Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

jlduh

The problem with fakes is that they create the doubt that anything "abnormal" is a hoax. I've seen some obvious hoax and fakes from supposedly Tchernobyl. This leads some people to think that there is actually no problem, because "this is hoax".

The video doesn't look fake to me. But I don't know if this animal is abnormal or if it could be an other explanation. The sentence you quote is strange also (maybe translation problem?).

Anyway, it's very probable that there will be some abnormalities because of this accident, but the fact is that without the accident, there are already some... In other word, the best way to consider the question is to avoid black and white or binary thinking: it's not because something is wrong that the opposite is true, it can be a matter of nuances, and in this case, of statistics (to be established!)

So it's difficult to draw any conclusion without a thorough study on the effects on animals.

The reactions in the messages are interesting though. I feel something like denying that such abnormalities could exist from the accident. Maybe it's too scary to think it's possible, so criticise this and comdemn as hoax is confortable in a certain way...

Negating the danger is a way to better control and manage the danger, at least from the psychological standpoint.

rowmag

Quote by clancy688

Have you seen this video?

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/r...edly-born.html

Probably a hoax? "Our faces and throats felt burned, and we thought we're going to die." sounds fishy to me.

What sounds fishy?
Reading the original, it sounds very emotional to me, but not obviously fake.

They say their face and throats were burned to the point of prickly pain.
Isn't gamma radiation supposed to create similar symptoms?

clancy688

Quote by rowmag

They say their face and throats were burned to the point of prickly pain.
Isn't gamma radiation supposed to create similar symptoms?

Exactly. How were they exposed to gamma radiation? I don't know their exact location, but if they didn't realize that something big (Unit 3) exploded, it must be at least a few dozen kilometres.
If at that distance they were exposed to gamma radiation that in fact could be sensed, every living being in and around the Fukushima plant (Especially the Fukushima 50) must've been killed.

After TMI, many residents reported of a "lead taste" they sensed in the air. But the escaped nuclides were magnitudes below any levels for humans to taste. So it was completely psychological.

rowmag

Quote by clancy688

Exactly. How were they exposed to gamma radiation? I don't know their exact location, but if they didn't realize that something big (Unit 3) exploded, it must be at least a few dozen kilometres.
If at that distance they were exposed to gamma radiation that in fact could be sensed, every living being in and around the Fukushima plant (Especially the Fukushima 50) must've been killed.

Ex-SKF places them 7 km south-southwest of the power plant, which also puts them downwind of the plant at the time of the explosion. Is it possible they were unlucky enough to be in a leopard-spot hot spot?

After TMI, many residents reported of a "lead taste" they sensed in the air. But the escaped nuclides were magnitudes below any levels for humans to taste. So it was completely psychological.

I don't remember much in detail about TMI, and don't want to derail the discussion to a different accident, but how do we know what nuclide levels the people who tasted lead there were exposed to? And were the people downwind of TMI and Fukushima Daiichi educated on what symptoms to fake?

Don't have an axe to grind either way, but would be interested in investigating whether the reports could be taken seriously or not.

Borek

I wonder if the dose that would give these people similar feeling won't give them also serious radiation sickness (which - from what I understand - was not diagnosed).

Plus, obviously it is not something unheard off. Googling for earless rabbit I got http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...born-ears.html, http://forums.rabbitrehome.org.uk/sh...d.php?t=194355 (scroll to 6th post for a picture) and http://www.flickr.com/photos/madeleine_/799132044/ on the first page.

zapperzero

Meanwhile, in Tokyo,
(may 14, but I just found it now, sorry). Radioactive sludge:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0110514a2.html

jlduh

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/28_23.html

Radioactive materials found off Miyagi and Ibaraki

Japan's science ministry has detected extraordinarily high levels of radioactive cesium in seafloor samples collected off Miyagi and Ibaraki Prefectures.Experts say monitoring should be stepped up over a larger area to determine how fish and shell fish are being affected.

The ministry collected samples from 12 locations along a 300-kilometer stretch off Fukushima prefecture's Pacific coast between May 9th and 14th. It hoped to get an idea about the spread of nuclear contamination caused by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.Radioactive substances were found in all locations, including those off Miyagi and Ibaraki Prefectures, which had not been previously investigated.

Radioactive cesium 134, measuring 110 becquerels per kilogram or about 100 times the normal level, was found in samples collected from the seabed 30 kilometers off Sendai City and 45 meters beneath the surface. Samples collected from the seabed 10 kilometers off Mito City and 49 meters beneath the surface measured 50 becquerels or about 50 times the normal level.Professor Takashi Ishimaru of the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology says plankton most probably absorbed the radioactive substances carried by the current near the sea surface, and then sank to the seabed.

He said monitoring must be stepped up over a larger area, as radioactive materials in the seabed do not dissolve quickly, and can accumulate in the bodies of larger fish that eat shrimp and crabs that live on the seafloor.

Saturday, May 28, 2011 22:21 +0900 (JST)

Luca Bevil

I recently read somewhere about the coefficient to forecast seiverts exposure from ground deposition for Cs137 and CS 134.

I think NUCENG wrote about it.

I can't seem to be able to find the post anymore, could someone pls link it to me ? moreover i would like to expand a bit about the theoretical derivation of that value.

thanks in advance

Luca Bevil

From
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40037799/N...nni-Petrangeli
page 81 the annual dose resulting from the deposition of 1 kBq/m2 of CS137 is given at 1.2 milliSieverts (cumulative in the first year).

now in
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...hernobyl-study

Tomio Kawata, a research fellow of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan is quoted saying "While the expected radiation exposure from 1.48 million becquerels of cesium is around five millisieverts a year, below the government’s benchmark of 20 millisieverts for evacuation orders, decontamination will still be necessary before evacuees can return as radioactive cesium binds strongly to soil, making it hard to reduce radiation levels, Kawata said."

My question is: by applying Petrangeli "ground shine" conversion factor 1.48 million Bequerels should result in 1,480*1.2 Millisieverts or something about a staggering 1.7 Sieverts of accumulted exposition over just the first year.

what I am missing ? where is the error ?

jlduh

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/31_24.html

Fukushima cleanup could cost up to $250 billion

A private think tank says the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could cost Japan up to 250 billion dollars over the next 10 years.The estimate is part of the Nuclear Safety Commission's ongoing survey of opinions on the disaster from nuclear and other experts.[...] the costs of the accident could range from nearly 71 to 250 billion dollars. The figure includes 54 billion to buy up all land within 20 kilometers of the plant, 8 billion for compensation payments to local residents, and 9 to 188 billion to scrap the plant's reactors.

Iwata said a drastic review of the government's nuclear energy policy is necessary to fund the cleanup.He said the government could channel about 71 billion dollars to the necessary fund over the next decade by freezing research and development projects linked to the nuclear fuel cycle.Another 150 billion could come from Tokyo Electric Power Company's reserve fund, and the government's nuclear energy-related budgets.

*AntonL*

Snow on Fukushima peaks found to be radioactive

Quote by http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_27.html

Researchers from Fukushima University performed the analysis with a local environmental group. They sampled snow in 31 locations and at different altitudes from 7 peaks around Fukushima city, from mid-April through early May.

The results showed that snow in 14 locations contained more than 200 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium, the adult safe limit for drinking water.

A sample of snow from an altitude of 1,300 meters contained 3,000 becquerels of cesium.

jlduh

French independent organisation CRIIRAD measured high levels of radioactivity in various places of Fukushima prefecture.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_36.html

French research institute finds high radioactivity

A French independent radioactivity watchdog has found radiation in Fukushima Prefecture 60 times higher than the annual reference level for ordinary people recommended by an international commission.Bruno Chareyron, director of the research institute CRIIRAD, briefed reporters in Tokyo on Wednesday on the results of its survey of the air in Fukushima Prefecture.

The measurements and calculations found an annualized amount of 60 millisieverts at a farm in Iitate Village in the prefecture.The level is 60 times higher than the annual limit for ordinary people, except for radiation workers, of 1 millisievert, recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The researchers also found high radiation levels in Fukushima City. At some places in the city, the levels of radioactivity were 7 to 9 millisieverts a year.

Chareyron urged Japan to increase the number of monitoring spots so that it can provide the public with detailed information on the negative effects of the radiation caused by the troubled Fukushima Daiichi plant.The one-week survey from May 24th was conducted in cooperation with a Japanese nongovernmental organization.

Wednesday, June 01, 2011 21:49 +0900 (JST)

Gary7

The reading in Iitate Village really shouldn't surprise anyone. That this village received a lot of fallout in the early days of the accident is well-known, and the gov't established this village as a "planned evacuation zone" sometime in April (I think April 22nd?), with the goal of the village being completely evacuated within a month (if I'm not mistaken).

I think the radioactive snow is a bigger worry.

The story regarding the rabbit with no ears is true. MSN Sankei reported on this a couple of days ago. http://sankei.jp.msn.com/life/news/1...2010002-n2.htm

Still waiting for Bloomberg to clarify whether or not 5 million becquerels was recorded 25 kms from the plant.

tsutsuji

Tepco is being careful not to release the ground water that leaked into the basement of unit 6 into the sea, and stores that water into tanks : http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushi...10602_01-e.pdf

Have Tepco or the Japanese authorities or independent researchers published data about the radiation released into the sea through rain and rivers ? Or can we be confident enough that the radioactive materials are staying in the ground once they have deposited ?

Isn't there a contradiction between, on the one hand, storing the plant's ground water into tanks, and on the other hand, letting the ground water from elsewhere in Fukushima Prefecture flow to the sea ?

Luca Bevil

Quote by tsutsuji

Tepco is being careful not to release the ground water that leaked into the basement of unit 6 into the sea, and stores that water into tanks : http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushi...10602_01-e.pdf

Meanwhile, I guess most rivers in nearby areas are releasing "low level radioactive materials" in perhaps much lower concentrations, but in larger amounts.

Have Tepco or the Japanese authorities or independent researchers published data about the radiation released into the sea through rain and rivers ? Or can we be confident enough that the radioactive materials are staying in the ground once they have deposited ?

Well I would say that we can be confiddent that just the opposite is true.
Mitigation shuld be the name of the game, instead what I see are limited measures and slipping schedules.

Chernobyl was a tragedy, likely it will remain the worst accident in industrial history but at least you got a sense of an "all-out" effort being carried out after the fact.

for Fukushima I often feel efforts and resources are employed on a "we can no longer delay this" basis

swl

Plenty of radioactive material has shown up in sewage sludge in Tokyo, so I am going to assume that there is plenty of Cesium being washed into the groundwater and ocean.

TEPCO and the government might wish they could avoid the contradiction, (of stopping contaminated water from the plant vs letting the contaminated water outside the plant flow unobstructed) but they can do nothing to stop the rain and snow water from rinsing the radiation down to the sea or underground. On second thought, maybe they are hoping that the rain will help reduce their cleanup costs in areas outside the plant.

As someone has already mentioned, the final containment vessel is the ocean.

jlduh

It seems that I'm not the only person worried about possible inadequate assessment of global human contamination (including inhalated and ingested contamination) through only external measurements in mSv/h, currently used to decide where to evacuate...

Fukushima prefecture is going to make more whole body scans, but they have only... ONE equipment to do it!

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/02_27.html

Fukushima to check internal radiation exposure

Fukushima Prefecture has decided to check the internal radiation exposure of residents near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and adjacent areas with high radiation levels.In Fukushima, there are mounting concerns among locals over the health effects of radiation after the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi plant.

The prefecture had already decided to conduct health checks on all citizens, but will now assess residents' internal exposure to radiation from breathing and eating.

The targets will be residents near the plant and people who live in adjacent areas with high radiation levels.A device called a "whole-body counter" will be used to precisely measure radiation.But the prefecture currently has only one device and can screen just 10 people per day. It is urging research institutes and others with the device outside the prefecture to help them.

Similar Threads for: Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP
Thread	Forum	Replies
Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants	Nuclear Engineering	13990
8.9 earthquake in Japan: tsunami warnings	Current Events	671
Fukushima, Japan – Constructing an Effective First Response	Nuclear Engineering	21
Radiation Contamination Thread re Fukushima	Nuclear Engineering	19
Fukushima plant - should I leave Japan?	Nuclear Engineering	10

zapperzero	Meanwhile, in Tokyo, (may 14, but I just found it now, sorry). Radioactive sludge: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-b...0110514a2.html

Luca Bevil	I recently read somewhere about the coefficient to forecast seiverts exposure from ground deposition for Cs137 and CS 134. I think NUCENG wrote about it. I can't seem to be able to find the post anymore, could someone pls link it to me ? moreover i would like to expand a bit about the theoretical derivation of that value. thanks in advance