BBC Wrong on Fukushima Risk

Britain’s state-owned network BBC has a track record of downplaying the risks of fallout from nuclear disasters. So the 5thanniversary of Fukushima provided the BBC with another opportunity to persuade us that if our communities should one day become contaminated with fallout from a major nuclear disaster, even at levels currently requiring evacuation, we should have no concern whatsoever. [1]

In my video here we see BBC’s Rupert Wingfield-Hayes walking the streets of an evacuated Fukushima town and taking a measurement of the radiation with his dosimeter. See the gigantic error arising therefrom that is used to support the safety of levels of fallout that are internationally recognized as warranting evacuation:

In a supplemental BBC News article, [2] Wingfield-Hayes writes:

On recent visits to the towns of Okuma and Namie inside the radiation exclusion zone I measured a “received dose” of around 3 microsieverts of radiation per hour. These are in areas that are off-limits and have had no remediation work done. If I were to stand outside here for 12 hours a day, every day of the year, I would receive an annual extra dose of radiation of around 13 millisieverts.That is not insignificant, but it is far below what the data suggest is dangerous to long-term health.

In most countries nuclear industry workers are allowed to receive up to 20 millisieverts a year. There are places in Cornwall in the UK where background radiation levels reach 8 millisieverts a year.

The world’s highest background radiation rate is found in the city of Ramsar in Iran, which has the astonishing rate of 250 millisieverts a year.

Wingfield-Hayes arbitrarily cuts in half the annual dose associated with the dose-rate he measured in the Fukushima town (seen in the video above). So rather than properly saying 26 millisieverts a year, he merely says 13 millisieverts a year. However, the annual dose-rate for background radiation in a region assumes 24-hour exposure. Here, for example, is a dose-rate map in the city he cites, Ramsar, Iran, [3] over which I have laid the corresponding Google satellite image [4]:

more here


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s