Japan's Nuclear Rescuers: 'Inevitable Some of Them May Die Within Weeks'

The big “if” is whether or not the workers are sticking to the PAGs. If they stay at or under 25 or even 50 rem, then the risk remains totally stochastic.

If, however, they have resolved to keep fighting even though they get dosed up to a couple of hundred rem and actually go down from acute radiation sickness, that’s different (and suicidal). There does seem to be a bit of a history in the Japanese culture of young men undertaking suicidal missions in defense of the homeland.

I can’t believe the company and government will let them stay that long. OTOH, if they threw away their dosimeters and the higher-ups are OK with it... who knows?

This may be one of those cultural contexts that we Occidentals have a hard time grokking.

I really doubt that the Fukushima HPs would let them hide dosimetry, considering the high level of visibility involved. And its not like contractors jumping generators who are trying to get more work.

I’m not doubting their fortitude; there is a lot of risks associated with sharp objects, hydrogen explosions, electrical cables, aftershocks and fields that vary. This would go for any rescuer in Japan, not just at the nuke plants.

My issue is that the article bases a headline on a crying (and scared) mother, and in doing so passes her off as an expert. And some FeaRpers here have taken this testimony as proof that there will be deaths from radiation.

Most people agree that Chernobyl was much worse than Fukushima. But Chernobyl wasn’t the apocalyptic event everyone projected it to be:
http://fumento.com/environment/chernobyl.html

Why would an energy-craving nation (the U.S.) that also demands a pristine environment put the kibosh on a limitless form of power (nuclear energy) that produces no air pollution and no emissions environmentalists claim cause global warming?

It stems essentially from two massively-publicized incidents that plague our imagination: Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and especially Chernobyl in Ukraine. Nobody was even injured at TMI, but Chernobyl was a disaster of epic proportions. Or was it?

For the answer go back to 1986 in the former Soviet Union, a regime in which worker and public safety mattered zilch. A powerful steam explosion at one of four reactors of the Chernobyl nuclear facility near Kiev – a hunk of junk compared to any American nuke plant – caused additional explosions, a fire, and a full nuclear meltdown. Over 100,000 people were evacuated.

UPI’s immediate death toll was 2,000 while others used far higher figures. “Late Word From Inside Russia: Mass Grave for 15,000 N-Victims,” blared the New York Post. Blame these perhaps on confusion and Soviet secrecy. But in 2001 Agence France-Presse reported the highest toll ever, claiming “between 15,000 and 30,000 people died” from the initial blast and radiation exposure. As to delayed cancer deaths from radiation, some nuclear energy opponents estimated almost half a million.

But a voluminous new report assembled by the Chernobyl Forum, comprising 8 UN agencies, shows not only that the accident’s immediate impact was grossly exaggerated but that even delayed cancer deaths will prove minuscule compared to the outrageous predictions.

The actual number of immediate deaths? Not 30,000 but rather 47 says the report. All were among plant personnel and emergency workers, none among the general public.

Delayed cancer deaths estimated in the new report? Not half a million but about 4,000. This though five million people received excess radiation exposure. Yet the report also admits that although there’s been plenty of time for cancers to start showing up, researchers are having trouble finding enough cases even to justify the 4,000.

The report did attribute nine thyroid cancer deaths in children from drinking contaminated milk (which may be preventable with cheap iodine supplementation).

But even for the cancer most linked to radiation exposure (leukemia) and for those with the greatest such exposure (cleanup workers) it found studies repeatedly showing no increased risks.

This is what I find so despicable. Japan was too traumatized by the earthquake and tsunami to deal with the reactors competently. This was evident almost immediately and other nations have left them to act alone; most notably a fatuous American President. Both Presidents Bush would have recognized the crisis and would have stayed on phone with Japanese leaders with constant support and frankness. I’m confident about that.

I am someone who spends a fair amount of time in suits, and I am with you on the tremendous difficulties these guys are facing. My behind would have been well and thoroughly kicked by the end of the first week.

But I am also not Japanese. There are real cultural differences at work here, and I’m not as confident as you seem to be that these guys are just taking the calculated risks that we would if we were in that situation. Bushido still lurks there in the Japanese soul, and a ‘wartime’ crisis like this may bring that spirit to the fore.

Have to think the Japanese are protecting their workers better than the Russians did.

On paper they are the same, the Japanese now allow 250 mSv (up from 100). The Russians allowed 25 rem (same as 250 mSv). The biggest difference is that the RUssian workers (600,000 of them) were able to work for about two minutes to get their dose and then got two years off their military service or some other compensation. The Japanese workers have yet to make it to that dose since the accident AFAIK. That also gives you an idea of the relative magnitudes of these accidents.

The Lord will note their sacrifice, and embrace them all.

[A Heroes Bump !! On 911 nobody had any idea the towers would collapse, not to take anything away from those brave men and women of 911, but these guys understand full well that they are being exposed to super high levels of radiation day after day, to save thier nation.]

Actually, a number of the firemen knew they were likely going to perish when they climbed the steps. That came out in the documentaries.

That doesn’t make this any less of a heroic effort. They will never be forgotten by their nation’s citizens.

The protective guidelines are basically the same in the US.

Using US measures instead of SI units, in emergency response operations 10 rem was allowable for protecting valuable/critical property or large populations. 25 rem was allowable for life-saving operations. That’s about equal to 100 and 250 mSv respectively. There are some differences in the basic units of measurement in the energy:mass ratio.

Depends on your definition of “life-saving”, I guess.

They sacrifice themselves like Samurai

But how can this be? We have been assured over, and over, and over, and over, and over, that there is no danger.

Pretty much.

Excluding falls, heart attacks and electrical shocks (i.e. looking only at the radiological hazard), the reality is that the workers will, at most, increase their risk of getting cancer by 2% sometime in their life.

Radiation monitors not given to each worker

Perhaps you would like to purchase a radiation monitor for these workers who will apparently only experience the 2 % cancer risk increase ?

On 911 nobody had any idea the towers would collapse,

Many firefighters were stopping to ask Fr. Mychal Judge for last rites as they were about to go into the towers. I think they knew.

Many prayers.

Brave fellows. May God protect them.

This will be long, but necessary so to provide some context of understanding about the deceptions promulgated by the anti-nuclear dimwits. First, as an example, let us start with an older news hit-piece dated March 15. My remarks are in ***

“March 15, 2011 Article From MSNBC: (SOMA, Japan) … “These observations indicate that the level of radioactivity has been decreasing at the site,” the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a statement. The Vienna-based U.N. agency said a radiation dose level of 11.9 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was observed at the main gate of the Fukushima nuclear power plant at midnight GMT on Tuesday (8 p.m. ET Monday).”

***This would correspond to 286 mSv / day - 24 hours: 0-250 mSv produces no effect on human tissue. So the information not divulged here is the time interval. More importantly, we are not told what type of ionizing radiation is involved—alpha, beta (equivalent to X-ray photons) or neutron. This is critical to discern the relevance of the exposure. ***

“Six hours later, the rate had declined to 0.6 mSv, the agency said in a statement.”

***So the maximum interval we may use to calculate the true exposure is six hours – or 71.4 mSv / day; but this level would not be constant over the six hour period. Reporting the 11.9 mSv figure, without providing the proper context, is deceptive practice. ***

“The IAEA uses the unit to measure doses of radiation received by people. It quantifies the amount of radiation absorbed by human tissue. Exposure to more than 100 millisieverts (mSv) a year is a level that can lead to cancer, the World Nuclear Association says. People are exposed to natural radiation of 2-3 mSv a year. Earlier on Tuesday, the IAEA said Japan had told it radioactivity was being released “directly” into the atmosphere from the site and that a 400 mSv per hour radiation dose was observed, between the plant’s reactor units 3 and 4.”

***This value is relevant only if an unprotected individual were standing in that exact spot – and take note that this 400 mSv value was not measured anywhere outside the plant boundaries, or the media would have reported it for sure. ***

“That figure would be 20 times the annual exposure for some nuclear-industry employees and uranium miners. “This is a high dose-level value, but it is a local value at a single location and at a certain point in time,” the IAEA statement said.”

***In other words, this reported value is irrelevant to the discussion: Sustained exposure levels are what matter; however, if the media is attempting to generate fear and thus garner opposition to nuclear power, then reporting this value will effectively mislead the untrained reader. See below “Symptom Benchmarks” *** End Citation***

Now for the dreary technical jargon that most people shun like plague, yet the knowledge of which is essential so not to be deceived by media charlatans who pose as “experts.” First, an understanding of exactly how and what radiation is measured, and why it matters when this information is not revealed by our intellectually dishonest media personalities. I am going to cite from various articles and textbooks. First topic: “RBE” ... RBE, “Relative Biological Effectiveness,” is a “health physics” concept, introduced in the 1950s after the discovery that different types of radiation affect living organisms differently. A higher RBE equates with greater biological damage for equivalent radiation exposure.

The four primary types of ionizing radiation of concern were:
Photon radiation
Beta radiation
Neutron radiation
Alpha radiation

Sources that produced these specific energies were used to irradiate various types of living cells grown in culture. Each cell type was given a known exposure, delivering an exact amount of ionizing energy to each culture dish. RBE is defined as the ratio of a dose of a standard, Low-linear-Energy Transfer (LET) X-ray beam (250KeV energy, DX) to the dose of the test radiation type or configuration, DT, that is required to cause the same biological level of effect: RBE = Dx/Dt.

Now, here’s the important disclaimer that MSNBC excluded from its story: Due to uncertainty associated with RBE for alpha radiation, and the lack of neutron exposure to personnel in almost all settings, it is strongly discouraged to use rems or sieverts as measures of comparative radiation exposure, and instead to use the actual exposure in rads or grays, followed with a description of the type of exposure (almost always from photon or beta in which the RBE is 1 anyway, though rarely from alpha). KEEP THIS CAUTION IN MIND WHILE READING THE REMAINDER OF THIS ARTICLE. Is the picture getting a little clearer? We continue …

Early RBE experiments used living cells, grown in culture:
Prokaryotic cells (bacteria)
Simple eukaryotic cells (single-celled plants)
Advanced eukaryotic cells from rats

These were irradiated until they each reached LD-50 —the point at which a lethal dose was delivered to half of the cells; defined as one which created the inability to engage in mitotic division (for bacteria, binary fission) thus effectively sterilizing the cell, even if it still engaged in some cellular functions. It was found that, for all cell types, photon radiation and beta radiation were essentially equivalent and they were assigned the base value of 1 for their RBE.

In bacteria, neutron radiation required 2–3 times more beta or photon radiation to cause an LD-50 compared to neutron radiation itself; about 4–6 times more beta or photon radiation to cause an LD-50 in simple eukaryotic cells; and about 6–8 times more beta or photon radiation to cause an LD-50 for the higher eukaryotic cells. RBE for neutron radiation was given a value of 10 in government regulations.
Alpha radiation required 4–6 times more beta or photon radiation to cause an LD-50 compared to alpha radiation, about 8–12 times more beta or photon radiation to cause an LD-50 in simple eukaryotic cells; and about 12–16 times more beta or photon radiation to cause an LD-50 for the higher eukaryotic cells. RBE for alpha radiation was given a value of 20 in government regulations.

RBE values are applied by “health physicists” so to compare various types of radiation exposure in a “meaningful” way. One rad is one rem (rontgen equivalent in man) if delivered from an X-ray procedure involving photons. However, one rad of neutron exposure is 10 rem of exposure, and one rad of internally deposited alpha exposure is 20 rem of exposure.

In the more current SI usage, the units are not the rad and rem, but the gray (Gy) and sievert (Sv). RBE values remain the same for calculating sieverts from grays of exposure. Photon and beta radiation are all low LET radiations, in which the ionizations caused are separated by thousands of angstroms; but alpha radiations have a high LET, with the ionizations occurring about every angstrom of travel of the alpha particle.

Conclusion
In those 1950s experiments, conducted to determine RBE values, the sources of radiation were all external to the cells that were irradiated. However, in real life, external irradiation of tissue is essentially impossible from alpha radiation, because the alpha particle cannot traverse the dead layer of skin that surrounds people. Accordingly, alpha radiation is only ‘meaningful’ if it comes from internally deposited alpha emitters, which then allows for intimate proximity to the alpha radiation. The range of an alpha particle is typically about the diameter of a single eukaryotic cell.

However, there is concern that the RBE for alpha-emitters may be substantially underestimated (1); because the RBE neglects a small but potentially significant ionization caused by the recoil of the parent nucleus during alpha decay. This energy of recoil is typically 2% of the energy of the alpha particle, but the range of the recoil nucleus is extremely short (2–3 A) due to its high electric charge and high mass. Thus, all of the ionization is deposited in the small volume where the parent nucleus is located — often on the chromosomes, since alpha emitters are typically “heavy metals,” which preferentially collect on chromosome material. This has the effect of wiping out that region of the chromosome, whereas the alpha particle only causes a few ionizations, losing most of its ionization energy in the cytoplasm. In some studies an intratracheal instillation of polonium-210 (alpha emitter) in hamsters yielded RBEs up to 1,000.

AGAIN, THE POINT CANNOT BE OVERSTATED: Due to uncertainty associated with RBE for alpha radiation, and the lack of neutron exposure to personnel in almost all settings, it is strongly discouraged to use rems or sieverts as measures of comparative radiation exposure, and instead to use the actual exposure in rads or grays, followed with a description of the type of exposure (almost always from photon or beta in which the RBE is 1 anyway, though rarely from alpha).

WHAT UNIT OF MEASURE US THE MEDIA USING IN ITS REPORTS? THEY ARE USING THAT WHICH IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED BY HONEST RADIOLOGY EXPERTS.—A UNIT THAT IS DISCOURAGRD BECAUSE OF ITS SUBJECTIVE AMBIGUITY. THE MEDIA EXCLUSIVELY USES THE mSv UNIT! DO MSM REPORTERS IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC RADIATION INVOLVED? NO. WHY? BECAUSE THEN THE VIEWER COULD MAKE AN INFORMED JUDGMENT OF THE DANGER, BASED ON OBJECTIVE CRITERIA NOT OPEN TO BIAS, RATHER THAN BE PERSUADED BY MEDIA HYPE.

See: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/trs461_web.pdf

(1) Winters-TH, Franza-JR, Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke, New England Journal of Medicine, 1982; 306(6): 364–365

Some definitions...
Sievert (Sv): A unit of ionizing radiation absorbed dose equivalent in the International System of Units, obtained as a product of the absorbed dose measure in grays and a dimensionless factor, stipulated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and indicating the biological effectiveness of the radiation. The sievert has the same units as the gray, and is equal to the absorbed dose times the quality factor, which compares the health consequences of that type of radiation with those of x-rays. The rem bears the same relationship to the rad as the sievert does to the gray. The SI unit of radiation absorbed dose equivalent, defined as that producing the same biological effect in a specified tissue as 1 gray of high-energy x-rays; symbol Sv. 1.0 Sv = 1.0 joule/kilogram or 100 rem.

THE DAMNING SUBJECTIVE CAVEAT...
The equivalent dose to a tissue is found by multiplying the absorbed dose, in gray, by a dimensionless “quality factor” Q, dependent upon radiation type, and by another dimensionless factor N, dependent upon the part of the body irradiated, the time and volume over which the dose was spread, even the species of the subject. Together, Q and N constitute the radiation weighting factor, WR. Q is the same thing as the Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE). For an organism composed of multiple tissue types a weighted sum or integral is often used. In 2002, the CIPM—the International Committee for Weights and Measures, decided that the distinction between Q and N causes too much confusion and therefore deleted the factor N from the definition of absorbed dose in the SI brochure (1). In terms of SI base units: 1 Sv = 1 J/kg = 1 m2/s2 = 1 m2•s–2
GOT THAT? Factor N, which is dependent upon the part of the body irradiated, the time and volume over which the dose was spread, and the species of the subject, was eliminated! BUT IT GETS BETTER STILL... READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT VERY CAREFULLY!

Although the sievert has the same dimensions as the gray (i.e. joules per kilogram), it measures a different quantity. To avoid confusion between the absorbed dose and the equivalent dose, the corresponding special units, namely the gray for absorbed dose and the sievert for the dose equivalent, are used. For a given amount of radiation (measured in gray), the biological effect (measured in sievert) can vary considerably as a result of the radiation weighting factor WR. This variation in effect is attributed to the Linear Energy Transfer [LET] of the type of radiation, creating a different relative biological effectiveness for each type of radiation under consideration. Per most government regulations, the RBE [Q] for electron and photon radiation is 1, and varies for other types of radiation (see below).

BUT THE MEDIA DOES NOT EVER STATE THE TYPE OF RADIATION!
Frequently used SI multiples are the millisievert (0.001 Sv) and and the microsievert (0.000001 Sv). An older unit of the equivalent dose is the rem (Rontgen equivalent man). In some fields and countries, the rem and millirem (abbreviated mrem) continue to be used along with Sv and mSv, causing confusion. Here are the conversion equivalences:

1 Sv = 1000 mSv (millisieverts) = 1,000,000 microsieverts = 100 rem = 100,000 mrem (millirem)
1 mSv = 100 mrem = 0.1 rem
1 microSv = 0.1 mrem
1 rem = 0.01 Sv = 10 mSv
1 mrem = 0.00001 Sv = 0.01 mSv = 10 microSv

Dose Benchmarks:
Living near a nuclear power station = less than 0.01 mSv/yr

Chest x-ray = 0.04 mSv[1]

Cosmic radiation (from sky) at sea level = 0.24 mSv/yr (1)

Terrestrial radiation (from ground) = 0.28 mSv/yr (1)

Mammogram = 0.30 mSv (1)

Natural radiation in the human body = 0.40 mSv/yr (1)

Brain CT scan = 0.8–5 mSv (2)

Natural background radiation: 2 mSv/yr; 1.5 mSv/yr for Australians, 3 mSv / yr for Americans (3)

Radon in the average US home = 2 mSv/yr (1)

Chest CT scan = 6–18 mSv (2)

Average American’s total radiation exposure: 6.2 mSv/yr (4)

New York-Tokyo flights for airline crew: 9mSv/yr (3)

Smoking 1.5 packs/day = 13 mSv/yr (5)

Gastrointestinal series X-ray investigation = 14 mSv (1)

Current average limit for nuclear workers: 20 mSv/yr (3)
Background radiation in parts of Iran, India and Europe: 50 mSv / yr (3)

Lowest clearly carcinogenic level: 100 mSv/yr (3)

Criterion for relocation after Chernobyl disaster: 350 mSv/lifetime (3)

Symptom Benchmarks (KEEP IN MIND that use of the mSv as a RELIABLE and MEANINGFUL unit of radiation exposure measure is discouraged!) ...

Effects to humans of acute radiation (within one day): (6)
0–0.25 Sv: None (1 Sv = 1000 mSv “millisieverts”) So 0.25 Sv = 250 mSv.

0.25–1 Sv: Some people feel nausea and loss of appetite; bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen damaged.

1–3 Sv: Mild to severe nausea, loss of appetite, infection; more severe bone marrow, lymph node, spleen damage; recovery probable, not assured.

3–6 Sv: Severe nausea, loss of appetite; hemorrhaging, infection, diarrhea, skin peels, sterility; death if untreated.

6–10 Sv: Above symptoms plus central nervous system impairment; death expected.

Above 10 Sv: Incapacitation and death.

References:

Comité international des poids et mesures (CIPM) 1984, Recommendation 1 (PV, 52, 31 and Metrologia, 1985, 21, 90)

Abdeljelil Bakri, Neil Heather, Jorge Hendrichs, and Ian Ferris; Fifty Years of Radiation Biology in Entomology: Lessons Learned from IDIDAS, Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 98(1): 1-12 (2005)

Introduction to Quantities and Units for Ionising Radiation National Physical Laboratory

(1) “Radiation Risks and Realities.” EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/402-k-07-006.pdf

(2) “Survey of CT techniques and absorbed dose in various Dutch hospitals.” PubMed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9166072

(3) “Radiation fears after Japan blast.” BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12722435

(4) “Fact Sheet on Biological Effects of Radiation.” United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bio-effects-radiation.html

(5) “Radiation Exposure: The Facts vs. Fiction.” University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics.
http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/medicaldepartments/cancercenter/prevention/preventionradiation.html

(6) “Nuclear Energy: the Good, the Bad, and the Debatable.” National Institutes of Health.
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/energy-good-bad.pdf

(7) New ICRP recommendations] of International Commission on Radiological Protection (Last accessed: 28 Oct. 2010)
(8) Recommendations by the ICRP (2008), p.164.
http://stacks.iop.org/JRP/28/i=2/a=R02/pdf

The limits on effective dose (dose to the whole body) introduced by the IRR99 to replace the limits set previously by the IRR85 are:

1. For employees aged 18 years or over, 20 millisieverts in a calendar year (except that in special cases employers may apply a dose limit of 100 millisieverts in 5 years with no more than 50 millisieverts in a single year, subject to strict conditions);

2. For trainees, 6 millisieverts in a calendar year; and

3. For any other person (members of the public, employees under the age of 18 not classed as trainees) 1 millisievert in a calendar year.

The dose limit for the skin now applies to doses averaged over an area of skin not exceeding 1 cm2. Radiation is measured in millisieverts; (mSv)

The average American can expect to receive about 3 millisieverts a year from ground radon or flying in an airplane. That level is not considered a risk to health.
50 millisieverts is enough to raise some concerns about health problems.

100 millisieverts of radiation is a level known to raise the risk of cancer; one in 1,000 patients could get a radiation-induced cancer.

Read Section 32-35 about uncertainties in dose measurement:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cidi2.pdf

A WELL-READ AMERICAN IS THE BULWARK OF FREEDOM!

This foolish comment isn’t going to end well for you.

Excluding falls, heart attacks and electrical shocks (i.e. looking only at the radiological hazard), the reality is that the workers will, at most, increase their risk of getting cancer by 2% sometime in their life.

Is that your April fool’s joke ?