Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP


by jlduh
Tags: consequences, contamination, earthquake, fukushima, japan, nuclear
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#145
Jul1-11, 05:15 AM
P: 549
Quote Quote by Jim Lagerfeld View Post
Ex-skf translates this article - 2,700bq/kg found in green tea grown in Itabashi ward, Tokyo.
Same thing happened after Chernobyl: Georgian tea (Caucasus, not US Georgia) was found to accumulate significant levels. Drying process of tea makes leaves work as an air filter.

Another thing to check for in Tokyo area is residential ventilation air filters and such...
tsutsuji
tsutsuji is offline
#146
Jul2-11, 01:55 AM
PF Gold
P: 1,220
http://jp.wsj.com/Japan/node_258611 The Wall Street Journal has a fresh new interview (his first one since he resigned from his government job) of Toshiso Kosako, described as Japan's number one radiation safety expert. He says the government is underestimating the contamination of the sea and fish in order to lower the decontamination cost. The rice harvest, next autumn, is also a matter of concern. If the radiation in the rice from the Tohoku region becomes a scandal, consumers may refuse to buy it.

The English version of the article is here : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...689685524.html
Azby
Azby is offline
#147
Jul2-11, 06:52 AM
P: 64
A fairly detailed and objective description of the degree of contamination of Japanese green tea, and various repercussions thereof, from a tea supplier's newsletter:

http://www.teamuse.com/article_110701.html
tsutsuji
tsutsuji is offline
#148
Jul6-11, 03:13 AM
PF Gold
P: 1,220
http://www.afpbb.com/article/disaste...ign=txt_topics Hot spots found in Fukushima City in a study made by the Kobe university school of marine study at the request of citizen groups. They are above the government level of 10,000 Bq/kg with radiations of 46,540 Bq/kg in earth samples in one area and between 16,290 and 19,220 Bq/kg in three other areas.

http://www.jiji.com/jc/eqa?g=eqa&k=2011070500588 air radiations were measured between 3.2 and 3.83 microsievert/hour. The citizen groups stress that these areas would fall into the compulsory relocation area category if they were located in Chernobyl. At a school where the City government found 0.15 microsievert/hour, the study found 1.86 microsievert/hour and 13,812 Bq/kg.
Caniche
Caniche is offline
#149
Jul6-11, 05:30 PM
P: 106
Run away
Azby
Azby is offline
#150
Jul6-11, 07:18 PM
P: 64
Nishio Masamichi, a radiation expert at the Hokkaido Cancer Center, recently wrote a long article for the Toyo Keizai magazine. It's summarized in English here:

http://japanfocus.org/events/view/100

Original Japanese here:

http://www.toyokeizai.net/business/s...e8098a/page/1/

Most of it is very informed criticism, particularly of government actions since the disaster began. I agree with quite a lot, if not most, of what he says. It's also interesting to note that he does not accept Busby and Yablokov's risk predictions:

"The European Committee on Radiation Risk argues that existing risk models do not take internal exposure into account. High rates of internal exposure will mean a dramatic increase in cancer risk for Fukushima residents, with as many as 400,000 cases predicted by 2061. Nishio argues, however, that these calculations rest on some shaky assumptions and that the number is too high."

Busby and Yablokov are key members of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR).

I'd like to see this article translated in full. I think it would add a lot to the debate.
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#151
Jul7-11, 06:23 AM
P: 549
Quote Quote by tsutsuji View Post
http://www.afpbb.com/article/disaste...ign=txt_topics Hot spots found in Fukushima City in a study made by the Kobe university school of marine study at the request of citizen groups. They are above the government level of 10,000 Bq/kg with radiations of 46,540 Bq/kg in earth samples in one area and between 16,290 and 19,220 Bq/kg in three other areas.

http://www.jiji.com/jc/eqa?g=eqa&k=2011070500588 air radiations were measured between 3.2 and 3.83 microsievert/hour. The citizen groups stress that these areas would fall into the compulsory relocation area category if they were located in Chernobyl. At a school where the City government found 0.15 microsievert/hour, the study found 1.86 microsievert/hour and 13,812 Bq/kg.
Does government perform any decontamination anywhere? Fukushima prefecture? Tokyo?

A regular, relatively simple water spray on the roads would do a lot towards reducing dust inhalation, and will wash out more soluble contaminants (which in practice means caesium).

Does government instruct people how they can reduce airborne dust in their homes? (I would guess regular vacuuming followed by wet cleaning).

Any plans to treat affected land? You know, Belorussians have a lot of experience with that. IIRC they used deep ploughing in order to move Cs underground (best if you can carefully overturn soil layer so that former top layer goes completely underground). This reduces gamma exposure. After that, they applied a generous amount of potassium fertilizer in order to reduce caesium uptake by plants. They claim about tenfold decrease of Cs in plants.

Forests proved to be impossible to decontaminate efficiently. All Cs which happened to fall on them will stay in forest plants. I guess for now the plan is not to stroll in the forests needlessly, and not collect any wild berries there...
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#152
Jul7-11, 08:04 AM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post
A regular, relatively simple water spray on the roads would do a lot towards reducing dust inhalation, and will wash out more soluble contaminants (which in practice means caesium).
...to the sides of the road, where it will accumulate in the gutters, making it extremely dangerous to stop there for a cigarette or whatever. Tourists in the Chernobyl area are explicitly instructed not to stop anywhere, not to walk on the roadside and not to go near puddles under any circumstances.

It's not so much the widespread contamination that's deadly, if you don't eat the produce. It's the newly-formed hotspot that gives you 100 mSv while you take a picture of the sunset.
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#153
Jul7-11, 08:09 AM
P: 1,030
Also, this:
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20...0095-mailo-l08

14 kBq/kg Cesium in the muck scraped off pool walls by Ibaraki schoolchildren in May. What kind of crazy has kids do any sort of cleanup in a radioactive environment? Damnit.
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#154
Jul7-11, 10:02 AM
P: 549
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
...to the sides of the road, where it will accumulate in the gutters,
Yes. Which is better than if the dust particles will be continually kicked up from road surface into the air by passing cars.

making it extremely dangerous to stop there for a cigarette or whatever.
Wrong. Stopping there for a short time (tens of minutes) won't be a big deal, unless you decide to lick the ground. For people in contaminated areas the biggest problem is long-term absorbtion of particles by inhaling, and external gamma radiation. That's why gamma-active Cs-137 needs to be removed from the most used places first (e.g. roads, squares, school yards), even if this will make it accumulate in less used places (sewers, roadside ditches).
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#155
Jul7-11, 11:42 AM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post
Wrong. Stopping there for a short time (tens of minutes) won't be a big deal, unless you decide to lick the ground.
Or kick up the dust. Or carry it with you into your home, where it will kill you softly for years to come. This is not a sci-fi post-apocalyptic movie. It's real life. The good guys do NOT get to saunter through the ruins, scavenging free food and drinks from the abandoned supermarkets.

EDIT: not unless they happen to stumble upon a cache of dosimeters and batteries VERY early on.

LATER EDIT: Are you seriously proposing this? That normal life in a Chernobyl-level contamination area would be possible if people would only observe a few simple rules? How many times can you avoid slipping into that small ditch?
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#156
Jul7-11, 11:50 AM
P: 549
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
Or kick up the dust. Or carry it with you into your home, where it will kill you softly for years to come. This is not a sci-fi post-apocalyptic movie. It's real life. The good guys do NOT get to saunter through the ruins, scavenging free food and drinks from the abandoned supermarkets.

EDIT: not unless they happen to stumble upon a cache of dosimeters and batteries VERY early on.

LATER EDIT: Are you seriously proposing this? That normal life in a Chernobyl-level contamination area would be possible if people would only observe a few simple rules? How many times can you avoid slipping into that small ditch?
What a frack!? WHERE did I propose anything like that?

I merely asked whether Japanese government decontaminates affected territory!

I cite myself: "Does government perform any decontamination anywhere? Fukushima prefecture? Tokyo?"

Can you read?

EDIT: to remove any doubt: I do not propose that Japanese should try to decontaminate some really heavily affected territory in order to push people to live there. I think that people which already live on some relatively lightly contaminated territory nevertheless may benefit from some decontamination; therefore I ask Japanese visitors of this forum about news on that front.
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#157
Jul7-11, 12:21 PM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post
I do not propose that Japanese should try to decontaminate some really heavily affected territory in order to push people to live there. I think that people which already live on some relatively lightly contaminated territory nevertheless may benefit from some decontamination; therefore I ask Japanese visitors of this forum about news on that front.
It really depends on what you decide to call "lightly contaminated". I, for one, wouldn't call Fukushima City or Namie "lightly contaminated". There is the problem of creating more hotspots. Let's say you wash down a real big roof that hasn't been rained on yet. You may have traded diffuse exposure, high up, for very concentrated exposure, on the ground where everyone is walking. These are not things one should do in a hurry, without expert supervision or proper training.

Even if decon were somewhat successful, there would still be a huge psychological problem to deal with:
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201106240204.html

People who evacuated are angry now and distrust authority. How can they return, if they don't believe when the authorities tell them it is safe to do so? I'm thinking especially of those whose homes were not in the path of the plumes (so light contamination would be expected), but are in the exclusion area nevertheless.

The authorities themselves are confused. They confuse and anger others further with contradictory information and weasel words:
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/...na007000c.html
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#158
Jul7-11, 07:27 PM
P: 549
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
It really depends on what you decide to call "lightly contaminated". I, for one, wouldn't call Fukushima City or Namie "lightly contaminated". There is the problem of creating more hotspots. Let's say you wash down a real big roof that hasn't been rained on yet. You may have traded diffuse exposure, high up, for very concentrated exposure, on the ground where everyone is walking.
First, I did not propose washing roofs, I proposed washing roads.

Second, Japan has rain seasons. IIUC, right now it is in one. So roofs will (or already did) shed radioactivity to the ground. So hot spots may be already formed. I saw a video on youtube where a guy in Tokyo demonstrated with dosimeter that storm drain is much more radioactive than other nearby places. Without decontamination squads, these spots will be unmarked and uncleaned.

These are not things one should do in a hurry, without expert supervision or proper training.
IIRC Japan has armed forces. They should be trained in these activities. Why not use them?

Even if decon were somewhat successful, there would still be a huge psychological problem to deal with:
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201106240204.html

People who evacuated are angry now and distrust authority. How can they return, if they don't believe when the authorities tell them it is safe to do so? I'm thinking especially of those whose homes were not in the path of the plumes (so light contamination would be expected), but are in the exclusion area nevertheless.

The authorities themselves are confused. They confuse and anger others further with contradictory information and weasel words:
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/...na007000c.html
Do you think that by not doing any visible work in mapping radiation and cleaning it up, and by not creating TV programs about health safety rules for inhabitants of contaminated areas government can instill more confidence in these people?
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#159
Jul8-11, 03:54 AM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post
Do you think that by not doing any visible work in mapping radiation and cleaning it up, and by not creating TV programs about health safety rules for inhabitants of contaminated areas government can instill more confidence in these people?
I think there should NOT be people living in contaminated areas. Period.
Danuta
Danuta is offline
#160
Jul8-11, 05:57 PM
P: 100
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post

Do you think that by not doing any visible work in mapping radiation and cleaning it up, and by not creating TV programs about health safety rules for inhabitants of contaminated areas government can instill more confidence in these people?
They do have people giving info about health safety in lieu of radioactive particles. Haven't you heard(well, read) of Dr.Shunichi Yamagarbagea a.k.a. Dr. "100 mSv/h radiation is safe". He's just been promoted to vice president of the Fukushima Medical University in charge of setting up an organization to conduct research on effects of radiation on the Fukushima residents.

Memorable excerpts from his first lecture/dialogue:

The name "Fukushima" will be widely known throughout the world. Fukushima, Fukushima, Fukushima, everything is Fukushima. This is great! Fukushima has beaten Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From now on, Fukushima will become the world number 1 name [when it comes to radiation/nuclear incident]. A crisis is an opportunity. This is the biggest opportunity. Hey, Fukushima, you've become famous without any efforts! [a chuckle from the audience] Why not take advantage of this opportunity? For what? Recovery.

...

To tell you the truth, radiation doesn't affect people who are smiling, but those who are worried. This has clearly been demonstrated by animal studies. So, drinking may be bad for your health, but happy drinkers are less affected by radiation, luckily. I'm not advising you to drink, but laughter will remove your radiation-phobia. But there's precious little information to scientifically explain the effects of laughter. So, please ask all your questions. This is not a lecture, it's a dialog between you and I.
Luca Bevil
Luca Bevil is offline
#161
Jul8-11, 06:00 PM
P: 87
every comment is superflous, unfortunately
Danuta
Danuta is offline
#162
Jul8-11, 06:22 PM
P: 100
Quote Quote by Luca Bevil View Post
every comment is superflous, unfortunately
I would have used quite another adjective but superfluous it definitely is.

"...radiation doesn't affect people who are smiling, but those who are worried. This has clearly been demonstrated by animal studies."

Anyone know what kind of animals he is talking about in those studies? Also, can someone point me to the studies.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants Nuclear Engineering 14198
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