No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2025
Chemical physicist Chris Busby is at the forefront of scientists who are challenging the radiation risk model propounded by ICRP, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, whose standards for allowable radiation doses the Japanese government has adopted for its citizens affected by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. Busby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), points out that the ICRP model “deals with radiation exposure from all sources in the same way, as if it were external to the body,” and then takes this dose and multiplies it by a risk factor based on the high acute external doses of the atomic-bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The ICRP method thus fails to take into account a number of ways in which certain internal radionuclides can deliver very high doses to critical targets in cells, particularly the cell DNA. One of these is from “inhaled or ingested hot particles, which are solid but microscopic and can lodge in tissue delivering high doses to local cells.” As a result, internal radiation exposure can be “up to 1,000 times more harmful than the ICRP model concludes.”
Fukushima is Worse than Chernobyl – on Global Contamination Partial Japanese Text here: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xbgK23E9ayE/TiB03I93mQI/AAAAAAAARYQ/xnCGqa0OoKw/s1600/%25E9%2580%25B1%25E9%2596%2593%25E9%2587%2591%25E6%259B%259C%25E6%2597%25A5%25E3%2583%2590%25E3%2582%25BA%25E3%2583%2593%25E3%2583%25BC.jpg
1 See ICRP statement, “Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident,” March 21, 2011. Link, and ICRP Publication 111, “Application of the Commission's Recommendation to the People Living in the Long-Term Contaminated Areas after a Nuclear Accident or a Radiation Emergency,” Annals of the ICRP, Volume No.39, No.3, 2009.
2 Chris Busby, “The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe – Initial analysis from risk model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk ECRR,” March 30, 2011. p.1. Link.
3 Ibid., p.1.
4 Ibid., p.1
5 Chris Busby, Rosalie Bertell, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake, Molly Scott Cato, Alexey Yablokov, “ECRR 2010 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk – The Health Effects of Exposure to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation,” Regulators' Edition, Green Audit, August 2010.
6 See Table 5 and 6 in Chris Busy, “The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe – Initial analysis from risk model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk ECRR,” March 30, 2011. p.12. Link.
7 Ibid., p.12.
8 Ibid., p.1.
9 IAEA, “Japan Confirms Plutonium in Soil Samples at Fukushima Daiichi,” Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update, March 28, 2011. Link. TEPCO reported plutonium detection within the premises again on April 22 (see Yomiuri report). On June 5, Sankei reported that Professor Yamamoto Masayoshi of Kanazawa University detected traces of plutonium outside the Fukushima Daiichi premises (1.7km away), the first of such detection regarded as coming from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Link.
10 A report and analysis of EPA database “RadNet” by blog “Chuoni to o-oni no futarigoto,” April 29, 2011. Link.
11 CTBTO, “Fukushima-Related Measurements by the CTBTO,” April 13, 2011 Link.
12 Later we asked whether the UK air filters were also car air filters, and the answer was no. Busby was referring to “high volume air samplers deployed around the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston.” To our question on whether the radioactive materials on those filters could be from that atomic establishment instead of Fukushima, he answered, “There was also an increase in Uranium. This level of plutonium in one filter is very unusual and the increase in uranium followed the Fukushima accident. The level of uranium was about three times the normal level and this was statistically significant. We know this because we analysed these filters after the 2003 Gulf war and found uranium. There was an enormous increase in plutonium in only one filter and a slight increase in a second filter. Taken together with the uranium data this seems persuasive but not, of course (for the plutonium) absolute proof (that it was from Fukushima).”
13 Chris Busby, “The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe – Initial analysis from risk model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk ECRR,” March 30, 2011 Link.
14 About half of the 191,986 excess cancers expected in 50 years are expected to be diagnosed in the first 10 years in the 100 km zone, and also about half of the 224,623 excess cancers expected in 50 years are expected to be diagnosed in the first 10 years in the 100 – 200 km zone, so the sum of those expected to be diagnosed in 10 years in both zones is approximately 200,000. See Table 5 and Table 6 of Chris Busby, “The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe – Initial analysis from risk model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk ECRR,” March 30, 200 Link.
15 Peace Philosophy Centre, “Fukushima parents sue government for safe educational environment,” July 4, 2001. Link. See Chris Busby's statement to support this lawsuit, “Statement of Chris Busby in relation to provisional injunction against Education Committee of Koryama City, Fukushimma to evacuate the children for the radioactively contaminated area being filed on 24th June 2011. Link.
You have
Access
Open access