Fukushima Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

  • Thread starter jlduh
  • Start date
468
0
Last edited by a moderator:
1,045
2
http://jciv.iidj.net/map/

EDIT: it's a contamination map with some real time values.
 
Last edited:
520
0
[PLAIN]http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/photo/DY20110524101749165L0.jpg [Broken]

and few will not budge for various reasons.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110523005018.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1,045
2
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-ends-projections-of-radioactive-substance-spread-from-nuclear-plant [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
468
0
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-ends-projections-of-radioactive-substance-spread-from-nuclear-plant [Broken]
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:

NUCENG

Science Advisor
914
0
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_presse/Actualites/Documents/IRSN_Rapport_Evaluation_Dosimetrique_Fukushima_16052011.pdf

http://www.netimago.com/image_203750.html [Broken]
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:

NUCENG

Science Advisor
914
0
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:
468
0
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:

NUCENG

Science Advisor
914
0
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:
505
1
seem to be matching the maps taken by US radiation monitoring plane quite well...
 

tsutsuji

Gold Member
1,220
15
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.
 
468
0
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_19.html [Broken]

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:
1,045
2
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/27_19.html [Broken]
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:
Last edited by a moderator:
1,045
2
Last edited by a moderator:
468
0
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.
 
209
0
Have you seen http://youtu.be/UqVY9azhH3U" [Broken] 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:
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.
 
209
0
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:

Borek

Mentor
27,989
2,485
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:
1,045
2
Meanwhile, in Tokyo,
(may 14, but I just found it now, sorry). Radioactive sludge:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110514a2.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
468
0
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/28_23.html [Broken]

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:
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
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top