According to my math skills (I'm using some fairly advanced arithmetic here) if radiation levels stay at that rate on average, a person there would receive about 58 mSv/yr. For comparison, the maximum yearly dose for radiation workers in the US is 50 mSv/yr. Sounds like enough to cause concern, but not necessarily alarm.

@1
Ssshhhh! Can't you see that Goldy is having a freakout moment?

Goldy, you've seen the xkcd radiation chart, yeah? Xkcd.com/radiation

@2: Wait'll she learns that most of the radiation is coming from an isotope of iodine, with a half-life of eight days!

I wonder if freakouts deflate like a punctured soufflé.

@3 She? What she are you talking about?

@2: thanks for posting the link to that chart; once again, xkcd leads the way in providing useful, accessible information.

@2,

How is this in any way a freakout?

@1, a year has 8760 hours, x 0.161 mSv/hr = 1,420 mSv = 1.4 Sv.

If received over a few hours, that would cause moderate radiation sickness. Over a year, the body's radiation-repair mechanisms would avert acute symptoms, but long-term cancer risk would likely be increased.

It's important to note that the source of that level of radiation is not the plant itself, 20 km away, but highly localized sources quite close to the measuring site that have been transported from the plant (airborne residue from fires or explosions at the plant). Also, much of the measured dose is from short-lived isotopes and will probably be a tiny fraction of that a couple of weeks or months from now.

(1,410 mSv. I blame my new Intel-powered MacBook.)

isn't the 20km zone already evacuated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMiigy92…

Bad math delwalk
161mSv/hr x 24 =3864 mSv/day x 360 = 1,391,040 mSv (1.391 Sv)/yr or 3.97 times the lifetime allowance for a nuclear plant worker.

Sorry for the error... it should have been 365 x 3864 = 1,410,360mSv (1.41/Sv) or 4.03 x lifetime allowance for nuclear workers in just one year.
tomkw51

I wonder if anyone on these comments realizes that there is a lifetime cap on your medical X-rays?

GOLDY!

Hey, i kinda freaked out a little bit about your freak outs about a week ago (perhaps you remember the bowel movement analogy), and have been able to hold my tongue since, but this link it too good not to send your way somehow!

http://www.todaysbigthing.com/technology…

God it drives me crazy that they don't use REM in these stories.

It seems we can't be completely sure about conditions here on the West coast; Bloomberg reported that 8 of 18 USGOV monitors in CA, OR, and WA are "undergoing quality review" at present.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21…

Damn that's even a higher percentage than the number of US nukes that underwent "quality review" last year. Aw well, shucks ma'am ... In God We Trust.

@16

160 uSv = 0.016 rem
looks like a case of divide by 10K