Share this post:
It Took Authorities Two Months After Fukushima Melted Down To Announce 'Hope' That People Would Evacuate 20 KM - Dr. Chris Busby On Fukushima Radiation Risk - ECRR Risk Model And Radiation From Fukushima By Chris Busby -  European Committee on Radiation Risk

It took one month after 3 reactors melted down and multiple spent fuel pools caught on fire and dried out to raise the Fukushima mega disaster rating to 7, despite the nuclear plant operators knowing within hours that 3 reactors had melted down, effectively making it a level 7 event, the moment they knew this had happened. 

Fukushima Revisited: Radiation: Fact vs. "Media Spin" & surprise ending from Tokyo April 2011

In effect, the 'experts' knowingly exposed hundreds of thousands of people to high doses of radiation without giving them any warnings. The nuclear industry and Japan government did not even pass out preventative iodine tablets, in order to protect the thyroid glands of affected residents, but the doctors in hospitals did take them, for sure, as did the TEPCO employees, management and staff. 

It took one month after the disaster happened to evacuate people out to 20 kilometers, but they gave everyone in this area another MONTH to leave. This would be like telling someone to drink poison for another month before stopping that. The medical doctor says in the video that he 'hopes' people will evacuate. 

The news announcement claims that 'safe' levels of yearly radiation exposure set by some international organizations is between 20 to 100 millisieverts. Really? Like who specifically? Was this the IAEA advising them that this level was safe? 

The IAEA is a marketing arm of the nuclear industry. Was it WHO? They do not say or do anything without official permission from the IAEA, as they signed a legal agreement obligating them to that restriction, for whatever insane reason. 

The safe levels of an average person per year are set internationally at ONE (1) millisievert per year, not 20 or 100. Even nuclear plant workers who are working in a high radiation environment are not allowed to exceed 20 millisieverts per year. 

"On 6 October 2011 a government panel proposed to ease the legal restrictions for exposure to radiation in the contaminated area's with radioactive fallout, because in their opinion it would be extremely difficult to limit exposure below the legal limit of 1 millisievert per year. Instead the target should be set between 1 and 20 millisieverts in line with the recommendations by the International Commission for Radiological Protection. Targets should be lowered in steps as decontamination would be successful. Targets might differ by region and residents should have a voice in setting the targets.[121]


Dr. Chris Busby On Fukushima Radiation Risk - ECRR Risk Model And Radiation From Fukushima
By Chris Busby -Scientific Secretary, European Committee on Radiation Risk
Radioactivity form the Fukushima Catastrophe is now reaching centres of population like Tokyo and will appear in the USA. Authorities are downplaying the risk on the basis of absorbed dose levels using the dose coefficients of the International Commission on Radiological Protection the ICRP. These dose coefficients and the ICRP radiation risk model is unsafe for this purpose. This is clear from hundreds of research studies of the Chernobyl accident outcomes. It has also been conceded by the editor of the ICRP risk model, Dr Jack Valentin, in a discussion with Chris Busby in Stockholm, Sweden in April 2009. 

Valentin specifically stated in a videoed interview (available on and that the ICRP model could not be used to advise politicians of the health consequences of a nuclear release like the one from Fukushima. Valentin agreed that for certain internal exposures the risk model was insecure by 2 orders of magnitude. The CERRIE committee stated that the range of insecurity was between 10 and members of the committee put the error at nearer to 1000, a factor which would be necessary to explain the nuclear site child leukemia clusters. 

The ECRR risk model was developed for situations like Fukushima Since the ECRR 2003 Radiation Risk Model, updated in 2010, was developed for just this situation it can be employed to assess the risk in terms of cancer and other ill health. See It has been checked against many situations where the public has been exposed to internal radioactivity and shown to be accurate. Using the ECRR 2010 radiation risk model the following guide to the health effects of exposure can be employed. Take the dose which is published by the authorities. Multiply it by 600. This is the approximate ECRR dose for the mixture of internal radionuclides released from Fukushima. Then multiply this number by 0.1. This is the ECRR 2010 cancer risk. 

Example 1 : the dose from exposure to radioactive milk from Fukushima is said by the authorities to be so low that you would have to drink milk for a year to get the equivalent of a CT scan dose. A CT scan dose is about 10 milliSieverts (mSv) Assuming you drink 500ml a day, the annual intake is 180litres so the dose per litre is 0.055mSv. The ECRR dose per litre is at maximum 0.055 x 600 = 33mSv. Thus the lifetime risk of cancer following drinking a litre of such contaminated milk is 0.0033 or 0.33%. Thus 1000 people each drinking 1 litre of milk will result in 3.3 cancers in the 50 years following the intake. From the results in Sweden and elsewhere following Chernobyl, these cancers will probably appear in the 10 years following the exposure. 

Example 2. : External doses measured by a Geiger counter increased from 100nSv/h to 500nSv/h. What is the risk from a weeks exposure? Because the external dose is only a flag for the internal dose we assume that this is the internal ICRP dose from the range of radionuclides released which include radiodines, radiocaesium, plutonium and uranium particles, tritium etc. A weeks exposure is thus 400 x 10-9 x 24 x 7days or 6.72 x 10-5 Sv . We multiply by 600 to get the ECRR dose which is 0.04Sv and then by 0.1 to get the lifetime cancer risk which is 0.4%. Thus in this case, in 1000 individuals exposed for a week at this level, 4 will develop cancer because of this exposure. In 30 million, the population of Tokyo, this would result in 120,000 cancers in the next 50 years. 

The ICRP risk model would predict 100 cancers from the same exposure. Again we should expect to see a rise in cancer in the 10 years following the exposure. This is due to early clinical expression of pre-cancerous genomes. Other health effects are predicted, including birth effects, heart disease and a range of other conditions and diseases. For details see ECRR2010. These calculations have been shown to be accurate in the case of the population of Northern Sweden exposed to fallout for the Chernobyl accident, and also are accurate for the increased in cancer in northern hemisphere countries following the 1960s weapons testing fallout (the cancer epidemic). 

The public and the Japanese and other authorities would do well to calculate exposure risks on the basis of these approximations and to abandon the ICRP model which does not protect the public. This was the conclusion of a group of international experts who signed the 2009 Lesvos Declaration (this can be found on ) Reference ECRR 2010. The 2010 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk. The health effects of exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. Regulators Edition. EDs: Chris Busby, Alexey V Yablokov, Rosalie Bertell, Molly Scott Cato, Inge.Schmitze Feuehake, Brussels: ECRR. 


When did the ICRP change their recommendation to say that 20 to 100 millisieverts per year is safe for everyone, including babies and fetuses, which are up to 2 million times more sensitive to the same radiation dose that a healthy human male may tolerate? 

According to an entry on Wikipedia as of 11/12/2013; "The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends limiting artificial irradiation of the public to an average of 1 mSv (0.001 Sv) of effective dose per year, not including medical and occupational exposures.[1] For comparison, radiation levels inside the US capitol building are 0.85 mSv/a, close to the regulatory limit, because of the uranium content of the granite structure.[12]

According to the conservative ICRP model, someone who spent 20 years inside the capitol building would have an extra one in a thousand chance of getting cancer, over and above any other existing risk. (20 a·0.85 mSv/a·0.001 Sv/mSv·5.5%/Sv = ~0.1%) That "existing risk" is much higher; an average American would have a 10% chance of getting cancer during this same 20 year period, even without any exposure to artificial radiation." 


Bottom line, the fact that dangerous radiation levels were not spoken of, high radiation levels were minimized or dangers denied is something that happens with EVERY radiation accident or disaster.

NOT ONE nuclear accident violates this 'rule' that the nuclear experts practice. Research what was said in the news media and how long it took to warn residents (if they were ever warned), and you will find that there is a very consistent pattern of denial, avoidance, minimization, and delay.


A Green Road Journal has the largest, most organized, deepest set of articles, videos and pictures exposing the dark side of the nuclear monopoly in the world.

Zero Nuclear Weapons Peace And Justice Project; First Strike Policy, Ban Nuclear Bombs, DU, Down Winders, Acute Radiation Sickness, Nuclear War, Dirty Bombs, Bomb Shelters

Zero Rads In Children And Adults Eco Justice Project - Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Radiation Exposure

Zero Rads Extraction Eco Justice Project; Uranium Mining, Enrichment, Nuclear Fuel Chain, Open Air Testing, Fracking

Zero Internal Rads Eco Justice Project; Negative Effects Of Internal Radiation Exposure, Risk Models, Hormesis, Radiophobia, Radiation Monitoring Networks

Making Invisible Heavy Metal Radioactive Poison Visible Eco Justice Project; Ionizing Heavy Metal Poisonous Radiation In Food/Water/Products, Geiger Counters, Dosimeters, Radiation Readings, Test Labs, Conversions, Global Detector Network

Zero Harm To Animals, Insects, Birds And Plants Eco Justice Project; Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Heavy Metal Radioactive Poisons In Animals, Insects, Birds And Plants

Zero Nuclear Power Plant Threat Eco Justice Project; Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Fuel, Movie Reviews, Next Generation Nuclear Plants, Terrorists

Radiation Research, Education, Database Eco Justice Project; Individual Radioactive Elements/Isotopes, USA Radiation, Radiation Exposure Prevention, Reversal, Chelation

Eco Justice Art - Artists As Activists; Art, Aging, Poetry, Lyrics And Lawsuits Project; Lawsuits, Aging Nuclear Reactors, Recertification, Music, Lyrics, Poetry

Zero Rad Waste Eco Justice Project; Long Term Storage Of Nuclear Waste, Decommissioning, Ocean Dumping, Incineration, Decontamination, Water Contamination, Dry Cask Storage



Please help AGRP get this news out... thanks for your generous and very appreciated support! What you support grows and expands. What you withhold support from shrinks, shrivels and disappears. Even .50 cents per month is a great help. What is teaching the science of sustainable health worth?

Donate To A Green Road Project; Help Dr. Goodheart Teach How To Make A Positive Difference For Seven Future Generations Of Children, Animals, Plants And The Planet


Click to Translate; 60 languages - German, French, Russian, Spanish


* Join the AGR Network. Forward this or any other article by clicking on the social media facebook, google plus and/or twitter buttons below any AGRP article. The first step for activists is to bring awareness of an issue to the public, by being informed yourself. Which news and information network do you prefer to plug into and network with?

 Email AGRP

RSS Feed

Subscribe to; A Green Road Project Magazine, monthly issues
It is easy to join the AGRP network, and your email will never be rented, sold or shared.

Subscribe/sign up, give feedback, or offer news tips or story ideas by sending an email to . Subscribe by typing the word subscribe in the subject line.


Wayne Dyer - What You Think, You Become (Wayne Dyer Meditation)

"Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, "ALLOWANCES ARE MADE FOR FAIR USE" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute, that otherwise might be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." For more info go

Copyright protected material on this website is used in accordance with 'Fair Use', for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis, and will be removed at the request of the copyright owner(s). Please read Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement.


A Green Road; Teaching the Science of Sustainable Health. 

Keep asking - what works for 7 future generations without causing harm? 

Support AGR and share this article via by copying and pasting title and url into;

Website and contact page

Index, Table Of Contents


It Took Authorities Two Months After Fukushima Melted Down To Announce 'Hope' That People Would Evacuate 20 KM - Dr. Chris Busby On Fukushima Radiation Risk - ECRR Risk Model And Radiation From Fukushima By Chris Busby -  European Committee on Radiation Risk

Share this post: