This page is for categorization of reports and data related to radiation exposure through all sources, studies on radiation exposure and outcomes and any other related data. Please leave your notes in the comments. Anyone with editing access can then grab out of comments and organize into groupings as needed.

General info on radiation levels and exposures:

Estacion saves the day! Thanks for the conversions.
0.10 Gy = 0.10 Sv = 100 mSv = 1000 uSv, for X-ray, Gamma ray or beta radiaton
0.10 Gy = 2.00 Sv, for alpha particles

——–
Under exposure a given material has an ability to absorb radiation. This differs with certain materials (think lead versus water) and some will absorb more or less as radiation passes through.

Conventional units: A dose of 1 rad means the absorption of 100 ergs of radiation energy per gram of absorbing material

SI units: A dose of 1 gray means the absorption of 1 joule of radiation energy per kilogram of absorbing material

conversion

Dose equivalent
The dose equivalent is a measure of biological effect for whole body irradiation. The dose equivalent is equal to the product of the absorbed dose and the Quality Factor.

The Quality Factor (Q) depends on the type of radiation:

X-ray, Gamma ray, or beta radiation: Q = 1

alpha particles: Q = 20

neutrons of unknown energy: Q = 10 (If the neutron energy is known, see more specific Q values at 10 CFR 20.1004)

conventional units: dose equivalent (rems) is the product of dose (rads) and Q

SI units: dose equivalent (sieverts) is the product of dose (grays) and Q

Conversion

1 Sievert (Sv) = 100 rem

1 rem = 0.01 Sievert (Sv)

Effective dose calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_dose
Linear No Threshold Model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

Radiation Accident Protocols w/ Public – important document!

WHO – Japan FAQ Food Safety http://www.who.int/hac/crises/jpn/faqs/en/index7.html

http://www.tenorm.com/regs2.htm
NCRP report

Contamination at Monticello UT – Superfund Site
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0889025.pdf

http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/112/4/519.short

Radon & Lung Cancer Study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21212062

NCRP report 136 -Evaluation of the Linear-Nonthreshold Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/22/3/703
** This has some solid conclusions, this link is a book report on the study, need the report.

NRC Executive Summary of NCRP report 136

Evaluation of the Linear-Nonthreshold Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation (NCRP Report No 136) http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/22/3/703

CHERNOBYL Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts
2002 Update of Chernobyl: Ten Years On
http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/reports/2003/nea3508-chernobyl.pdf

Tondell Study, Sweden cancers from Chernobyl
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732641/pdf/v058p01011.pdf

Exposure of the American People to Iodine-131 from Nevada Nuclear-Bomb Tests:
Review of the National Cancer Institute Report and Public Health Implications
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6283

Risk of Thyroid Cancer After Exposure to 131I in Childhood
Journal of the National Cancer Inst.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/10/724.short

http://www.alasbimnjournal.cl/revistas/4/amarali.htm
(thanks Vivre)

——————————–

This fellow has also done lots of research on radiation effects on nuclear power industry workers. http://www.rrjournal.org He was one of the folks doing that big 2004 Chernobyl thyroid study on young people (cited below). Maybe we should write him and find out if there are more recent results, and see if he can give us any information on dose/effects we might be able to use to help educate folks re: Fukushima. Geoffrey R. Howe, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 West 168th Street, Suite 1104, New York, NY 10032; gh68@columbia.edu http://www.rrjournal.orghttp://www.rrjournal.org/action/doSearch?action=searchAuthor&type=simple&action=search&nh=10&displaySummary=
false&result=true&type=simple&sauthcbx=Howe,%20Geoffrey%20R.&checkbox

This one says they can’t say for sure that there is or is not a threshold dose below which there will be effects from the radiation. http://www.rrjournal.org Puskin, J. S. What Can Epidemiology Tell Us about Risks at Low Doses? Radiat. Res. 169, 122–124 (2008).
Limitations on statistical power preclude direct detection and quantification of radiogenic cancer risks at very low (environmental) levels of low-LET radiation through epidemiological studies. Given this limitation and our incomplete understanding of cellular processes leading to radiation carcinogenesis, an “effective threshold” in the dose range of interest for radiation protection cannot yet be ruled out. Ongoing epidemiological studies of chronically exposed individuals receiving very low daily doses of radiation can be used, however, together with radiobiological data, to critically test whether such a threshold is plausible. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR1187.1

This one actually has some dose-related numbers. jnci.oxfordjournals.org

http://www.rrjournal.org
Chornobyl Thyroid Diseases Study Group of Belarus, Ukraine, and the USA. A Cohort Study of Thyroid Cancer and Other Thyroid Diseases after the Chornobyl Accident: Objectives, Design and Methods. Radiat. Res. 161, 481–492 (2004). “This paper describes an ongoing cohort study being conducted in Belarus and Ukraine that includes 25,161 subjects under the age of 18 years in 1986 who are being screened for thyroid diseases every 2 years. Individual thyroid doses are being estimated for all study subjects based on measurement of the radioactivity of the thyroid gland made in 1986 together with a radioecological model and interview data. Approximately 100 histologically confirmed thyroid cancers were detected as a consequence of the first round of screening. The data will enable fitting appropriate dose–response models, which are important in both radiation epidemiology and public health for prediction of risks from exposure to radioactive iodines from medical sources and any future nuclear accidents. Plans are to continue to follow-up the cohort for at least three screening cycles, which will lead to more precise estimates of risk.” I will see if I can find the follow up articles. This is a big study, following more than 25,000 people. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/3148

http://www.rrjournal.org I think this one says they couldn’t find a clear correlation between exposure/dose and getting hyperthyroidism. As in, they couldn’t say you have to get x amount to get it, less than that you don’t get it. There’s a longer abstract at the link. Prevalence of Hyperthyroidism after Exposure during Childhood or Adolescence to Radioiodines from the Chornobyl Nuclear Accident: Dose–Response Results from the Ukrainian-American Cohort Study “In summary, after a thorough exploration of the data, we found no statistically significant dose–response relationship between individual 131I thyroid doses and prevalent hyperthyroidism.”
http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR2003.1

Roy E. Shore (1992) Issues and Epidemiological Evidence regarding Radiation-Induced Thyroid Cancer. Radiation Research: July 1992, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp. 98-111. The available information on the induction of thyroid cancer in humans by ionizing radiation is summarized and weaknesses or gaps in assessing risk are identified. Issues to be addressed include: average estimates of thyroid cancer risk from external irradiation, the effects of age on thyroid cancer induction, shape of the dose-response curve for acute irradiation, magnitude of risk at low doses, effects of dose fractionation or dose protraction, the relative effectiveness of iodine-131 (131 I) in inducing thyroid cancer compared to external radiation, the temporal course of radiogenic thyroid cancer risk, mortality caused by thyroid cancer, host-susceptibility factors for radiogenic thyroid cancer, and biological factors in risk. It is concluded that the most important needs are to obtain more information on thyroid cancer risks following low-level or highly fractionated radiation exposures and following131 I exposure in children.This article costs $30 for 30 days access to the pdf. From the abstract it is difficult to tell exactly how much information the article provides; it seems the conclusion is that more studies need to be done. If the techies feel like it’s worth it I will spend the$30 for access. Let me know. Now back to searching…. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.2307/3578322?journalCode=rare

Elaine Ron, Jay H. Lubin, Roy E. Shore, Kiyohiko Mabuchi, Baruch Modan, Linda M. Pottern, Arthur B. Schneider, Margaret A. Tucker and John D. Boice, Jr. (1995) Thyroid Cancer after Exposure to External Radiation: A Pooled Analysis of Seven Studies. Radiation Research: March 1995, Vol. 141, No. 3, pp. 259-277. The thyroid gland of children is especially vulnerable to the carcinogenic action of ionizing radiation. To provide insights into various modifying influences on risk, seven major studies with organ doses to individual subjects were evaluated. Five cohort studies (atomic bomb survivors, children treated for tinea capitis, two studies of children irradiated for enlarged tonsils, and infants irradiated for an enlarged thymus gland) and two case-control studies (patients with cervical cancer and childhood cancer) were studied. The combined studies include almost 120,000 people (approximately 58,000 exposed to a wide range of doses and 61,000 nonexposed subjects), nearly 700 thyroid cancers and 3,000,000 person years of follow-up. For persons exposed to radiation before age 15 years, linearity best described the dose response, even down to 0.10 Gy. At the highest doses (>10 Gy), associated with cancer therapy, there appeared to be a decrease or leveling of risk. For childhood exposures, the pooled excess relative risk per Gy (ERR/Gy) was 7.7 (95% CI = 2.1, 28.7) and the excess absolute risk per <tex-math>$10^{4}\ {\rm PY}\ {\rm Gy}\ ({\rm EAR}/10^{4}\ {\rm PY}\ {\rm Gy})$</tex-math> was 4.4 (95% CI = 1.9, 10.1). The attributable risk percent (AR%) at 1 Gy was 88%. However, these summary estimates were affected strongly by age at exposure even within this limited age range. The ERR was greater (P = 0.07) for females than males, but the findings from the individual studies were not consistent. The EAR was higher among women, reflecting their higher rate of naturally occurring thyroid cancer. The distribution of ERR over time followed neither a simple multiplicative nor an additive pattern in relation to background occurrence. Only two cases were seen within 5 years of exposure. The ERR began to decline about 30 years after exposure but was still elevated at 40 years. Risk also decreased significantly with increasing age at exposure, with little risk apparent after age 20 years. Based on limited data, there was a suggestion that spreading dose over time (from a few days to >1 year) may lower risk, possibly due to the opportunity for cellular repair mechanisms to operate. The thyroid gland in children has one of the highest risk coefficients of any organ and is the only tissue with convincing evidence for risk at about 0.10 Gy. So, lilly, do we have a method for conversion from 0.10 Gy into units that are being more commonly used in the Tepco or GoJ “information” releases? http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.2307/3579003?journalCode=rare

—————————

NCRP guidelines http://www.tenorm.com/regs2.htm

CRIIRAD – iodine injestion totals http://tinyurl.com/3cv5mer

Is this the same study or a different one, are they actually going to do gamma scans or just ultrasound?
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110725p2a00m0na007000c.html

IAEA cesium and iodine concentration maps http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull283/28302792729.pdf

NSC radiation released from 1-3 during first week of disaster

Complete NSC document for chart above
http://www.nsc.go.jp/anzen/shidai/genan2011/genan040/siryo1.pdf

Yamashita background:
2006 Yamashita study http://www.hotthyroidology.com/editorial_158.html

More on Yamashita’s claims

Ex-SKF translations of Yamashita statements including transcripts

Potassium Iodide (preventative iodine):

Thyroid Cancer: a comprehensive guide to clinical management
amp;sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Williams%20fallout%20from%20
chernobyl%20thyroid%20cancer%20in%20children%20increased%20belarus%20BMJ%201994&f=false

Effects of ionizing radiation on the antioxidant system of microscopic fungi with radioadaptive properties found in the chernobyl exclusion zone.

This article would not be possible without the extensive efforts of the SimplyInfo research team
Join the conversation at chat.simplyinfo.org