Nuclear plant worker's internal radiation levels 1000s of times higher than expected

[Generic Other]

Nearly two months after the start of the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, only 10 percent of workers there had been tested for internal radiation exposure caused by inhalation or ingestion of radioactive substances, due to a shortage of testing equipment available for them. <...>

"My measured value exceeded the standard value by a double-digit factor. That's never happened before," said a plant worker in his 20s, recalling the time he saw the results of a test he took outside Fukushima Prefecture in early May. <...>

While a normal internal radiation level would range from several hundred cpm to 1,000 cpm, he was told his level was 30,000 cpm.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110518006065.htm

[Generic Other]

1. Disinformation by nuclear proponents tries to confuse public about effects of external and internal

<...> Their first piece of disinformation is to confuse the effects of external and internal radiation. The former is what populations were exposed to when atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Internal radiation, by contrast, emanates from radioactive elements that enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radioactive elements being released in the sea and air around Fukushima accumulate at each step of various food chains (for example, into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow’s meat and milk, then humans). Entering the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, continuously irradiating small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years often induce cancer.

Further, many remain radioactive in the environment for long periods, posing danger for future generations.

The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima – as indeed they continue to be at Chernobyl. It is erroneous and misleading to use the term ”acceptable levels of external radiation” in assessing internal radiation doses. To do so is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide and journalists who are seeking the truth about radiation’s hazards. <...>

Dr. Helen Caldecott, Physicians forSocial Responsibility


http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/nuclear-apologists-play-shoot-the-messenger-on-radiation-20110425-1du2w.html

[PCIntern]

2. Probably all from the bananas...

:sarcasm:

Horrifying, and yet there will be those who are willing to risk others' lives with ease. And they sleep very well at night, believe you me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. You are forgetting the Brazil nuts

:-)

[FourScore]

3. dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1134483

[Generic Other]

4. And yet we hear people say over and over that there is no reporting

Not bothered by accidental duplication of info. Does it bother you? Getting the word out is what is important.

[FourScore]

7. This is true.

Sorry to have nitpicked. Thank you for caring about this issue, Generic Other.

K&R

[iemitsu]

6. thanks generic for this information.

and the clarification about the difference between internal and external radiation.
this cumulative effect is what all the nuclear apologists want to ignore.