the news agencies around the world. So we must confirm if those declarations are as they seem on the edited video. We need to know in what context what was said.
by Pedro Jesus 8/15/2011 12:12:07 PM

yamashita has put his name to this
jnci.oxfordjournals.org
Risk of Thyroid Cancer After Exposure to
131
I in
Childhood
by elainekirk 8/15/2011 12:12:24 PM

@Pedro Jesus He had a dubious reputation before Fukushima. The guys past and current work has nothing to do with public health. All the over the top statements he made in that video were in the mainstream news months back.
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 12:14:06 PM

@lillymunster And despite that he was later appointed VP of Fukushima Medical University? I find that hard to believe.
by Pedro Jesus 8/15/2011 12:16:04 PM

the who has lost its credibility when it made a bow before iaea on the chernobyl statistics.
by Edano 8/15/2011 12:16:11 PM

bjr.birjournals.org _risc/ @ lilly,, some more information
by dean 8/15/2011 12:16:46 PM

www.biostat.pitt.edu www.biostat.pitt.edu
by dean 8/15/2011 12:17:54 PM

@Edano Assessments of Chernobyl statistics are highly disputed in different areas of science. One cannot say someone loses credibility only because he has an opinion that is contrary to the one we believe in.
by Pedro Jesus 8/15/2011 12:18:00 PM

time to head to work.. be back in a bit..
by dean 8/15/2011 12:18:33 PM

@elainekirk That oxford journals piece looks good, credible and well designed study of thyroid and iodine. I see no fault with that study. It is completely mainstream.
by RBeaner 8/15/2011 12:18:38 PM

Can anyone clarify "effective dose"? Is that same as cumulative dose?

by lillymunster 8/15/2011 12:19:29 PM

@RBeaner exactly so why is he now saying radiation is safe !!
by elainekirk 8/15/2011 12:19:44 PM

@elainekirk thyroid issue, specially kids, is a different issue than low level external radiation.
by RBeaner 8/15/2011 12:20:42 PM

video search on Shunichi Yamashita: www.google.de
by Edano 8/15/2011 12:22:02 PM

Ex-SKF has direct transcripts of Yamashita's "talks" ex-skf.blogspot.com
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 12:22:26 PM

@lillymunster effective dose is a way of correlating or describing a localized (internal organ or say skin or hand only) exposure to a Whole Body dose. Often called the committed effective dose.
by RBeaner 8/15/2011 12:23:57 PM

@RBeaner I believe iirc that it is made clear in that paper that previous to chernobyl there was no data for children exposed as in Chernobyl
and also that there is no study on low level ongoing exposure in children so unless there have been hundreds of children exposed as in fuku betweebn chernobyl and fuku that we dont know about then he should not be telling fuku parents that it is safe!!!
by elainekirk 8/15/2011 12:24:05 PM

More on Yamashita citing mainstream news sources. Ex-SKF has a long track record of accurate translation, he's bilingual, not using google translate ex-skf.blogspot.com
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 12:24:08 PM

@RBeaner so it is over a time period?
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 12:24:23 PM

Fukushima Parents Seek Dismissal of Radiation Advisor www.google.de

Journalist to Sue Prof. Yamashita, Minister of www.google.de
by Edano 8/15/2011 12:24:47 PM

@lillymunster so it is over a time period?... If I was a nuclear worker, and I inhaled radioactivity, they would do a whole body count, analyze the radioactivity inside me and use formulae to assign the ENTIRE dose I will recieve (maybe over a month or more) to me now, so my limits could be adjusted. All the dose expected over time, would be assigned to me now.
by RBeaner 8/15/2011 12:27:49 PM

@elainekirk Good point there.
by Pedro Jesus 8/15/2011 12:27:57 PM

@Edano back soon just gonna whoop and jump around in merry fashion whilst making coffee
by elainekirk 8/15/2011 12:28:36 PM

@Pedro Jesus ty
by elainekirk 8/15/2011 12:28:43 PM

@RBeaner thanks! makes more sense now, wanted to make sure I was interpreting properly. The Tonden study is pretty good. One of the few that isn't dry as dust to read.
by lillymunster 8/15/2011 12:30:31 PM

@elainekirk I believe iirc ... Correct, no large scale exposure to I131, that is why this was groundbreaking study on thyroid issues. The only significant effect found from chernobyl was alot of thyroid cancer and very small amount of other cancers. Therefore predominant concern early in nuke accident is Iodine and mainly for kids.
by RBeaner 8/15/2011 12:30:42 PM

fukushima.physikblog.eu
"Estimated amount of radioactive material released into the atmosphere over the time period covered by the analysis (Bq)" [NISA]
the right column is the sum of all 3 reactors
www.nsc.go.jp
by Edano via Fukushima.physikblog.eu 8/15/2011 12:33:58 PM