And what is the total soil contamination of Cs?jlduh said:The french IRSN just released a new report concerning the estimated contamination around DAICHI, i extract this map for the Cs contamination based on SPEEDI/MEXT estimations. The complete report is here (french): http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_pr...valuation_Dosimetrique_Fukushima_16052011.pdf
zapperzero said:http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-ends-projections-of-radioactive-substance-spread-from-nuclear-plant
jlduh said:The french IRSN just released a new report concerning the estimated contamination around DAICHI, i extract this map for the Cs contamination based on SPEEDI/MEXT estimations. The complete report is here (french): http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_pr...valuation_Dosimetrique_Fukushima_16052011.pdf
http://www.netimago.com/image_203750.html
jlduh said:Really, this kind of decisions leads to what this industry is always defending itself from: doubt, suspicion, lack of transparence.
If i was Japanese, i woud be very upset by this (and I'm already even if I'm not japanese). Are the IAEA people living under the emissions like japanese people do? I don't think so...
Do they have their children exposed to whatever level and especially a level of 20 mSV/year which many consider as inadequate and possibly criminal for very youngs? I don't think so...
NUCENG said:Did you catch the last sentence? "Projected concentration data did not reflect reality." If they weren't accurate what is the use of continuing to put out meaningless reports?
jlduh said:Well, the question is "what is current reality", and how, and by whom, was it assessed that the projections weren't fitting the reality? Any data to base this statement?
If this is by IAEA only, then i (and many others) "may" have a doubt for example...
But in a sense I agree with you: if simulation doesn't fit reality, then we should quit using simulations and stick to reality.
And this applies also for stuff like... tsunami risks assessment for example?
It's always kind of funny to see that simulations have sometimes a strange destiny: either they don't fit the reality in a way that is going in the "good direction" (for some interests), and then we keep using them and justifying decisions on these, or they don't fit reality and some are unhappy with this and then they ask for quitting using them. As an engineer, i saw this happening many times, as a matter of fact. This is what is great with simulations: it's easier to control than reality, at the simulation level (hypothesis and inputs) or at the communication level...
Not from a pure scientific standpoint of course. But pure science in areas with political, strategical and financial interests are scarce. Epistemology and history of sciences are full of examples of this. And sorry to say this, but even there are true nuclear physicists working for exemple on some fundamental subjects, we are here talking about a TECHNOLOGY (which makes use of sciences) run by private companies to make business. IAEA is also part of this scheme (watchdog of this technology implementation). We are far from pure science in my mind, and engineers and even many experts are far from being pure scientific guys!
Dmytry said:seem to be matching the maps taken by US radiation monitoring plane quite well...
Govt to reduce school ground radiation levels
Japan's education minister says the government will strive to keep cumulative radiation levels at school grounds in Fukushima Prefecture below one millisievert per year. The prefecture is home to the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
Yoshiaki Takaki also told reporters on Friday that if the levels exceed a benchmark of one microsievert per hour, the topsoil will be removed, and most of the cost will be paid for by the government.
[...]
The government had earlier set a yearly limit of 20 millisieverts of accumulated external radiation for children taking part in outdoor activities. But parents have protested the decision.
[...]
Fukushima Governor Yuhei Sato welcomed the decision. He stressed that the government should shoulder the cost of achieving the goal, saying that nuclear power generation has been promoted as a national policy.
jlduh said:http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_19.html
Rabbit Without Ears, Allegedly Born After #Fukushima Accident
It is actually a very cute animal, trying to eat as much as it can among much bigger "normal" rabbits.
clancy688 said:Have you seen http://youtu.be/UqVY9azhH3U" video?
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/rabbit-without-ears-allegedly-born.html
Probably a hoax? "Our faces and throats felt burned, and we thought we're going to die." sounds fishy to me.
clancy688 said:Have you seen http://youtu.be/UqVY9azhH3U" video?
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/rabbit-without-ears-allegedly-born.html
Probably a hoax? "Our faces and throats felt burned, and we thought we're going to die." sounds fishy to me.
rowmag said:They say their face and throats were burned to the point of prickly pain.
Isn't gamma radiation supposed to create similar symptoms?
clancy688 said: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.
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)
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.
[PLAIN said:http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/01_27.html]Researchers[/PLAIN] 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.
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)
tsutsuji said: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/fukushima-np/images/handouts_110602_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 ?
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.
2 TEPCO workers exposed to radiation above limit
Experts say 2 workers at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have been exposed to high levels of radiation exceeding the safety limit set by the government.
[...]
The test by the National Institute of Radiology Sciences shows the estimated internal radiation absorbed by one man in his 30s is between 210 and 580 millisieverts, while another man in his 40s received between 200 and 570 millisieverts.
An earlier test showed the younger man had received about 74 millisieverts of external radiation and the other about 89 millisieverts.
The latest test results indicate that the amounts of radiation for the both workers exceeded the limit of 250 millisieverts set for emergency situations. The limit was raised by the government from 100 millisieverts soon after the accident.
[...]
TEPCO says safety measures, such as wearing protective clothing and masks, may have been inadequate just after the accident. It says it wants to conduct detailed tests on about 150 workers who were involved in similar operations.
razzz said:The link is to ex-skf.blogspot.com...
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/06/fukushima-nuke-accident-wspeedi-shows.html"
When it comes to fallout data, either TEPCO has to stop throwing people under the bus or get a bigger bus.
clancy688 said:In my opinion, EX-SKF misunderstands the data he found. Those are only mathmatical simulations as for how a cloud of Krypton-85 would've behaved if there would've been one.
There are only two things we can derive from those images: Direction of a possible Krypton-85 plume that day and densitiy over distance based on initial release.
It doesn't show us what really happened.
Krypton-85 is a noble gas. It has a very, very, very short biological half life (the body throws it out as soon as it gets in) and is a beta decayer (it's only a problem if it's inside), so there is probably little to none significance for any health damage.
The nuclear waste facilities Sellafield and La Hague are releasing Krypton gas in the magnitude of hundreds of PBq every year. The converted release of C137 and I131 at Fukushima was 630 PBq. The conversion factor for noble gases (Krypton-85) is zero. (according to the INES manual)
So IAEA is apparently thinking of Krypton-85 as "not dangerous at all".
razzz said:Do you think those wind pattern arrows are made up? We already know what happened, just waiting for the forthcoming confirmation. Maybe in another month or two if ever.
clancy688 said:Nope, they are real. What's unreal is the actual dose or amount of the radioactive source.
If there's a 1Bq/h release we get ~ 1^-12 Bq/m² in Tokio. I don't know if that scale is linear, but let's assume it is. Then for 1000000 Bq/m² Kr-85/I-129/Cs-137 you'd need a release of 10^18 Bq/h.
So if we'd actually KNOW how much material the reactors were spitting out EVERY HOUR during the first two weeks, we could make use of these cards and calculate what radiation hit Tokio. But we don't. And so those cards tell us nothing except "the wind was blowing in direction x at time z" - which we already know.
But again we're straying offtopic with something which fits better in the contamination and consequences thread...
etudiant said:The charts show the level of dilution for a 1 bq/hr source term and suggests that the source level was diluted by about 10**12th by the time it reached Tokyo. Perhaps that is enough information for someone who was monitoring the actual levels reached in Tokyo to work back to derive the corresponding emission level at the source.
clancy688 said:Fascinating... it never occurred to me to calculate backwards in order to get the source term. Thanks for that hint.
Does somebody know where to find airborne activity measurements for Tokio...?
P.S.
thx @ Borek for moving :)
Bioengineer01 said:My understanding is that the reported number DO NOT include releases to the Ocean and only air releases and thus the statement that the worse is over. When they consider the true releases to the Ocean, my gross napkin calculations say that they already got Gold!
swl said:From the power plant thread...
I don't know about the overall gold, but it seems like this accident is already the ocean contamination champion.
Does anyone know how ocean contamination from Fukushima compares to contamination from bomb testing in and above the ocean?
My wife was recently reading an article from a Japanese women's magazine that was advising readers to avoid eating seafood bones and shells because of the risk of Strontium contamination. It is impressive how so much food/water from so many areas is contaminated now. It makes it that much more difficult to feed the kids (here in Japan) a healthy diet.
swl said:From the power plant thread...
I don't know about the overall gold, but it seems like this accident is already the ocean contamination champion.
Does anyone know how ocean contamination from Fukushima compares to contamination from bomb testing in and above the ocean?
My wife was recently reading an article from a Japanese women's magazine that was advising readers to avoid eating seafood bones and shells because of the risk of Strontium contamination. It is impressive how so much food/water from so many areas is contaminated now. It makes it that much more difficult to feed the kids (here in Japan) a healthy diet.
Bioengineer01 said:http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ph...t-mortality-northwest-cities-meltdown-might-b
"The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age:
4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)
This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster"
jlduh said:I have this table with data it seems from CTBTO measurement network, but as i don't speak japanese i cannot give precisions of where it was measured, i just read the numbers for the various isotopes!
http://www.cpdnp.jp/pdf/110603Takasaki_report_May30.pdf
But this is interesting as you can see that there has been three spikes in the measurements:
- One (the biggest) between March 15 and 16
- One between March 20 and 21 (which fits the "black smoke coming from N°3" period)
- One between March 29 and 30
An air dose rate of about 3 mSv/h was measured near MP-6 at 21:00 on March 14. This rate decreased once but increased again after 06:00 on March 15, and a dose rate of about 12 mSv/h was measured at 09:00 on the same day. In Unit 2, a decrease in D/W pressure was observed due to a wet venting at 21:00 on March 14, and it is estimated that radioactive materials were discharged from Unit 2 because of a blast sound from the unit at around 06:00 on March 15 and a subsequent S/C pressure decrease. At around the same time, however, an explosion occurred in the reactor building of Unit 4, thus a clear distinction cannot be made between them. Since wind often blew from the north in this period, the plume was very likely to have blown to the south, and agencies including the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) in Tokai village, Ibaraki prefecture observed a rise in the dose rate and detected radioactive iodine, etc. in the atmosphere.
