The article screwed up the units: it is likely "0.809 microSieverts per hour". Your link's figures are over one year.

That's still way below the "no health issues" threshold of 0.01 Sv/hr (so we're 10 000 times below the threshold)

(source : http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/energy-good-bad.pdf)

The closest to a "no health issues" figure in your article is 0.02 MILLI-Sieverts per hour as the US regulation for maximum allowable exposure to the public in the vicinity of a power plant. So it's actually only about 250 times below that limit. i.e. nothing to worry about right now, but that can change quickly.

quote from table in the article

>Table 2: Symptoms associated with acute radiation exposure

>(dose for one day)

> Dose : 0-0.25Sv. Symptom : none . Outcome : - .

I was not referrign to any regulation, which is understandably way below the danger zone, but about the actual risks. hence the 10000 number.

These figures refer to "acute exposure", and may be different from prolonged exposure. Not sure about that, or about how prolonged the japanese exposure turns out to be.

Oh damn... These figures refer to acute radioation poisoning, i.e. what happens when radiation is so intense that it directly kills so many of your cells that your body can't cope.

Even if at 0.25 Sv none of that happens, you still have a very actual, massively increased risk of cancer and genetic defects in future children. To declare "no health issues", you most definitely want to stay several orders of magnitude below that (there is always and increased risk of cancer and birth defects, but at some point it gets lost in the noise).

I really don't want to sound condescending, but you should not issue statements here if you don't know such fundamental aspects.

7000 microsieverts/year is what we are talking about.

Still, that's 175 plane rides from ontario to vancouver.