Thursday, June 2, 2011

#Fukushima I Nuke Accident: Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission Ready to Loosen Already-Loose Radiation Safety Limit for Foods

The Nuclear Safety Commission headed by Haruki "Detarame ('Falsehood'; his cute nickname by the irate Japanese citizens)" Madarame has proposed that the Japanese government loosen the provisional safety limits for foods, as the Fukushima nuclear disaster continues.

(Oh by the way, did you know the provisional safety numbers for radioactive materials in foods, milk and drinking water were decided on the basis of 5 millisieverts per year radiation exposure?)

From Mainichi Shinbun Japanese (6/2/2011; emphasis is mine):

内閣府原子力安全委員会は2日、食品や飲料水に含まれる放射性物質の暫定規制値を見直す必要があるとの見解を示した。  食品衛生法は放射性物質に関する基準がない。日本は東京電力福島第1原発の事故を受け、年5ミリシーベルト以下になるよう食品ごとの暫定規制値を 設定した。これは、国際放射線防護委員会(ICRP)が行政による出荷制限の目安として勧告している数値の中で、最も厳しい数値。しかし、事故が長期化し 実態に合わないとの声があり、安全委の代谷誠治委員も同日の臨時会で「暫定値を金科玉条のように使うのは望ましくない」と述べた。

On June 2, the Nuclear Safety Commission under the Cabinet Office indicated the need for revising the provisional safety limits for the radioactive materials in foods and drinking water. Japan's Food Safety Law does not have the formal safety standards for radioactive materials. After the Fukushima I Nuke Plant accident, the Japanese government has set provisional safety limits for radioactive materials for each food item so that the total radiation [from food and water?] would be below 5 millisieverts per year. This number is the most strict one among the numbers recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) as the government guidelines to restrict the shipment [of the food items]. However, as the Fukushima accident continues, some experts have voiced concern that [these provisional numbers] do not fit the actual situation [i.e. they are too low]. Commissioner Seiji Shiroya spoke in the ad-hoc meeting of the Commission on June 2 that "It is not desirable to use the provisional numbers as if they were set in stone."


Anonymous said...

Robbie001 sez:

The need for changes in ICRP policy: some examples based on the Chernobyl experience in Ukraine:

"Current ICRP policy in radiological protection (ICRP Publication 60) is based on the independent restriction of exposure and sources for practice and intervention. Such subdivision of exposure and sources leads to a number of problems and contradictions in different applications. In a recent memorandum of the ICRP, published in the Journal of Radiological Protection in 2001, and ICRP Publications 81 and 82, the directions for settling some of these problems are indicated. This paper shows that in Ukraine, after the Chernobyl accident, a number of problems and contradictions occurred as the result of strictly separated limitation of the sources and exposure. These are demonstrated through four 'radiological paradoxes': (1) resettlement of inhabitants from territories radioactively contaminated after the Chernobyl accident to 'clean' ones, but with anomalous high levels of radon exposure in houses"

"The ICRP - another profiteer of the atomic industry – made the recommendations for radiation protection norms, which were accepted by all countries, and which justified the set of regulations of the IAEA. Interesting isn’t it? Here is one:
ICRP said, the tritium emission (from atomic power plants) in water should be 40.000 Bq.

In 1990 they said: Lets make 7000 Bq/ litre."

Anonymous said...

Robie001 sez:

"I believe that the standard setting should be recommended by a professionally established open body, with credentials in occupational and public health. The ICRP is profoundly undemocratic and unprofessionally constituted. It is self- appointed and self-perpetuated. Certainly a recommending body could be composed of individuals elected from professional societies such as international associations of professionals trained in occupational health, epidemiology, public health, neonatology, pediatrics, oncology, etc. Some members could be recommended by the WHO and the ILO.

An organization of users of radiation, such as ICRP, being asked to set standards is like inviting the tobacco industry to regulate tobacco! ICRP is organized by its By-Laws to include only users and national regulators (usually coming from the ranks of users) of radiation.

If it is decided that fatal cancer incidence rate should be the biological endpoint on which the regulations are based, and I do not accept this as the best indicators of problems, then the radiation industry needs to conform to the same standards of injury as is used for regulating the chemical industry.

The State of Minnesota, in the USA, decided that a nuclear waste dump should not be able to cause more than one cancer (fatal of non-fatal) over the life-time (70 years) of an exposed person. This is the standard which the State used for chemical polluters. Based on this, a criteria of no exposure of the public above 0.0005 mSv per year was derived by the State Department of Health. This Standard is being enforced in that State, although it is ten thousand times lower than the current permissible dose to the public per year under US Federal Law, namely 5 mSv per year.

In Ontario, the Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards (ACES) expressed astonishment that the nuclear industry was permitting itself to pollute the drinking water with up to 40,000 Bq of tritium per Litre, under the 5 mSv per year federal radiation dose limit for members of the public. When the ICRP reduced the recommendation to 1 mSv per year, the industry agreed to lower the permissible level of tritium in water to 7,000 Bq per Litre. When the ACES used the industry risk estimates for calculating the expected number of fatal cancers considered to be "permissible" under this Standard, they called for an immediate reduction in permissible levels to 100 Bq per Litre, with a further reduction to 20 Bq per Litre within five years. This was based of the standard setting used for toxic chemicals. This means the radiation protection guide line allows 350 times more fatal cancers than chemical standards would allow".

Anonymous said...

Glow Now, Pray Later!
The End is not near, it has come and gone.
You just didn't notice, did you?
Make your life meaningful, and your death as well.
Blessed Be!

Post a Comment