Good analysis. Thanks for pointing this out. I am not sure what gives the UCS credibility, but propaganda sure seems to rule with people these days. Thanks for keeping on point. We need to spread the word that all they have to fear is fear itself (FDR).
FYI, it looks like something is broken with your TeX-to-HTML convertor - there's bare \cite commands left in the text rather than being converted to footnote links.
My TeX-to_HTML converter is me. To call teh converter broken might be a bit harsh. I prefer lazy. You can find a PDF of just about all the substack pieces at the Flop book website
Duhhh... that's too complicated for me. Can't we just say "Radiation BAAAAD"? Zero tolerance is so much easier! And all we have to give up is Modern Civilization, which everyone tells me is awful anyway, right? -- Typical Person
In Table 1, are you assuming that people are outside 24/7 to get their cumulative doses of 463.9 mSv for example? Or did you assume a portion of time inside?
Good question. In the table, where I used Gy/h, I'm talking outside ambient dose rate. Where I used Sv, I have converted that ambient dose to an estimate of the dose that was actually incurred, which is almost always much less, mainly due to time indoors. In this table I used a conversion factor, which I call "location factor", of 0.2 which is a bit high on average based on actual data from both Chernobyl and Fukushima. In the latter case, we have the Date City study which came up with a factor of 0.15 with a surprisingly low std. deviation of 0.03. So the cumulative mSv column assumes an actual dose that is 20% of the 24/7 outdoors dose.
My use of Gy and Sv here is non-standard so I should have explained it, My poor defense is that for the purpose of this piece, we only need the ambient (Gy/h) dose rate columns.
I should add that the UCert compensation plan is based on a conversion factor of 1.0, which means that just about everybody will be highly over-compensated, at least in terms of Lost Life Expectancy.
This brings up the question of wearing masks, even indoors, which I agree with. however, The mask idea will always be controversial. It reminds me of a Canadian situation where accident analyses cannot consider actions utilities take after the accident. A utility showed they can reduce the releases by a factor of 100 or more by doing some simple things after the accident is underway. These don't count because they are not automatic. I think we should be optimizing these mitigations and developing training/procedures/equipment to reliably carry them out. Since they don't count to the regulator, this is not done. These mitigations reduce releases by a factor of 100 and would be vastly cheaper than equivalent automatic mitigations.
Mask wearing during plume passage should not be controversial. There's no transmission. The only person who benefits from masking up is the wearer. It can be and should be totally voluntary.
An overall figure of 100 seems very high. Is the study public?
Your table 1 shows the tremendous range in dose in each town. The projected maximum dose, even after your 0.2 attenuation, would be very large. As I recall from previous posts, there were about 400 workers that got about 100 mSv, and workers a few hundred metres from the reactors got significantly less. I know with workers we are looking at doses over a few hours in each of a few days when their doses are being monitored. Now I am wondering where they lived. Did they get 100 mSv when they were off work and going to/from work. I also wonder if your Table 1 is too pessimistic since it seems as bad as for workers, at least for some of the public.
Given the highest doses in Table 1, it seems reasonable for a measured public response at that time.
Hurriedly removing the old and sick is obviously a mistake. But, If parents of a young family asked me, I would suggest getting out of town, if only for peace of mind. As a 70+ year old, I know the chances of a future cancer are low and I would shelter in place.
The government was thinking of the next election, not cumulative dose, when they extended the evac region. Do you know how many people evacuated in the DEA?
Total dose is an LNT concept. Forget about total dose. You must learn to think in terms of dose rate profile. The plant workers got up to 500 mSv in 2 or 3 days or less. IThe core team slept on the floor in the Seimisc isolated Building during their "off-hours".)
For the record, in the GKG analysis the high end Okuma sub-group gets 815 mSv over 40 years. The high end Karunagappally cohort got over 600 mSv in 10.5 years with no increase in cancer. Total dose is meaningless. What counts is the dose rate profile. If there is a problem for the high end Okuma group, it is not the total dose over 40 years. It;s the dose in the first few days.
According to our numbers, the 24/7 outside dose for this group in day 1 is 8 mSv. By sheltering in place, most of these people could cut this peak DAILY dose to 2 mSv or less. We've never reliably detected an increase in cancer at thatdose rate even when that dose rate was received for a decade or more. See Green Table. The repair processes are able to keep up with the damage.
In the GKG system, evacuation is voluntary. But your young family should make their decision on dose rate profile. An evacuation until the release was stopped would not be unreasoanble given the uncertainties, but they should return based on dose rate profile NOT cumulative dose..
The DEA evacuation was mandatory, so I assume just about everybody in the area left,
but I don't have the number.
I guess we need still yet another piece on the high end at Fukushima. Beign a preacher is not as easy as I thought it would be.
Good analysis. Thanks for pointing this out. I am not sure what gives the UCS credibility, but propaganda sure seems to rule with people these days. Thanks for keeping on point. We need to spread the word that all they have to fear is fear itself (FDR).
(Irrational) fear is the mind-killer.
FYI, it looks like something is broken with your TeX-to-HTML convertor - there's bare \cite commands left in the text rather than being converted to footnote links.
TK
My TeX-to_HTML converter is me. To call teh converter broken might be a bit harsh. I prefer lazy. You can find a PDF of just about all the substack pieces at the Flop book website
https://gordianknotbook.com
which has all teh references properly expanded.
The PDF'd are also occasionally updated and expanded.
Duhhh... that's too complicated for me. Can't we just say "Radiation BAAAAD"? Zero tolerance is so much easier! And all we have to give up is Modern Civilization, which everyone tells me is awful anyway, right? -- Typical Person
Jess,
Typical Person has been lied to for 70+ years by the nuclear establishment.
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/the-two-lies-that-killed-nuclear
You are blaming the victim; try blaming the perp.
In Table 1, are you assuming that people are outside 24/7 to get their cumulative doses of 463.9 mSv for example? Or did you assume a portion of time inside?
What does Gy to Sv = 0.2 mean?
Ken.
..
Good question. In the table, where I used Gy/h, I'm talking outside ambient dose rate. Where I used Sv, I have converted that ambient dose to an estimate of the dose that was actually incurred, which is almost always much less, mainly due to time indoors. In this table I used a conversion factor, which I call "location factor", of 0.2 which is a bit high on average based on actual data from both Chernobyl and Fukushima. In the latter case, we have the Date City study which came up with a factor of 0.15 with a surprisingly low std. deviation of 0.03. So the cumulative mSv column assumes an actual dose that is 20% of the 24/7 outdoors dose.
My use of Gy and Sv here is non-standard so I should have explained it, My poor defense is that for the purpose of this piece, we only need the ambient (Gy/h) dose rate columns.
I should add that the UCert compensation plan is based on a conversion factor of 1.0, which means that just about everybody will be highly over-compensated, at least in terms of Lost Life Expectancy.
Makes sense. I will go through the post again.
This brings up the question of wearing masks, even indoors, which I agree with. however, The mask idea will always be controversial. It reminds me of a Canadian situation where accident analyses cannot consider actions utilities take after the accident. A utility showed they can reduce the releases by a factor of 100 or more by doing some simple things after the accident is underway. These don't count because they are not automatic. I think we should be optimizing these mitigations and developing training/procedures/equipment to reliably carry them out. Since they don't count to the regulator, this is not done. These mitigations reduce releases by a factor of 100 and would be vastly cheaper than equivalent automatic mitigations.
Mask wearing during plume passage should not be controversial. There's no transmission. The only person who benefits from masking up is the wearer. It can be and should be totally voluntary.
An overall figure of 100 seems very high. Is the study public?
Your table 1 shows the tremendous range in dose in each town. The projected maximum dose, even after your 0.2 attenuation, would be very large. As I recall from previous posts, there were about 400 workers that got about 100 mSv, and workers a few hundred metres from the reactors got significantly less. I know with workers we are looking at doses over a few hours in each of a few days when their doses are being monitored. Now I am wondering where they lived. Did they get 100 mSv when they were off work and going to/from work. I also wonder if your Table 1 is too pessimistic since it seems as bad as for workers, at least for some of the public.
Given the highest doses in Table 1, it seems reasonable for a measured public response at that time.
Hurriedly removing the old and sick is obviously a mistake. But, If parents of a young family asked me, I would suggest getting out of town, if only for peace of mind. As a 70+ year old, I know the chances of a future cancer are low and I would shelter in place.
The government was thinking of the next election, not cumulative dose, when they extended the evac region. Do you know how many people evacuated in the DEA?
Ken, Ken, Ken,
Total dose is an LNT concept. Forget about total dose. You must learn to think in terms of dose rate profile. The plant workers got up to 500 mSv in 2 or 3 days or less. IThe core team slept on the floor in the Seimisc isolated Building during their "off-hours".)
For the record, in the GKG analysis the high end Okuma sub-group gets 815 mSv over 40 years. The high end Karunagappally cohort got over 600 mSv in 10.5 years with no increase in cancer. Total dose is meaningless. What counts is the dose rate profile. If there is a problem for the high end Okuma group, it is not the total dose over 40 years. It;s the dose in the first few days.
According to our numbers, the 24/7 outside dose for this group in day 1 is 8 mSv. By sheltering in place, most of these people could cut this peak DAILY dose to 2 mSv or less. We've never reliably detected an increase in cancer at thatdose rate even when that dose rate was received for a decade or more. See Green Table. The repair processes are able to keep up with the damage.
In the GKG system, evacuation is voluntary. But your young family should make their decision on dose rate profile. An evacuation until the release was stopped would not be unreasoanble given the uncertainties, but they should return based on dose rate profile NOT cumulative dose..
The DEA evacuation was mandatory, so I assume just about everybody in the area left,
but I don't have the number.
I guess we need still yet another piece on the high end at Fukushima. Beign a preacher is not as easy as I thought it would be.