Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

  1. Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2013
  2. jcsd
  3. And what is the total soil contamination of Cs?
     
  4. http://jciv.iidj.net/map/

    EDIT: it's a contamination map with some real time values.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2011
  5. 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: May 26, 2011
  6. NUCENG

    NUCENG 916
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  7. NUCENG

    NUCENG 916
    Science Advisor

    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: May 26, 2011
  8. 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: May 26, 2011
  9. NUCENG

    NUCENG 916
    Science Advisor

    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: May 26, 2011
  10. seem to be matching the maps taken by US radiation monitoring plane quite well...
     
  11. tsutsuji

    tsutsuji 1,220
    Gold Member

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

     
  13. Have you seen this 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.
     
  14. 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 criticise 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.
     
  15. 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: May 27, 2011
  16. 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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

0
Draft saved Draft deleted