I'm coming home!

According to the State Department, I am now officially allowed to come home! This is the long awaited news I've been wanting to hear for the past month. I have family and friends that say I should still stay, that the risk is too great and that I need to think about my baby. Believe me, I fully understood the risks involved with being exposed to any amount of radiation, which is why Mike and I felt that I should return to the U.S. on March 19th. I was in Japan for one week after the earthquake happened and the tsunami wiped out thousands of homes. Then the news started to feature problems at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant and it steadily seemed to be getting worse as each day went on. I was getting advice from others saying to stay inside, leave my windows closed and I should be fine. I was receiving emails and phone calls from home telling me to get the heck out of there. As each day slowly ticked by, I became very worried about the risk and exposure to radiation. People around me started to leave on their own, before the Voluntary Authorized Departure for Military Dependents was issued. Hearing that other people were leaving made me more scared and worried that staying behind was the wrong decision. Emotionally I was drained and physically I was exhausted, not getting enough sleep and not able to eat. At this point, I couldn't wait any longer and boarded my 12 hour flight to New York.

As my time here as been wonderful and much needed, it has also been draining in a different degree. I was continuing to get opinions and advice from others, strangers even, that I should stay put and have my baby here. What is a little frustrating to me is that news stateside (especially when this all started) was very drastic and over-exaggerated. Headlines were saying "Americans-GET OUT!" and there was an uproar over the change in the rating system from a category 5 (comparable to Three Mile Island) to a category 7 (comparable to Chernobyl). If you have faith in our military and if you have faith in our leadership, please trust that they would NOT let families return to Japan unless they felt it was safe. They've already spent a lot of money flying us all home and trust me, they would not want to spend money to fly us back, only to go back on their decision and evacuate us yet again.

Please read the following comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima. I think this may clear up some assumptions that have been made regarding the change in rating.

TOKYO —

Japan raised the assessment of its nuclear crisis to the most severe rating Tuesday, on the same level as the Chernobyl disaster, the world’s worst to date. Some answers to questions about the assessment and health and safety concerns:

Has the situation at the Japanese nuclear power plant worsened?

No. The heaviest radiation leaks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex occurred in the first days after the March 11 earthquake-triggered tsunami crippled the plant’s cooling systems. Workers are trying to lower temperatures in the overheated nuclear reactors, but still don’t have full control. Problems persist, like the leak into the ocean plugged last week, but authorities say the radiation leaks are declining.

If the situation’s not getting worse, why did Japan raise its assessment of the crisis?

The decision was based on new assessments of radiation leaks since the crisis began, rather than on deteriorating conditions. The new data showed emissions exceeding the threshold for a “major accident,” level 7 on a 1-to-7 scale set by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Only one accident has previously rated 7, the 1986 meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

So is Japan’s crisis as bad as Chernobyl’s?

Not yet. Chernobyl was a fast-moving crisis. A routine shutdown went awry, causing a reactor to overheat, explode and burn. For 10 days, the reactor spewed high levels of radiation into the air and only cooled after helicopters dropped sand, clay, lead and other materials on it. By contrast, Fukushima crisis has been a slow cascade of problems over a month. Explosions occurred at three of Fukushima’s reactors and one may be leaking. But the two plants’ reactor designs are different. Unlike Chernobyl’s reactors, Fukushima’s have pressure vessels of steel 15 centimeters thick that may have helped contain the damage.

Then why the same severity level rating?

The IAEA defines a level-7 accident as one in which a large amount of radiation is released into the atmosphere, likely harming human health and damaging the environment over the long-term. That threshold is set at several tens of thousands of terabecquerels—a unit of radiation—of iodine-131, a radioactive element commonly released in nuclear accidents. Leaks at both plants have exceeded that limit, but the Japanese government says Fukushima’s are still one-tenth of those released by Chernobyl. The possibility Fukushima’s emissions could surpass Chernobyl’s is considered small, but still a risk until Fukushima’s cooling systems are restored.

What are the health risks?

Radiation normally occurs in the environment, and at low levels cause no health problems for people. In higher doses, radiation may cause types of cancer. Limiting exposure is key. Because radioactive elements are heavy, they tend to concentrate closest to the source, in this case the nuclear plant. The Japanese government has evacuated people living near the plant and advised people a bit farther out to stay indoors.

Are only people close to the plant at risk?

Winds have been blowing to the northwest of the plant, rather than out to sea, carrying radioactive elements farther inland. The government has banned the sale of vegetables and milk from certain areas after they showed contamination. The government on Monday also ordered people in five communities outside the evacuation zone to leave to avoid long-term radiation exposure.

What about people outside Japan?

Weather patterns are already carrying traces of radiation from Fukushima to South Korea and China. Airborne radioactive particles have also reached the United States. In all cases, the governments say the amounts detected aren’t dangerous.

Didn’t people die at Chernobyl?

Thirty-one men died mostly from being exposed to very high levels of radiation trying to contain the accident. About 5 million people were exposed to radiation. Higher rates of thyroid cancer have been found among people 18 or younger at the time of the accident. An IAEA study said about 4,000 people would ultimately die from cancer, though a U.N. study estimated cancer deaths at more than twice that number and other groups put the fatalities many times higher.

Is the same thing happening at Fukushima?

At Fukushima, 21 workers have been exposed to radiation doses the equivalent of 100 millisieverts. Two were treated for burns after walking in heavily contaminated water in a plant building. But no deaths from radiation exposure have occurred so far. Cancers often take years or decades to develop.

What radioactive elements have been found so far?

Most measurements have focused on two, iodine and cesium. Radiation from iodine-131 dissipates quickly, falling by half every eight days and nearly disappearing after 80 days. If inhaled or swallowed, it can concentrate in the thyroid and cause cancer. Cesium-137 lingers far longer, 30 years to decay by half and 300 to disappear. Cesium too can build up in the body and is linked to cancers, though studies after Chernobyl did not find an increase in cancers linked to cesium.

Now as far as being pregnant and exposed to radiation, let me include some very helpful information provided from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I will highlight the paragraphs that apply to my case specifically.

Radiation exposure before birth can increase a person's risk of getting cancer later in life. Unborn babies are especially sensitive to the cancer-causing effects of radiation. However, the increased risks depend on the amount of radiation to which the baby was exposed and the amount of time that it was exposed. For example, if the radiation dose to the fetus was roughly equivalent to 500 chest x-rays at one time, the increase in lifetime cancer risk would be less than 2% (above the normal lifetime cancer risk of 40 to 50%). Every day, Yokota Air Base publishes the radiation levels that are detected. For example, today's radiation level is 36.5, the same as it is in Bend, Oregon. We are nowhere near exposed to 500 times the amount of radiation at Yokota. Not even close. I can get more radiation from flying in an airplane or from watching t.v.

Health effects other than cancer from radiation exposure are not likely when the dose to the fetus is very low. Most researchers agree that babies who receive a small dose of radiation (equal to 500 chest x-rays or less) at any time during pregnancy do not have an increased risk for birth defects. The only increased risk to these babies is a slightly higher chance of having cancer later in life (less than 2% higher than the normal expected cancer risk of 40 to 50%).

During the first 2 weeks of pregnancy, the radiation-related health effect of greatest concern is the death of the baby. The fetus is made up of only a few cells during the first 2 weeks of pregnancy. Damage to one cell can cause the death of the embryo before the mother even knows that she is pregnant. Of the babies that survive, however, few will have birth defects related to the exposure, regardless of how much radiation they were exposed to.

Large radiation doses to the fetus during the more sensitive stages of development (between weeks 2 and 18 of pregnancy) can cause birth defects, especially to the brain. When a fetus is exposed to large doses of radiation (above the dose received from 500 chest x-rays) during the more sensitive stages of development (especially between weeks 8 and 18 of pregnancy), the health consequences can be severe, especially to the brain. Fetuses in the 8- to 18-week stage of pregnancy exposed to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were found to have a high rate of brain damage that resulted in lower IQs and even severe mental retardation. They also suffered stunted growth (up to 4% shorter than average people) and an increased risk of other birth defects.

Between the 18th week of pregnancy and birth, radiation-induced health effects (besides cancer) are unlikely unless the fetus receives an extremely large dose of radiation. In the 18- to 25-week stage of pregnancy, health consequences similar to those seen in the 8- to 17-week stage could occur, but only when the doses are extremely large (more than about 5,000 chest x-rays received at one time). At this dose level, the mother could be showing signs of acute radiation syndrome, which is sometimes known as radiation sickness. I left Japan when I was 21 weeks pregnant. I am now 25 weeks.

After the 26th week of pregnancy, the radiation sensitivity of the fetus is similar to that of a newborn.

At the 26th week of pregnancy, the fetus is fully developed though not fully grown. Unborn babies exposed to radiation in the womb during this stage of pregnancy are no more sensitive to the effects of radiation than are newborns. This means that birth defects are not likely to occur, and only a slight increase in the risk of having cancer later in life is expected. By the time I return to Japan, I will be 28 weeks, well past the risk of fetal development or harm to my baby.

I borrowed this from a friends blog. She received an email from the US Embassy in Tokyo which clearly lays out why they've made this decision.

Subject: Travel Alert - Japan April 14, 2011

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:33:23 -0700

United States Department of State

Bureau of Consular Affairs

Washington, DC 20520

This Travel Alert replaces the Travel Warning for Japan dated March 31, 2011. This Travel Alert expires on June 15, 2011. The assessment of technical and subject matter experts across United States Government agencies is that while the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant remains serious and dynamic, the health and safety risks to areas beyond the 50 mile evacuation zone, and particularly to Tokyo, Nagoya (Aichi Prefecture), Yokohama (Kanagawa Prefecture) nearby U.S. military facilities and the prefectures of Akita, Aomori, Chiba, Gunma, Iwate, Nagano, Niigata, Saitama, Shizuoka, Tochigi, and Yamanashi, and those portions of Fukushima, Ibaraki, Miyagi and Yamagata prefectures which are outside a 50 mile radius of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are low and do not pose significant risks to U.S. citizens.

This analysis takes into consideration both various age groups and the classification of the severity of the situation at Fukushima Daiichi as a Level 7 event by the Government of Japan, which reflects what has transpired since the initial incident and the potential long-term effects in the area surrounding the plant. This assessment reflects inputs from our national laboratories as well as the unanimous opinion of the U.S. scientific experts on the ground in Japan. Furthermore, they are consistent with practices that would be taken in the United States in such a situation. Based on the much reduced rate of heat generation in the reactor fuel after one month of cooling and the corresponding decay of short-lived radioactive isotopes, even in the event of an unexpected disruption at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, harmful exposures to people beyond the 50 mile evacuation zone are highly unlikely, and there would be a significant amount of time to best assess any steps that might have to be taken.

The situation at the plant is dramatically different today than it was on March 16, when we saw significant ongoing releases of radioactivity, the loss of effective means to cool the reactor cores and spent fuel, the absence of outside power or fresh water supply for emergency management, and considerable uncertainty about the condition of the site. Today, while the situation remains serious, and there is still a possibility of unanticipated developments, cooling efforts are ongoing and successful, power, water supply, and back-up services have been partially or fully restored, and planning has begun to control radioactive contamination and mitigate future dangers. Our coordination with the Japanese is regular and productive, and we have a greatly increased capacity to measure and analyze risks.

The Department of State has lifted Voluntary Authorized Departure, allowing dependents of the U.S. government employees to return to Japan. We continue to recommend that U.S. citizens avoid travel within the 50-mile radius of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant. U.S. citizens who are still within this radius should evacuate or shelter in place. Japan is one of the most seismically active places in the world. Tokyo and areas to the Northeast continue to experience strong aftershocks related to the March 11 earthquake. Aftershocks following an earthquake of this magnitude can be expected to continue for more than a year. Identifying potential hazards ahead of time and advance planning can reduce the dangers of serious injury or loss of life from an earthquake.

Let me address some concerns that people have mentioned to me, first being the food that we eat. Our milk, water and produce come from the United States, California to be specific. We have always complained at Yokota because our produce doesn't have a long shelf life since it's already a few days old by the time our commissary gets it. And our milk is ultra-pasteurized, meaning it's designed to stay fresh in your fridge for at least a month. Our water is comes solely from our own well located on base. None of our food sources are linked to the area of Fukushima.

Secondly, let me point just how far Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant is from where we live. The red X is approximately how far we are from Fukushima, about 200 miles south. As mentioned in the letter from the US Embassy, they continue to stress that areas within 50 miles of Fukushima has to evacuate as there have been higher than normal radiation readings detected there.

Am I still worried about earthquakes? No. Will they still happen? Yes. Japan's buildings are designed to withstand the strongest of earthquakes. I remember with my brother-in-law and his girlfriend Christin visited us in Japan last summer and they pointed out the red triangles located on select windows in tall buildings. They were smart enough to look it up at home and found out that this has to due to with where emergency exits are located. The buildings are also designed to move with an earthquake. If we had only experienced an earthquake on March 11th and the tsunami did not quickly ensue, there would not have been nearly as many damaged buildings, and sadly so many deaths, not to mention the nuclear power plant wouldn't have had its generators wiped out.

I apologize that this post is long-winded but I wanted to make sure I laid out all the facts so that you could hear from me what our commanders and leaders inform us and what I trust to be true. God has a plan for me and Baby Someone and wanted us to be home to spend some time with our family. Now I believe that plan is for us to return to our own home where we can plant flowers, go on bike rides, take one last Babymoon and enjoy these last few months as a couple before our little one arrives. I don't know yet when I'll be going home, probably closer to the end of the month but please trust that this is the right decision and please don't be quick to put all your faith in the social media. We love you all!