Radiation Chart Update

Ellen and I made our radiation chart in the early days of the Fukushima disaster. I intended it to provide context for radiation exposure levels reported in the media.  I included a few example doses from monitoring sites around Fukushima (the only ones I could find at the time). But our main goal was to give people a better understanding of what different radiation levels meant.  It wasn’t a guide to what was happening at Fukushima because neither of us had hard data on that.

I’ve recently corrected a few things on the chart (the old version is available here). In particular, I’ve changed the mammogram dose from 3 mSv to 0.4 mSv, based on figures from this paper.  The other figures seem to hold up, and I’ve made only small corrections elsewhere.  I’ve added a few more Fukushima-related doses where I could find data, but they’re examples only—not full coverage of the effects.  Specifically, I added total exposure figures over the weeks following the accident for Tokyo, a typical spot in the Exclusion Zone, and a station place on the northwest edge of the zone that got a particularly heavy dose. Those data came from here (Google cache of now-dead MEXT page) and here.

Unfortunately, the disaster has progressed beyond simple radiation releases—there’s some amount of contaminated water, and radioactive material potentially getting in food. When radioactive material is ingested, the effects get a lot more complicated, and depend on what isotopes are there and how they’re processed by the body. Ellen’s page has a bit more information about that.

For reliable information on what’s happening in Japan, including discussions of the contamination levels, there are two sites Ellen and I recommend. One is the MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering hub, which posts periodic articles explaining aspects of the disaster, and the other is the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Fukushima Accident Update Log, which has detailed measurements from a variety of sources.

Note: Some people questioned the side-by-side comparison of short- and long-term doses.  It’s true that they’re not always the same, and I mentioned this in the intro note on the chart. Combining the two sacrificed precision for simplicity, but I don’t think it was a huge stretch—most regulatory dose limits are specified in terms of a total yearly (or quarterly) dose, which is a combination of all types of exposures.  And for those low doses, the comparison is pretty good; the place duration becomes important is up in the red and orange zones on the chart.

117 thoughts on “Radiation Chart Update

  1. Richards proved helpful as a Expert Plumber before operating at Viega, and has positive factors to say about a career in water program. Richards became a item instructor at Viega after he was fired from his job truly. watch tv episodes free online

    Like

  2. Fantástico post me gusta el documento apreciar el método que usted describió cosas, nacele usted hace una gran carrera la mayoría de los otros que usted a través de ese tipo de útiles sitios de información actual de la conciencia para ser capaces de personas vinculadas a muchos puntos. click here

    Like

  3. It shows me of Feynman’s viewpoint on resigning the National Universities of Sciences — he said that he saw no aspect in that are aspect of an organization that spent most of it’s great time identifying who to let in. Ilan Nass

    Like

  4. Because of its power to mediate personal experience, Ho statements that art is the currency trading of the economic climate of experience. He identifies that artists and art also circulation. click here to investigate

    Like

  5. Great post! I am actually getting ready to across this information, is very helpful my friend. Also great blog here with all of the valuable information you have. Keep up the good work you are doing here.

    Like

  6. Muy interesante leer este article.I le gustaría darle las gracias por los esfuerzos que había hecho para escribir este artículo impresionante.

    Like

  7. They determined that people who lived in rural areas and used a cell phone for at least three years were three times more likely to contract a brain tumor. If used it for 5 or more years, then your chances are quadrupled. Chicago website design Yelp

    Like

Comments are closed.