Fukushima Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

[tsutsuji]

I don't think so. The 27 PBq estimate was calculated with water samples taken 500 metres away from the plant. So aerial deposition is most likely not included, since it happened over a surface of millions of square kilometres.

That's right. The IRSN's 27 PBq are not including aerial deposition.

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_pr...ident_Fukushima_sur_milieu_marin_26102011.pdf page 7-8 : " [airborne] Cs 137 deposited on the sea over an 80 km range [from the plant] is 76 E12 Bq (...) [or] 0.3% of the Cs 137 radioactivity in the sea".

See also http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_pr...ident_Fukushima_sur_milieu_marin_26102011.pdf page 6 and 7 where they say that their new (October) estimate is twice their own July estimate, and 20 times the Tepco estimate. What they revised between July and October was their assumptions about the vertical distribution.

TEPCOs initial estimate was 4.2 to 5.6 PBq C-137 released. Six times that estimate would be 25.2 to 33.6 PBq. Which puts it right into the vicinity of the IRSN estimate.

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_pr...ident_Fukushima_sur_milieu_marin_11072011.pdf page 3 quotes the Japanese government's report to IAEA in June, where 4.7 PBq is the total of Cs137, Cs134 and I131 directly poured into the sea. According to that report, Cs137 alone is 0.95 PBq.

So I think that what the Yomiuri means by "six times as much as the Tepco estimate" is that 0.95 * 6 = 5.7 PBq which nearly equals the upper limit of the "between 4200 and 5600 TBq" mentioned in the latest JAMSTEC study.

 

[tsutsuji]

As for Fukushima, nobody died, that's right.

As mentioned by the NHK articles I mentioned above in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3799632&postcount=501 , the evacuation of the population surrounding Fukushima Daiichi is suspected to be a contributing factor to the death of at least 68 + 5 = 73 people, among other factors such as a poor health, or having one's houses' first floor destroyed by a tsunami.

 

[r-j]

The new paper shows that minute quantities of plutonium from Fukushima have spread far from the plant. In samples taken to the northwest and in the J-Village, where workers live, the authors found trace amounts of plutonium in the surface soil (see map). Looking at the ratio of plutonium-241 to plutonium-239, they were able to conclude that the plutonium came from Fukushima rather than other sources, such as old nuclear-weapon tests.
...
Nevertheless, the measurements are interesting. The distances at which the team finds the material imply that plutonium was ejected during the hydrogen explosions in the first days of the crisis. And the relatively low levels (around 10,000 times lower than Chernobyl) suggest that the heavily shielded concrete casings around the reactors did offer some protection from the worst of the fallout.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/plutonium-spotted-far-from-fukushima.html

 

[tsutsuji]

As seen above in this thread ( https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3802228&postcount=511 and above), there seems to be a large range of contradicting estimates as regards how much radioactive substances were released into the sea :

* The Tepco estimate
* 6 times the Tepco estimate (JAMSTEC)
* 20 times the Tepco estimate (IRSN)

This variation seems to be further confirmed by the following :

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/10/opinion/buesseler-fukushima-ocean/?hpt=hp_t3 Ken Buesseler is a Senior Scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution : "There is also little agreement on exactly how much radioactivity was released or even whether the fires and explosions at the power plant resulted in more radioactive fallout to the ocean than did direct releases of radioactivity caused by dumping water on the reactors to keep them cool."

 

[mheslep]

WSJ article yesterday summarizing radiation impacts. Authors Hayaskhi, Dvorak, Hotz

Experts cited:
o Kathryn Higley, Oregon State, specialized in tracking radiation in the environment.
o Toshiso Kosako, Tokyo U., radiation protection (resigned in April as adviser to PM Kan)
o Shunichi Yamagarbagea, Fukushima Medical U, radition impact on human health
o US EPA
o TEPCO
o Timothy Mousseau, U South Carolina, radio ecologist.
o Tatsuo Aono, Japan's National Institute of Radiological Sciences

Lead sentence:

A year after the Fukushima nuclear accident, the emerging consensus among scientists is that its effects on physical health and the environment have so far been minimal. There have been no reported radiation-related deaths or illnesses from the accident, even among workers who faced very high exposure.

Dose details (US annual background 3msv, nuclear worker safety limit 100 msv):
o Survey 10k people in three high risk towns:
<1msv 58%
<5msv 95%
>15 msv 23 people

o Fukushima Plant, 20k workers:
>100msv, 167 workers
>250msv, 6 workers, highest dose 679 msv

Other details:
o Bird populations around Fukushima as of last July dropped by a third, without causal link yet.

o Thyroid problems, including cancer, future long term predictions (by Kosako, Tokyo U): 300 to 500 people.

 

[tsutsuji]

Dose details (US annual background 3msv, nuclear worker safety limit 100 msv):
o Survey 10k people in three high risk towns:
<1msv 58%
<5msv 95%
>15 msv 23 people

This is a survey based on asking people where they were (indoors/outdoors, in which village etc. ) each day of March 2011. Even if those accounts by the people saying where they were are accurate, the survey maker needs to make various assumptions about how much radiation those people encountered in each location. I am not sure if it is possible to make reliable assumptions concerning cloudshine or Iodine levels.

Still, reports on population exposure are as much guesswork as science. Experts from Hirosaki University did their own thyroid tests on evacuees and found exposure levels higher than the government figures.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203961204577271152728725214.html
My bolding/underlining

December 2011:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20111130/0430_hanmei.html A study by Nagasaki university found that among 170 Nagasaki prefecture citizens, such as medical professionals, who went to Fukushima prefecture after the accident, 55 people, or 32% were detected as having iodine internal contamination in whole body counter tests performed during the first month after the accident. The highest thyroid equivalent dose was 15 mSv. A trend emerges of higher doses being detected among the people who were in Fukushima prefecture during the first week of the accident. As iodine was never detected in the tests performed in June or later among Fukushima citizens, this Nagasaki university study is deemed a valuable document that might be helpful to accurately estimate the doses received by Fukushima prefecture citizens.

March 10, 2012:

Findings by the research team, led by professor Shinji Tokonami from Hirosaki University, showed that 50 of 65 people checked from April 11 to 17 last year had radioactive iodine-131 in their thyroids, with 26 absorbing radiation doses over 10 millisieverts, and five with doses over 50 millisieverts -- the upper limit set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120310p2a00m0na005000c.html

 

[tsutsuji]

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/2012/02/fukushima-contamination-chronique-et-p%C3%A9renne-irsn.html The French IRSN will publish a report on the Fukushima accident on the first anniversary of the accident [that must be on 11 March 2012].

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/expertise/rap.../IRSN_Rapport_Fukushima-1-an-apres_032012.pdf IRSN "Fukushima, one year after: First analysis of the accident and its consequences", 12 March 2012. 189 pages, in French.

Table 6-XI page 113/189 compares their own estimate ("Bally du Bois et al.") of direct sea releases and airborne deposits into the sea with the other available estimates (PBq of Cs-137) :

publication direct release (PBq)      airb. deposit (PBq)        airb. deposit surface (km x km)
a)                            0.94        
b)                            4                         5                     1700 x 1700
c)                            3.5 ± 0.7    less than direct release
d)                          27 (12-41)               0.0076                 50 x  100
e)                                                       0.18                 1500 x 1500
f)                                                        1                       600 x  600
g)                                                       1                     1700 x 1700

a) NERH 2011 (TEPCO) calculation of the leak's flow rate

b) Kawamura et al. (2011) Comparison of modelling (SEAGEARN)/measurements at sea

c) Tsumune et al. (2011) Comparison of modelling (ROMS)/measurements at sea

d) Bailly du Bois et al.(2011) (IRSN) Quantities deducted from measurements at sea and dilution + pX simulation

e) Honda et al. (2011) Comparison of modelling (JCOPE2)/measurements in Japan

f) Morino et al. (2011) Comparison of modelling (CMAQ)/measurements in Japan

g) Yasunari et al. (2011) Comparison of modelling (FLEXPART)/measurements in Japan

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120326p2a00m0na011000c.html "Some 24.4 percent of people who were hospitalized in Fukushima with psychiatric disorders in the wake of the outbreak of the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant had done so possibly because of fears of radiation exposure" (survey at 30 hospitals in Fukushima Prefecture for two months from March 12, 2011, and 27 of them responded to the survey)

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.nikkei.com/news/topic/side/article/g=96958A9C93819490E2E4E2E3818DE2E4E2E1E0E2E3E0E2E2E2E2E2E2;q=9694E2E6E3E3E0E2E3E3E7E3E5E3;p=9694E2E1E2E4E0E2E3E3E4E6E5E5;n=9694E2E1E2E4E0E2E3E3E4E6E5E6;o=9694E2E1E2E4E0E2E3E3E4E6E5E7 Fuji Film Fine Chemical Plant is located in Hirono, 21 km south of Fukushima Daiichi. In the past, they were awarded the Prime Minister prize for environment, but they had to remove all the lawns and trees for decontamination. Outdoor areas were decontaminated by removing 3 cm thick layers of asphalt, and 5 cm thick layers of soil. At the end of January, when a decontamination phase was ended, they had brought outdoor radiation to 0.1 ~ 0.2 microsievert/hour and indoor radiation to 0.1 microsievert/hour or lower. It is a sharp contrast with the areas outside the plant premises where radiations above 0.5 microsievert/hour can be found. Normal production with three shift work resumed in October. They want to appeal to customers by providing data about their decontamination efforts, but the plant is not running at full capacity. "There is no standard saying how much [decontamination must be done] so that it is safe, so we must make efforts on our own". Mr Akita, the manager in charge of decontamination at the Fuji Film Fine Chemical plant is also a member of the Hirono fire brigade. The fact that the town hall administration came back on 1 March 2012 is a good thing, but when one thinks that not only one chemical plant but the whole town must be decontaminated so that the people can feel safe, thinking about the cost and how hard the efforts have to be, "one feels overwhelmed".

 

[Yamanote]

The fact that the town hall administration came back on 1 March 2012 is a good thing, but when one thinks that not only one chemical plant but the whole town must be decontaminated so that the people can feel safe, thinking about the cost and how hard the efforts have to be, "one feels overwhelmed".

Me too. And what to do with the huge amount of radioactive rubble after this so called "decontamination"?

In some cases it might be better to abandon this places and let the decay do the work.

 

[tsutsuji]

The detailed JAEA/MEXT helicopter map, previously only available as an online zoom and drag map application (at http://ramap.jaea.go.jp/map/ ) is now available in downloadable pdf format at http://ramap.jaea.go.jp/map/mapdf/index.html

 

[MadderDoc]

Stohl et al.:
"Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant: determination of the
source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition"

"Regarding 133 Xe, we find a total release of 15.3 (uncertainty range 12.2–18.3) EBq, which is more than twice as high
as the total release from Chernobyl and likely the largest radioactive noble gas release in history.
<..>For 137 Cs, the inversion results give a total emission of 36.6 (20.1–53.1) PBq, or about 43 % of the estimated Chernobyl emission."
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/2313/2012/acp-12-2313-2012.pdf

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120407/0830_anzenkiizyun.html A ministry of labour and health study group has prepared a standard for workers working in contaminated areas, such as repairing roads and water pipes. In areas above 5 mSv/year, workers must carry a dosimeter, and their exposure is limited to 50 mSv/year and 100 mSv/5 years. When working on debris higher than 10,000 Bq/kg whole body counter tests must be performed.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/26/1120794109.abstract Buesseler et al. "Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2012 Apr 2. approved February 24, 2012 (received for review December 19, 2011)

 

[nikkkom]

"Regarding 133 Xe, we find a total release of 15.3 (uncertainty range 12.2–18.3) EBq, which is more than twice as high
as the total release from Chernobyl and likely the largest radioactive noble gas release in history."

Has it any practical long-term significance? Xe-133 decays to stable Cs-133 with half-life of 5 days.

 

[clancy688]

There's something interesting in this recent TEPCO publication:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu12_j/images/120405j0301.pdf

On page 19 you can see a chart depicting water contamination values:

Cs-134: 9.4E1
Cs-137: 1.1E2
?β: 5.0E5

Where're those samples taken from? And what does the last row imply? All other beta emitters? Only 0.04% of all decay processes in that water are caused by Cs?

 

[tsutsuji]

Where're those samples taken from?

Just a clue: try Google's translation tool with the report's title name.

Or another clue: browse Tepco's English language press releases on the same date.

 

[clancy688]

~~~

Press Release (Apr 05,2012)
Report to NISA regarding the event of water or radioactive material leakage from concentrated water storage tank of water desalinations in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

Thanks for the hint...

 

[nikkkom]

Me too. And what to do with the huge amount of radioactive rubble after this so called "decontamination"?

In some cases it might be better to abandon this places and let the decay do the work.

Half-life of Cs-137 is 30 years. How long are you willing to wait?

 

[Yamanote]

Half-life of Cs-137 is 30 years. How long are you willing to wait?

I personally? Not even a second. But radiation won't ask for my opinion.

And that's exactly my issue with nuclear energy.
If it goes wrong, one might have to wait for a long long time. And not every price on Earth must be paid in money.

Surprisingly they are not even able to effectively decontaminate the water from the reactor buildings, so they have to collect and store huge amounts of radioactive water in tanks, waiting for better days. One year after the accident there is still no apparatus available to do this job. I would like to know why?

 

[nikkkom]

I personally? Not even a second. But radiation won't ask for my opinion.

I am confused. You proposed to not bother with decontamination and wait for decay. Now you say something different: that you don't want to wait. So what are you saying?

Surprisingly they are not even able to effectively decontaminate the water from the reactor buildings, so they have to collect and store huge amounts of radioactive water in tanks, waiting for better days. One year after the accident there is still no apparatus available to do this job. I would like to know why?

First, decontamination apparatus seem to be working well enough, in fact.

Second, technology exists to deal with even MUCH worse materials - the water from Fukushima basements is nothing compared to the first stage of nuclear fuel reprocessing. Ask French and/or Brits, they have it running for decades.

 

[clancy688]

Does anyone know where to find numbers for how many square kilometers are polluted with how much Cs-137?

For example (numbers are made up):

300 km²: 3 MBq/m² or higher
600 km²: 1 MBq/m² or higher

I searched for nearly an hour but didn't find anything useful.

 

[MadderDoc]

Does anyone know where to find numbers for how many square kilometers are polluted with how much Cs-137?

For example (numbers are made up):

300 km²: 3 MBq/m² or higher
600 km²: 1 MBq/m² or higher

I searched for nearly an hour but didn't find anything useful.

Perhaps this article
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/49/19530.full.pdf+html
Quote:
"Our estimates show that the area around NPP in Fukushima, secondarily effected areas (Miyagi and Ibaraki prefectures), and other effected areas (Iwate, Yamagata, Tochigi, and Chiba prefectures) had 137 Cs depositions of more than 100,000, 25,000, and 10,000 MBq km−2 , respectively."

 

[clancy688]

Not quite, but thanks.

 

[tsutsuji]

Also [wrong link] page 68/189: Cs-137 as of the summer of 2011

[Areas outside the forbidden zone]

higher than 1000 kBq/m² : 170 km²

600 to 1000 kBq/m² : 150 km²

30 to 600 kBq/m² : 8200 km²

Similar figures for Chernobyl are provided on the same page.

Edit. Sorry for the mistake. The correct link is http://www.irsn.fr/FR/expertise/rap.../IRSN_Rapport_Fukushima-1-an-apres_032012.pdf

The areas above are those outside the forbidden zone. The forbidden zone is 600 km².

 

[clancy688]

Also http://www.irsn.fr/FR/IRSN_Rapport_Fukushima-1-an-apres_032012.pdf page 68/189: Cs-137 as of the summer of 2011

Thanks! That was exactly what I was looking for. On page 67 there's a chart with more accurate values. Your link didn't work for me, if other members have the same problem, use this one instead:

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/irsn_rapport_complet-fukushima-1-an-.pdf

Thing is, I wanted to use those numbers to calculate how much Cs-137 ended up on japanese soil. Sadly the chart apparently only covers Fukushima prefecture, but it's a start.


10 - 30 kBq/m²: 14600 km²; 0.146 / 0.292 / 0.438 PBq total (min / mid / max)
30 - 60 kBq/m²: 4775 km²; 0.143 / 0.215 / 0.287 PBq total (min / mid / max)
60 - 100 kBq/m²: 1545 km²; 0.093 / 0.124 / 0.155 PBq total (min / mid / max)
100 - 300 kBq/m²: 1835 km²; 0.184 / 0.368 / 0.552 PBq total (min / mid / max)
300 - 600 kBq/m²: 380 km²: 0.114 / 0.171 / 0.228 PBq total (min / mid / max)
600 - 1000 kBq/m²: 225 km²; 0.135 / 0.180 / 0.225 PBq total (min / mid / max)
1000+ kBq/m²: 400 km²; 0.400 / 1.200 / 2.400 PBq total (1000 kBq/m² / 3000 kBq/m² / 6000 kBq/m²)

Total deposition: 1.215 / 2.550 / 4.285 PBq (min / mid / max)

 

[tsutsuji]

Why not make your own measurement using the helicopter maps and an area measuring software ?

 

[MadderDoc]

Why not make your own measurement using the helicopter maps and an area measuring software ?

Yes indeed. The fourth airborne monitoring maps would seem suitable for the most heavily contaminated areas, while the wider areas of lesser contamination could be judged from from one of the previous monitoring flights:

 

[clancy688]

Why not make your own measurement using the helicopter maps and an area measuring software ?

I had the same idea, but I'm afraid I have absolutely no clue on how to do that...

 

[MadderDoc]

I had the same idea, but I'm afraid I have absolutely no clue on how to do that...

Basically, you let a graphics program count the number of pixels with similar colors, and use the scale of the image to convert the number of pixels into area. It is not an exact science, but better than counting the pixels yourself :-)

Using that method on the source of the image below I get a total coloured area within the circles, of close to 10000 km2, of which

200 km2 red (>3000 kBq/m2
330 km2 yellow (1000-3000 kBq/m2)
330 km2 green (600-1000 kBq/m2)
510 km2 light blue (300-600 kq/m2)
2380 km2 blue (100-300 kBg/m2)
2370 km2 purple (60-100 kBq/m2)
1990 km2 gray (30-60 kBq/m2)
1880 km2 brown (10-30 kBq/m2)

 

[clancy688]

Thanks! Now we're getting closer.


Those areas are larger than in the IRSN paper...