ScribbleLive

@Edano My point is that he says nothing "outside the normal models" for low level exposure. There are other studies that have huge differences, but what he is saying is basically ICRP. SPIEGEL: From previous studies we have learned that if 100 people are exposed to levels of 100 millisievert, statistically speaking, one person will get cancer because of the radiation. Is it possible to project the level of danger of lower doses?

Yamashita: That could be. The problem is that to estimate the risk for disease we use the so-called linear-nonthreshold dose-response model, which assumes that even a small additional radiation dose would cause a small increase in cancer incidence in an exposed population. Such an increase is theoretically measurable, but with the doses below 100 millisievert it is statistically insignificant and thus cannot be considered as an argument in support of excessive risk.

Low dose studies have been MOSTLY inconclusive in their effect on people. Remember, a third to a fifth of people will get cancer at some time in their life. Many of the socalled hormesis studies have been shown to "self-Select" physically fit workers, who are relatively well paid and have access to good (routine physical) healthcare. So they also become suspect. We are left with LNT because we have no better assessment (evidence) at low levels so Assume a reasonably linear effect at low doses. Radiation above background represents additional risk and people should attempt to avoid it to a reasonable extent.

@Capt D Thanks for the cross-po0llination. @all It's not the story on HuffPo these days, it's the comments. Here's what CapD flagged:
US seeks to implement lessons learned from Fukushima quickly
www­.earthtime­s.org/ener­gy/us-impl­ement-less­ons-learne­d-fukushim­a/1276/
Within 18 months, the Commission­'s staff are tasked with considerin­g the reports first and broadest recommenda­tion that the regulatory approach of NRC should be revised. This calls for a review of the balance between the "defence in depth" concept and the risk analysis approach which underlies current NRC requiremen­ts.

Here's a quick summary of the Commission's recommendations: www.earthtimes.org

"OK, people. Let's see how screwed you are. We let you get irradiated for 5 months because we're TEPCO shills, and we don't even know how badly because we decided not to test since it might make TEPCO look bad, so could you please fill out these surveys and tell us what yo uate, and now much you breathed and we'll give you your FukU health rating. In 20 years or so."

@Edano I don't support the previous actions of tepco/goj with regard to exposure, but prehaps they are getting their act together. This dr clearly states that monitoring and treatment (when required) will go hand in hand. If they don't monitor, then there will be no early or preemptive treatment.

@RBeaner I think it's more that the government consistently downplayed the risk for months, making evacuation optional even when the numbers started coming back at Chernobyl levels, and now Dr. Yamashita excuses the non-monitoring of children (and everybody else) by saying 100 mSv/yr is probably OK for children, though they'll possibly get thyroid cancer in about 5 years, so help us survey now because that way in a decade we'll have better data from your children's thyroid cancers.

@RBeaner. No, his answers were not consistent. How can he say the government should have chosen a standard higher than 20 mSv/yr and then say he do not know the health effect of exposures below 100 mSv? What did he say that was inappropriate? For example, this: "... they are not scientists, they are not doctors, they are not radiation specialists. They do not know the international standards, which researchers worked on very hard. It makes me sad that people believe gossip, magazines and even Twitter." So people know nothing of radiation, while he is the expert. Asked "what is safe?", the expert answered: "I do not know". I wish he would have answered like that at the beginning. As you say and as now also Yamashita acknowledge, we do not know. Then, everyone has the right to decide by himself. We do not need people who say: No health effects, everything is fine, smile. We simply do not need him.

@RBeaner Question...Are you retired or do you still make a living in the nuke industry?

@RadioGuy I don't see anywhere he says 100 mSv is ok. He acknowledges in the der spiegal article that 100 mSv may very likely result in one additional cancer per 100 people. Did you read the article? www.spiegel.de

@tomo-kun He didn't say they should have chosen a higher limit, he said they chose (20 mSv) the lower limit of the ICRP's Emergency Exposure guidlines. I actually think they should have set a temp 5 mSv, and then taken protective actions.

@LM not retired, just changed fields.

@RBeaner. Did you read the article? If he endorses the ICRP suggestion for a limit between 20 mSv and 100 mSV and he thinks the 20 mSV threshold made people more confused and insecure, tell me: which other standard would he have chosen?

@RBeaner I would think that large numbers of nuke workers would tend to be more cavalier about radiation concerns in order to preserve their own psychological well being and livelihood. I realize that is a grand generalization but it most likely applies to every dangerous profession. Just a thought....