From Name
Kevin Stewart

Colleagues,
 
Thank you to all who had a hand
in helping create this first iteration of an attempt at an
estimate!
 
Integrating several
contributions to the discussion, evaluating on the basis of whole body dose
equivalents (WBDE), and using concentrations currently detectable in the United
States of I-131 from the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility:  Living in a
house with 4 pCi/L would create a dose in the ballpark of 10,000 times greater
(give or take an order of magnitude to allow for variations in the I-131
concentrations and in the dose/exposure rate) than would a full year’s
worth of exposure to current levels of I-131.  Put another way, a
year’s worth of exposure to this I-131 would provide the same WBDE as would
about an hour’s exposure in a typical 4 pCi/L house, with a range between
approximately 5 or 10 minutes’ worth and half a day’s worth.  Clearly, anyone in North America
who is expressing concern about the direct effect of the Japanese
facility’s emissions upon his or her own health should therefore be several
orders of magnitude more concerned about the potential radiological risk from
radon and its decay products in their own homes, schools, and workplaces.
 
Now, I hereby go on record as
being the first to recognize
-         
that this is only a first
“back-of-the-envelope” iteration and is clearly open to improvement
by those who can do so (I am prepared to discuss the basis of these calculations
with individual inquirers without boring the whole group);
-         
that we are talking
about a moving target in terms of what the Japanese facility’s emissions
are and will be;
-         
that the transport
of those emissions around the world is subject to many variables;
-         
that the preceding
estimate looks at only one – a chief one, to be sure, but only one –
of the radionuclides being emitted (I-131 has
an 8 d half-life, but CHPs might also wish to consider Cs-137 (30 y), Sr-90 (29
y), Sr-89 (51 d), H-3 (12 y), … and their cumulative impacts);
-         
that we are talking
about different doses to different organs with all of the differences in
effects that that would entail;
-         
that the preceding
paragraph answers only part of my original question, and that remaining would
be the task of translating these doses into commensurable risk values (say,
on the basis of a common term such as “number of cases,” “mortality,”
“years of potential life lost,” or even “total economic
impact” in order to compare apples-to-apples).
-         
that, of course, the
situation in Japan near the facility itself (not where most on this list are, typically
half a world away) would be drastically different, so I want to be understood
that this estimate is by no means intended to downplay those very real hazards
and adverse effects.
 
Respectfully,
 
Kevin M.
Stewart
Director of
Environmental Health
American Lung
Association of the Mid-Atlantic
Serving the
communities of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia
“Fighting
for Air”
The Norman P.
Hetrick Building
3001 Old
Gettysburg Road
Camp Hill,
PA  17011
Phone: 717.541.5864
ext. 56
Fax:     888.415.5757
HelpLine:
1-800-LUNG-USA ext. 2
www.lunginfo.org
 
 
 
From: International Web
Resource for Radon Professionals [mailto:RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Kevin Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:18 PM
To: RADONPROFESSIONALS@LIST.UIOWA.EDU
Subject: [RNPROF] Question involving dosimetry and epidemiology
 
Quick question inspired by a recent post:
 
Could the experts in dosimetry and epidemiology on this list
please give us all a ballpark (honestly, that’s all I ask, say a range
over a few or even several orders of magnitude, with suitable caveats about
applicability) of how the risk associated with North American exposure to the
Fukushima Dai-ichi radionuclide emissions contrasts with the risk associated
with exposure to, for instance, 4 pCi/L in the “typical” home under
“typical” occupancy.
 
It occurs to me that if the former is “around 10^X to
10^Y times less” than the latter, then that could help mitigators make
the case that if folks are concerned about the N-plant emissions, then they
should really be concerned about Rn in their own homes.
 
Yours,
 
Kevin M.
Stewart
Director of
Environmental Health
American Lung
Association of the Mid-Atlantic
**********
RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=RADONPROFESSIONALS&A=1
***********
********** RN PROF (Subscription changes - archives) - http://list.uiowa.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=RADONPROFESSIONALS&A=1 ***********