Other blogs その他のブログ

Mari Takenouchi Files 竹野内真理ファイルhttp://takenouchimari.blogspot.jp/ 竹野内真理の公開質問Mari Takenouchi's open questions http://koukaishitsumon.blogspot.jp/竹野内真理動画Mari Takenouchi videos http://maritakenouchiyoutube.blogspot.jp/ おかしな人々 http://fukushimaworkerslist.blogspot.jp/ 竹野内真理エッセイhttp://takenouchimariessay.blogspot.jp/


BqからmSvへの換算はいい加減!ICRP Conversion from Bq to mSv is groudless!

ICRP Bq to mSv Conversion Table



The conversion from Bq to mSv is too wierd! On top of that, there is inconsistency of this formula among various pro-nuke sided scholars.

Ryugo Hayano, Tokyo University
2mSv=60000Bq, 1mSv=30000Bq
Jaque Rochard, ETHOS, from Hiroshima presentation
0.2mSv=20,000Bq, 1mSv=100,000Bq
しかもWBC研究の東大、早野論文ではhttps://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/pjab/89/4/89_PJA8904B-01/_pdf、400 Bq/dayのセシウム摂取すると、2mSv=60000Bq, すなわち1mSv=30000Bqといい、



I myself have been complaining about lies of ICRP on this blog as follows.

ICRP が間違っている5つの理由 5 Reasons why ICRP is wrong




However, Japanese society in general is weak to authorities, and there are people who believe in what authoritative scholars say or people who pretent to believe in what they say (how shrewed!).


Under such circumstance, a citizen from Nihonmatsu City, Fukushima, Mr. Shigeru Taguchi has been fighting alone against a scholar who decided the food standard in Japan.
I truly believe that if there are more people like Mr. Taguchi among citizens, the society as a whole could even be changed!  I don't think it is people who have good titles or authorities (who tend to be stakeholders of industries and government).
It is those who do not have any names and true conscience who will change this society! And these people's opinions are incomparably more theoretical and truthful compared to pro-nuke scholars. 


Without doubt, I would like to support these people!


With respect, I am copying his article below with English translation.


ICRPの基準はウソだった! By 田口茂

ICRP Standard is a lie! 

By Shigeru Taguchi, citizen in Fukushima

ICRPのBq→mSvへの換算係数はやはり”いい加減”(矮小化へ誘導)で あったことが国の基準を作ったメンバーが暴露。

A member who established Japan's food standard revealed that the conversion factor from Bq to Sv was "Groundless" (underestimated).
WBCの検査結果のBq表示を実効預託線量値としてmSVで表示する事、食品の内部被ばくをを最大5mSv以内にするとして定めた国の基準 (100Bq/Kg)も全てデタラメ(矮小化)だった事がこれで明らかとなった。

Further it was revealed that the conversion from Bq to mSv as effective committed dose in Tokyo University Whole Body Counter Study and the internal dose from food consumption within 5mSv (=100Bq/kg as Japan's cesium permissible limit) were altogether groundless!

This means, it was a false science to reach the figure of internal dose as effective committed dose itself.


ICRP standard (conversion factor from Bq to Sv) is not an absolute one, and IAEA's irresponsibile attitude is grave.  They have ignored the human dignity and are subdued to nuclear lobby.


The deceptions and lies of ICRP is now clear and confirmed.


Without any definite conversion formula on internal doses, false figures were enforced upon Fukushima residents by the government and municipalities.



As a result, not only lawsuits and compensation matters, most of all, diseases caused/to be caused by radiation is underestimated, and thus giving enormous disadvantages to the weak toward radiation (ie. children, pregnant women, future generations)

The government and government sided scholars give doubt on Bandazhevsky's theory saying bodily cesium concentration of 10Bq/kg could lead to abnormality on electro cardiogram.  However, they never doubt about the conversion formula of ICRP!

I feel the strongest resentment against the government and government-sided scholars who make fool out of Fukushima residents and people of Japan! 

They are not treating us as human beings!

Below is another page titles, ICRP standard was falsified.

http://nimosaku.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2013-02-04 (Japanese only)


Below are the questions and answers between me and the member who established the food safety standard of 100Bq/kg

 1.ICRPの基準(換算係数)は絶対的なものでなかったという事ですね?、 You are saying that ICRP standard (conversion formula) is not an absolute one, aren't you?
   【A】絶対的ではありません。No, it is NOT absolute.

2.ICRP自身も完璧ではないことを自覚しているのですか?Is ICRP also aware that the formula is not perfect?
  【A】はい、そうです。Yes, that is correct.

 ICRP自身が「生物学的効果の理解に欠かせない細胞、DNA のミクロスケールでのエネルギー付与分布の評価等」が課題とされているのはお伝えしたとおりです。ICRPの活動に関わっておられる研究者もこのお考えには同意されておられます。

As I mentioned before, ICRP itself had stated, "Evaluation of microscale energy distribution on cells and DNAs are open issues, which is indispensable to understand biological effects of radiation. "  Researchers who are involved in ICRP activities agree on this point.


Let me ask you questions on epidemiological studies by which ICRP conversion formula from Bq to mSv was established.



Q1: Who were the subjects of the epidemiological studies?  Hiroshima survivors?


A: A-bomb survivors, medical exposure, natural radiation exposure, professional exposure, and other nuclear disaster are considered.


Q2: When were the epidemiological studies conducted?

    【A】 様々、原爆被爆者は継続中(二世調査も進行中)
A: It varies, and the A-bomb survivors are being conducted now including the second generation.


Q3: By what kind of method?

A: It varies, and A-bomb study is based on cohort study.


Q4: What is the number of samples?




Q5: Who conducted the studies?



Q6: Based on what the studies were conducted?

Nuclear data (experiments and theory)
In vivo metabolism (experiments and model)
S figure (theoretical calculation)
Radiation weighing factors (epidemiological survery)
Tissue weighing factors (epidemiological survery)
Consideration of nonhomogeneity


Q7:Please show the data.


結果の説明例 Explanation of the data


Q8:RERF has never done any internal dose research.


A: I think it is impossible because the dose level was too small in case of A-bomb victims.

   ⑨ ICRPも内部被ばくの検討委員会は廃止したはずです。この事に対しても反論は?

Q9: ICRP had abolished the committee on internal dose.  What can you say about this?


A: Consideration is still underway.  If we hypothesize certain things, Bq can be converted into mSv, and then it will not be under estimation.


Q: However, I am saying that the hypothesization itself can be under estimation.


A: How about sensibility analysis?

     体全体の被ばく(外部被曝 のように)に換算し、mSVで示す事が正しいとする根拠も教えてください。

Q10:  Please show me the groud how mSv could be calculated from the deposited radionuclides in limited organs and muscles of human body such as in the case of external dose.


A: We consider the difference of distribution among various organs using effective dose factors.  We consider the difference of distribution in organs only when it is necessary.


Q: Isn't it the case of external dose?

      【A】 いいえ、違います。内部被ばくの場合を含んでいます。

A: No, it includes internal doses.


Q11: Don't you think it is not legitimate to have weighing factors of organs which could be added up to 1 in case of internal doses?

     【A】組織加重係数は、外部被ばくと内部被ばくで明示的には分けて与えられていませんが、ラドンの曝露で代表されるα線の場合は、外部被曝の場合には適用されませんので、     内部被ばくであるが故の独自性に考慮していると考えられます。

A: Organ Weighing factors are not separated between external and internal doses, but in case of radon exposure with alpha rays, external doses cannot be applied and thus the independent internal exposure is considered.


Q12: I think the deposition on each organ differs depending on the radionuclide and the factor of each could differ as well.

    【A】 おっしゃるとおりです。係数はもちろん核種別に与えられています。

A: You are right.  The factors are given for each radionuclide, of course.


Q13: I believe these factors should be different between internal and external exposure.  What do you think?

    【A】 ある臓器に外部被曝で1Gy、内部被曝で1Gyで与えられた場合に、影響が異なるのであれば、変えるべきだと思います。 影響が異なる可能性があるのは、内部被曝での核種の臓器内や細胞内の不均一性分布 です。

A: Given that 1Gy was applied externally and internally and if the impacts are different, the factors should be different.  Unequal distribution of radionuclides on organs and tissues in internal exposure could lead to different impacts.


Currently, such consideration is regarded as unecessary, but I think to obtain better finding with higher quality, such consideration could be made in the future.