Radiation Monitoring Data from Fukushima Area 04/18/2011

  • 41,908 views
Uploaded on

On March 15, 33 experts from the Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) arrived in Japan along with more than 17,200 pounds of equipment. After initial deployments at U.S. …

On March 15, 33 experts from the Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) arrived in Japan along with more than 17,200 pounds of equipment. After initial deployments at U.S. consulates and military installations in Japan, these teams have utilized their unique skills, expertise and equipment to help assess, survey, monitor and sample areas for radiation. The 33 team members joined another six DOE personnel already in Japan.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Hello my dear
    I am Modester by name good day. i just went to your profile this time true this site (www.slideshare.net) and i got your detail and your explanation in fact the way you explain your self shows me that you are innocent and maturity and also understand person i decided to have a contact with you so that we can explain to our self each other because God great everyone to make a friend with each other and from that we know that we are from thism planet God great for us ok my dear please try and reach me through my email address (modester4life4@yahoo.com) so that i can send you my picture true your reply we can know each other ok have a nice day and God bless you yours Modester
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • @Bradley - You are confused. There IS a direct conversion between Rem and Sieverts; they are both measures of biological effect. 1 sievert = 100 Rem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert

    There is also a direct conversion between Rad and Gray, they are both measures of absorbed radiation dose of ionizing radiation. 1 Gray = 100 Rad.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(unit)
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • I could be wrong, but I do not believe this is correct. It is my understanding that 1 rem = 10mSv. I have found that people trying to be alarmist use rems, because it sounds like a higher value, as well as some historical anti-nuclear biases generated during the cold war. On chart 3, if Sieverts had been the unit of measurement, the top of the estimated FYD would have read '> 20mSv', which, if anyone does any research, would suggest no harm whatsoever. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I am quite open to learning :)
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Sv and Mrem do not have a conversion. This is two different types of measurements. Where they are close in nature. The understanding from a biology and physics stand point are totally different. I see all the time that there are conversions for it. But in actuality the conversion is not a true conversion but more of an inferred average. But to put this in simple terms that those outside of the nuclear community can understand converting between sv and rem is like converting from water absorption in relation to a sprinkler or a bathtub. Sv refers to effective dose of radiation , absorbed by a person is obtained by averaging over all irradiated tissues Also known as whole body dose. Rem is known as absorbed dose and a weighting factor (some tissue is more susceptible to damage than others. So the factors change by the body part. Eyes, thyroid, blood and reproductive organs and the most sensitive.) I hope this help you understand the difference.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • I very much appreciate this, but could you use Sv like all the media reports? Going back and forth is confusing, and yes I know the conversion. Or at least show both!
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
41,908
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14

Actions

Shares
Downloads
199
Comments
5
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Radiological Assessment - of effects from -Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power PlantApril 18, 2011
  • 2. Operations Summary
    • Aerial Measuring Systems have totaled more than 334 flight hours in support of aerial monitoring operations
    • 3. NNSA’s Consequence Management Response Teams have collected approximately 150,000 total field measurements taken by DOE, DoD, and Japanese monitoring assets
    • 4. 504 total air samples taken at US facilities throughout Japan undergoing lab analysis in the US
  • First Year Dose Estimate
  • 5. Guide to Interpretation
    First-Year Dose Estimate commencing March 16, 2011:
    Map shows the radiation dose that would be received by people in the first year following the release of radioactive material from the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
    • First-Year 2 rem Threshold
    People who did not evacuate this area before the releases occurred would be expected to receive 2 rem or greater dose if they remain in that area for one year following the release. This area is indicated by red. Those that did evacuate the red area prior to plant release (prior to 16 March) would be expected to receive less than a 2 rem dose.
    • First-Year 100 millirem Threshold
    People who did not evacuate this area before the releases occurred would be expected to receive 100 millirem or greater dose if they remain in that area for one year following the release. This area is indicated by blue.
    Assumptions
    • This dose estimate is conservative and assumes no dose reduction factor for spending time indoors.
    • 6. This dose estimate takes into account radioactive decay of the source material.
    • 7. This dose estimate includes the effects of external radiation due to material deposited on the ground and inhalation of re-suspended radioactive particles.
    Notes
    • Based on 10 fixed-wing aerial surveys
    • 8. Dose conversion factor (DCF) computed for each flight to account for decay
    • 9. Computed dose based on NRC-supplied radionuclide mix, consistent with results to date for nuclides that have been measured
    4
    4
  • 10. Assessment
    An assessment of measurements gathered through April 17 continues to show:
    • Radiation levels continue to decrease
    • 11. No measurable deposit of radiological material since March 19
    • 12. US bases and facilities all measure dose rates below 32 microrem/hr (32 millionths of a REM) – a level with no known health risks
    • 13. Agricultural monitoring and possible intervention will be required for several hundred square kilometers surrounding the site:
    • 14. Soil and water samples are the only definitive method to determine agricultural countermeasures
    • 15. Ground monitoring can give better fidelity to identify areas that require agricultural sampling
    5
  • 16. Context
    • The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that the average American absorbs 620 mRem a year* (or 0.071 mRem/hour)
    • 17. An average transatlantic flight produces an exposure of 2.5 mRem*
    • 18. A typical chest x-ray produces 10 mRem per image
    • 19. EPA guidelines call for public health actions if exposure exceeds 1000 mRem over 4 days
    * Source: NRC: http://nrc.gov/images/about-nrc/radiation/factoid2-lrg.gif