Following Radioactive Rain, Radiation In Tokyo Jumps 10 Fold, Hitachinaka Iodine 131 Surges To 85,00

[IScreamSundays]

Once again, we are left scratching our heads as to just where is it that the mass media is seeing an improvement in the Japanese radiation crisis. Because reading domestic media leaves one with a completely different impression. To wit, from the Asahi: "Iodine 131 detected in Tokyo hit 12,000 becquerels, compared with the previous day: a tenfold increase in both radioactive Iodine and Cesium." As for Hitachinaka City, which according to SPEEDI has seen a surge in radiation over the past 24 hours, things are far worse: "Hitachinaka City, Ibaraki Prefecture, saw the highest radioactive values recorded, with 12,000 becquerels of cesium, iodine and 85,000 becquerels."

Per Asahi (google translated):

Ministry of Education, under the influence of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, announced the results of such measurements with radioactive dust fell from the sky. Tended to increase mainly in metropolitan areas. 5300 becquerels per square meter of cesium in Shinjuku, Tokyo 137,3 detection of iodine 131 becquerels 12,000, compared with the previous day, rose about 10 times the concentration of both. The values ??that affect health, but prolonged monitoring is needed.

Measurement of radioactive fallout, we put the nation at 9:00 am on October 22 from 9 am to 21 the ministry, were analyzed.

The value of Tokyo, yesterday's Cs 560 Becquerel, Becquerel 2900 soared from iodine. Announced value of the cesium 22, 8 / 1 40,000 becquerels of radiation controlled area reference value, iodine value, amount to five quarters.

snip>

more:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/following-radioactive-rain-radiation-tokyo-jumps-10-fold-hitachinaka-iodine-131-surges-85000

[aquart]

1. 14 million people drenched in radiation.

Nuclear energy is so safe.

[Mojo_electro]

2. conversion...

Does anyone know the conversion of bq to rem/h?... that would tell a lot about the actual exposure of the population...

[DCKit]

3. Because there's a "safe" level of exposure?

Every bit of exposure is cumulative.

I guess my point is, it's there.

[Mojo_electro]

4. not really what I was getting at...

...Was just curious what the absorbed dose would be for the local population...

[Ratty]

5. Too complicated

Such calculation involves:

1. The specific source, known: I-131
2. The specific concentration, unknown: but let's assume one glass of milk at 12,000 Bcq per liter equals, say, 3,000 Bcq, all I-131 concentrated in the thyroid (i.e., none pissed out)
3. Distance to the source, undefined

For the last one, the only distance I can think of is zero: the Iodine is right there concentrated in the thyroid. But if you plug that into any standard conversion you end up with infinity. For example, assuming a distance of 1 cm you end up with about a tenth of a millirem per hour. At a distance of 1 mm it comes out to 15 mrem/hr. But I think either of those is nonsense (AT LEAST an order of magnitude too high) because all the Becq of iodine in that glass won't be concentrated into a single point source.

There would be no direct conversion since these units measure different things but there ought to be way to convert them both to equivalent damage by people who know more about the geometry of the thyroid, etc. I would be interested to know what the "normal" concentration of I-131 in the US would be, what it was after Korea's nuclear test, after 3 Mile Island, and what it was during the above ground tests in the 50s.