Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP


by jlduh
Tags: consequences, contamination, earthquake, fukushima, japan, nuclear
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#217
Aug21-11, 06:36 AM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by Gary7 View Post
I don't wish to engage in a polemic about what the country, prefecture, or city is doing (or isn't doing) to insure the health of its citizens.
Yet, this is exactly what you are doing.

I was pointing out that parts of Namie are within the evacuation zone, and other parts are in the "planned evacuation zone" (whether or not the "planned" in either the translation or the original Japanese is appropriate or not I leave to the linguists). And I was also pointing out the existence of financial help at the national, prefectural, and city level. I would be extremely surprised if anyone in Namie city is finding life to be normal.
I, for one, am extremely surprised that there is still anyone in Namie city. Do you happen to know why this is so?

The Adatara Stadium in the article for which you provided the link, is part of the temporary shelters available to the residents of Namie. It is located in the city of Nihonmatsu, some 10 miles or so beyond the "planned evacuation zone". It is being returned to its original function as a stadium, and so Namie town is asking those sheltering in that stadium to relocate to other temporary shelters (which are located throughout Nihonmatsu and Fukushima city).
Oh. Fukushima city. That makes it all better... not.

Have you seen this?
http://www.town.namie.fukushima.jp/?p=6455

16 uSv/h in the air (h=1m) on school grounds? Please tell me no-one is actually going to school there! It comes out to 20-something mSv/year, even assuming 8hr days, six months vacations and no other exposure!
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#218
Aug21-11, 01:59 PM
P: 551
You know, I am very critical of nuclear industry and government. However, I also try to be reasonable in what I demand/expect from them. You are not.

Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
I, for one, am extremely surprised that there is still anyone in Namie city. Do you happen to know why this is so?

Oh. Fukushima city. That makes it all better... not.
Where do you want people to be relocated? South pole?
Namie is right in the center of the north-westerly radioactive fallout strip. Fukushima city is four times farther from F1 and has contamination levels about 20 times lower than Namie. I don't see what's wrong in relocating people from Namie to Fukushima city.

Have you seen this?
http://www.town.namie.fukushima.jp/?p=6455

16 uSv/h in the air (h=1m) on school grounds? Please tell me no-one is actually going to school there!
I think schools don't work in August.

It comes out to 20-something mSv/year, even assuming 8hr days, six months vacations and no other exposure!
2 roentgen/year, yeah. Everybody will die DIE DIE DIE! I mean, can you calm down please for a second?

Even discounting the effects of further decrease of these levels due to decay, natural washout and decontamination, this level of *external* exposure is not notably dangerous. For the comparison, people in Pripyat got upwards of 30 roentgens *in one day*. Now _that_ was a serious exposure.

The bigger problem is internal exposure (children will drink local water and inhale dust and get Cs and Sr in their body and bones). Japan government needs to start decontamination programme (in fact, I expected it to be in full swing by now) to make cities and roads safer. I am puzzled that this does not seem to be happening. If I would be a Japanese, I'd be angry at _that_.
Gary7
Gary7 is offline
#219
Aug21-11, 03:18 PM
P: 74
As I said, I am not interested in a polemical discussion. However, if my pointing out factual errors is considered polemical, I am ready to stand unrepentantly guilty.

I have no idea whether or not people are still living in Namie, but since part of it is in the mandatory evacuation zone, and since the city has encouraged residents to leave, I would be surprised if there were many still living there. Regarding the schools, according to the Namie city website, the students have been relocated to schools outside of the evacuation zone.
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#220
Aug21-11, 05:45 PM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post
You know, I am very critical of nuclear industry and government. However, I also try to be reasonable in what I demand/expect from them. You are not.
Ad hominem.

Where do you want people to be relocated? South pole?
Oh, anywhere East of a line running N-S 30 km East of Fukushima NPP should do, for now. Not on the coast, though.

Namie is right in the center of the north-westerly radioactive fallout strip. Fukushima city is four times farther from F1 and has contamination levels about 20 times lower than Namie. I don't see what's wrong in relocating people from Namie to Fukushima city.
There are hotspots in Fukushima city too. They have not been mapped properly, let alone decontaminated. It is not a good place to be, especially for people who have already gotten a significant dose.

I think schools don't work in August.
Yes. They stopped in July and will resume in September.

2 roentgen/year, yeah. Everybody will die DIE DIE DIE! I mean, can you calm down please for a second?
These guys http://www.wellesley.edu/ScienceCent...y/maximum.html say 0.5 R should be maximum exposure per year for a member of the general public. What makes you believe otherwise?

Even discounting the effects of further decrease of these levels due to decay, natural washout and decontamination, this level of *external* exposure is not notably dangerous.
No? Again, citation please, as they say on Wikipedia. Also, please remember that this is only the dose from going to school we're talking about. I doubt the rest of the city is much cleaner.

For the comparison, people in Pripyat got upwards of 30 roentgens *in one day*. Now _that_ was a serious exposure.
And they were evacuated. What is your point?

The bigger problem is internal exposure (children will drink local water and inhale dust and get Cs and Sr in their body and bones).
Yes. There is that. In fact, 16 uSv/h at 1 meter from the ground, so long after the accident and with infinitesimal current release rates, pretty much spells "cesium in the ground, and lots of it".

Japan government needs to start decontamination programme (in fact, I expected it to be in full swing by now) to make cities and roads safer. I am puzzled that this does not seem to be happening. If I would be a Japanese, I'd be angry at _that_.
I am more than puzzled. I am angry. I am also not Japanese, so I must seem strange to you, I realize.
Bodge
Bodge is offline
#221
Aug21-11, 08:19 PM
P: 145
High concentrations of radioactive isotopes of Neptunium, Lanthanum, Yttrium, Barium, Strontium, Cobalt, Silver and Zirconium found 35km from Fuk-1.

In 'plant species' upto 500 beq/kg of Neptunium-239 was found.

Were there is Neptunium there has to be Plutonium and Uranium too.

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/08/n...tected-in.html
joewein
joewein is offline
#222
Aug21-11, 09:42 PM
joewein's Avatar
P: 192
Here is the slide show containing the data:
http://user.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~cshoz...es/seminar.pdf
rmattila
rmattila is offline
#223
Aug22-11, 01:49 AM
P: 242
Quote Quote by rowmag View Post
Yes, I had noticed this in another location which was also downwind of Fukushima Daiichi and raining heavily that day. Two questions, for anyone who knows:

1) Why did the levels drop again after the rain stopped? If it was Cesium being brought down, should it not have remained on the ground and raised the background level permanently afterwards (as happened in the March bursts in several places)? But it doesn't, it drops back to the previous level after the rain stops. Why the difference this time from the spikes in March?

2) What does this imply about the ongoing level of atmospheric emissions from the plant?
If there's radon in the soil (I don't know what the situation is in Japan), one explanation for external radiation peaks during and briefly after heavy rainfall could be wash-down of short-lived daughters on Rn-222: http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1241.html
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#224
Aug22-11, 02:19 AM
P: 1,030
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/wo...apan.html?_r=1

NYT says official admission that the exclusion zone will remain closed indefinitely is due in the next few days. Still nothing about hotspots outside it.

EDITED for sensationalism
alpi
alpi is offline
#225
Aug22-11, 03:08 AM
P: 14
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/wo...apan.html?_r=1

Official admission that the exclusion zone will remain closed indefinitely
Is "The New York Times" an official? Or ex-skf.blogspot?
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#226
Aug22-11, 03:30 AM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by alpi View Post
Is "The New York Times" an official? Or ex-skf.blogspot?
NYT is citing "major media outlets" which in turn are speculating on an imminent gov't move. Also, although I follow ex-skf, I found this with google. I see where you're heading, though, and will amend my previous, if still possible.
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#227
Aug22-11, 04:33 AM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by alpi View Post
Is "The New York Times" an official? Or ex-skf.blogspot?
Apparently the source is Naoto Kan, as cited by Kyodo news agency.
http://e.nikkei.com/e/fr/tnks/Nni20110822D22JF463.htm
rowmag
rowmag is offline
#228
Aug22-11, 07:33 AM
P: 209
Quote Quote by rmattila View Post
If there's radon in the soil (I don't know what the situation is in Japan), one explanation for external radiation peaks during and briefly after heavy rainfall could be wash-down of short-lived daughters on Rn-222: http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1241.html
Thank you. Interesting. I had no idea.

So the wind coming from Fukushima Daiichi would have been just a coincidence, if this was the cause. (Or... could radon created by uranium decay in the melted/damaged fuel have been blown over? Would that even make sense?)
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#229
Aug22-11, 10:02 AM
P: 551
Quote Quote by zapperzero View Post
Where do you want people to be relocated? South pole?
Oh, anywhere East of a line running N-S 30 km East of Fukushima NPP should do, for now. Not on the coast, though.
Please be informed that Fukushima city is about 40 kilometers to the East from F1 NPP, and about the same distance to the North. (Google maps says that distance from it to F1 is ~61 km, and 40^2 + 40^2 < 60^2, so at least one side of the triangle should be more than 40 km).

IOW: Fukushima city fulfils your criteria above.
zapperzero
zapperzero is offline
#230
Aug22-11, 12:47 PM
P: 1,030
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post
Please be informed that Fukushima city is about 40 kilometers to the East from F1 NPP, and about the same distance to the North. (Google maps says that distance from it to F1 is ~61 km, and 40^2 + 40^2 < 60^2, so at least one side of the triangle should be more than 40 km).

IOW: Fukushima city fulfils your criteria above.

You may want to check that compass of yours
Bodge
Bodge is offline
#231
Aug22-11, 03:58 PM
P: 145
Regarding radioactive Sulfur-35,

"Our model predicts that the concentration in the marine boundary layer at Fukushima, was approximately 200,000 atoms per m3, which is approximately 365 times above expected natural concentrations."

They believe approx. 0.7% of that reached Scripps, California.

S-35 was produced by neutron bombardment of seawater.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...49108.abstract

Please see my post in the other thread
alpi
alpi is offline
#232
Aug22-11, 05:02 PM
P: 14
Quote Quote by Bodge View Post
Regarding radioactive Sulfur-35,

"Our model predicts that the concentration in the marine boundary layer at Fukushima, was approximately 200,000 atoms per m3, which is approximately 365 times above expected natural concentrations."

They believe approx. 0.7% of that reached Scripps, California. ...
Why would anyone care what these people believe?
jim hardy
jim hardy is offline
#233
Aug22-11, 05:16 PM
Sci Advisor
jim hardy's Avatar
P: 3,149
There were significant solar flares Feb 15 and March 9. I assume Scripps scientists would allow for them...

i didnt see in article linked a mention of that, only that solar flares are a natural source of that sulfur isotope.

old jim
Bodge
Bodge is offline
#234
Aug22-11, 06:11 PM
P: 145
Re. Solar Flares and 'their model',

I don't have access to PNAS, maybe you can take it up with the authors:

Antra Priyadarshi, Gerardo Dominguez, Mark H. Thiemens

abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...49108.abstract

supporting info: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/20...9449108_SI.pdf

BTW, they actually wrote that 0.7% of the FUK-1 sulfur concentration reached "southern California", not Scripps - that was my mistake.


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