Seems to be judging from the multiple outlets that refer to it,...
I’m not sure of the IAEA’s political leaings either and whether they are a reliable source for non-biased info.
You're correct in that we don;t know the proximate source of the radiation at the distant areas and can't predict it's half-life or persistence in the environment. However, we can't assume it is all short half-life material until we can better qualify it. Caution and perspective.....
Annual limit of dose from man-made sources to a member of the public who is not a radiation worker in the USA and Canada is 1 milliSv total. This has an hourly equivalent of 0.00011 mSv/hour exposure or 0.11 microSv/ hour. Compare that to the 161 microSv per hour rate reported and there's some potential for concern if the reading is correct and the exposure time is sufficient. I doubt people 20 Km away from the reactors who are not radiation workers want to get their yearly rad dose in a little over 6 hours.
Right. Most of the population immediately around the plant is older and poor, and like you said, where can they go right now anyway, either short or longer-term.
Wonder how this 20 Km would have played out near Tokyo?
I'm trying to get this into some medical dose perspective so I can understand it better, This is about 1.5 head CTs worth of radiation per 24 hours. Seems high to be this long out from the most acute publicized leak and 20 Km away.
Yeah, I'm trying to pick a coal producer that isn't pre-determined to be in Obaama's crosshairs.
That's what's interesting. Either some companies with sizable foreign ownership or customers who can say NOBAMA, or companies that are takeover candidates for foreign interests....