Fukushima Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

Click For Summary
The French IRSN has released a report detailing contamination levels around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, highlighting cesium contamination based on SPEEDI/MEXT estimations. Concerns have been raised about the transparency and accuracy of radiation projections, with some questioning the reliability of data from the IAEA and Japanese agencies. The discussion emphasizes the emotional impact on the Japanese population, particularly regarding safety standards for children exposed to radiation. There are ongoing debates about the adequacy of current radiation limits and the effectiveness of monitoring efforts. Overall, the conversation reflects significant distrust in the reporting and management of nuclear contamination issues.
jlduh
Messages
468
Reaction score
0
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
http://jciv.iidj.net/map/

EDIT: it's a contamination map with some real time values.
 
Last edited:
[PLAIN]http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/photo/DY20110524101749165L0.jpg

and few will not budge for various reasons.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110523005018.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-ends-projections-of-radioactive-substance-spread-from-nuclear-plant
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zapperzero said:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-ends-projections-of-radioactive-substance-spread-from-nuclear-plant

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...

Here in France in 1986, the french "watchdog" (SCPRI and the infamous Pr Pellerin) was the only one who was allowed to release data on the Tchernobyl contamination. The meteorologist were calling him personnally to know what to say at TV. This remembers in a sense that kind of situation. Why cannot the Japan Meteorological Agency continue by itself to do it if people are consulting these projections (and I'm sure they are!)? Aren't they independent from any nuclear organisation, and especially IAEA?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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

The piece of information missing is the time to reach the dose on those contours pf 5, 10, and 20 mSv. In the report these are listed as annual doses for a person at that location for a year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?

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 and seismic risks assessment for example? As they were not sticking to reality, will the IAEA ask nuclear industry to quit using them and communicating on them, with the straightforward explanation: "We asked this because they were not reflecting reality"?

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 if 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 (hey they have bosses who are not that scientific!)

NOTE: bu the way you are right, the map above gives ANNUAL doses estimates (they missed the word on the map!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
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!

TEPCO and the Japanese are still performing sampling and monitoring contamination levels in the environment. I would hope that is current reality. Of course that depends on whether you believe anything they report. Those reports were available to IAEA to compare to the Japan Meteorological Agency predictions. IAEA apparently didn't find them useful so they won't ask for the reports. If the Japanese found the results useful they could keep generating reports. IAEA did not tell them to stop producing reports. They just aren't going to ask for any more. If you see benefit in the exercise your anger is misdirected at IAEA.

Atmospheric dispersion and plume predictions are evaluations based on meteorological inputs and past atmospheric statistics. The old example of chaos theory says that a butterfly flaps its wings in China and as a result a hurricane hits Miami. Over time inputs and uncertainties randomize until the data uncertainties are larger than the quantity you are trying to measure. They can give you a reasonable basis to prioritize emergency protective actions (evacuation, shelter in place, agricultural limitations, etc.) in the short run, but field measurements are better in the longer timeframe.

You won't get an argument from me on tsunami risks. Fukushima clearly blew that one. Had they done any kind of study when they received reports of the two major tsunamis in the last 2200 years, we might not be here today.

Neither will I argue that bad simulations or bad engineering or bad science is actually good. I believe good science and good engineering can help produce good simulations that produce realistic results. If those results mean we need to correct something or scrap a design, that is what you deal with. Tweaking the simulation to get results you want like what happened at Maine Yankee is dishonest, unethical, unprofessional, and illegal (i.e., BAD)!
 
Last edited:
  • #11
seem to be matching the maps taken by US radiation monitoring plane quite well...
 
  • #12
Dmytry said:
seem to be matching the maps taken by US radiation monitoring plane quite well...

This is not a surprise as the report says it is compiled from the MEXT-DOE maps.
 
  • #14
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_19.html

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
jlduh said:
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_19.html

So, which is it? 1 is safe, 20 not so much? Well then, seems some heads should roll for suggesting 20. 20 is ok? Well then, why change?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Have you seen http://youtu.be/UqVY9azhH3U" video?

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.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
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 criticize 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.
 
  • #19
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.

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
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?

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.
 
  • #21
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
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/sciencetech/article-1100030/Whats-Doc-Meet-Vincent-rabbit-born-ears.html, http://forums.rabbitrehome.org.uk/showthread.php?t=194355 (scroll to 6th post for a picture) and http://www.flickr.com/photos/madeleine_/799132044/ on the first page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Meanwhile, in Tokyo,
(may 14, but I just found it now, sorry). Radioactive sludge:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110514a2.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
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)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
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
 
  • #26
From
http://www.scribd.com/doc/40037799/Nuclear-Safety-Gianni-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/national/view/soil-contamination-from-fukushima-crisis-comparable-to-chernobyl-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 ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Snow on Fukushima peaks found to be radioactive
[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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
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)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
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/110529/trd11052912010002-n2.htm

Still waiting for Bloomberg to clarify whether or not 5 million becquerels was recorded 25 kms from the plant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Japan Earthquake: Nuclear Plants at Fukushima Daiichi
  • · Replies 14K ·
473
Replies
14K
Views
4M
Fukushima Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster discussions
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
49K
Fukushima Are US Nuclear Power Plants Prepared for Earthquakes?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
Japan Earthquake: Political Aspects
  • · Replies 763 ·
26
Replies
763
Views
275K
Fukushima The geological issues of the Fukushima Daiichi
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K