tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5056599210263969567.post5822076915078378285..comments2024-01-23T03:52:54.149+09:00Comments on Anne Kaneko's Fukushima Blog: The Clean Up startsAnne Kanekohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09520490908508371344noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5056599210263969567.post-33613758905611677712011-10-13T05:23:37.784+09:002011-10-13T05:23:37.784+09:00So why is "20 mSv/yr is OK for now but needs ...So why is "20 mSv/yr is OK for now but needs to be brought down in stages (as the Clean Up progresses) back to 1 mSv/year"?<br /><br />Seems a bit inconsistent. What's the reasoning?<br /><br />Secondly, why clean it up all the way down to 1 mSv (presumably the average dose an inhabitant in the area receives)? There are plenty of people in other places that receive higher doses. For example, the UK average dose is 2.7 mSv/yr (this includes dose from the environment, food and medical sources), USA 6.2 mSv/yr and the average radon dose for people in Cornwall 7.8 mSv/yr.<br /><br />Aren't the levels of USA or Cornwall good enough? <br /><br />Radiation dose data from: http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/Radiation/UnderstandingRadiation/UnderstandingRadiationTopics/DoseComparisonsForIonisingRadiation/Taknoreply@blogger.com