Fukushima Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

[clancy688]

Interesting phrasing. So they measured "hotspots" while taking care of staying away from the "hotspots".

 

[NUCENG]

Interesting phrasing. So they measured "hotspots" while taking care of staying away from the "hotspots".

Sounds suspiscious, doesn't it? It depends on what they are trying to measure.

If they are trying to characterize the general contamination levels they would have a good reason not to measure where it is being concentrated by other phenomena. That would be conservative, but it would skew their results.

If they are trying to characterize maximum dose consequences they should also be measuring these concentrations. This would also be the method to determine if an area can be released for residents to return.

 

[clancy688]

If they are trying to characterize the general contamination levels they would have a good reason not to measure where it is being concentrated by other phenomena. That would be conservative, but it would skew their results.

Well, it makes a certain sense. When you measure the dose rate at normal locations (the yard for example) where people stay most the time, you can probably decide whether or not the inhabitants should evacuate. As long as you make sure that they (the inhabitants) stay away from the real hotspots (for example the gutter outflow), it should be possible to make such a decision.
But in that case you can't name the locations you measured "hotspots"...

I just recently watched a little german tv report about inhabitants of Fukushima prefecture. There they showed a farmer who measured 90 uSv/h on his, I quote, "front yard". They showed how he did it. He left the door, turned left, went to the corner of his house and put the counter down on the bottom. Maybe one inch besides the gutter's outflow...

 

[Borek]

But in that case you can't name the locations you measured "hotspots"...

Depends on what "spot resolution" you are looking for. On the 1m² scale not checking places were the accumulation is to be expected would be an error, on the 100m² it can skew the results.

 

[zapperzero]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to not go hotspot-hunting. After all, the overall contamination levels outside the zone (excepting places like Namie and Fukushima City) are not so bad. The real, immediate danger, I think, lies in the small hotspots that such a survey is designed to miss.

 

[Borek]

It is all a matter of resources and speed. Obviously the choice is between quick low resolution scan of large area, or slow high resolution scan. Quick scan doesn't block the high resolution scan, but - and that's an important thing IMHO - gives results for large area much faster. I would prefer a fast scan first.

 

[swl]

A typical example of "research" carried out by anti-nuclear activists.

I checked the local park where my children play to ensure that the area was safe. Only 15 meters away from the swing-set and slide, there is a spot where my GM counter reads 0.70μSv/h to 1.0μSv/h. The 'hot' area is not a gutter, but rather above ground in a grassy area with shrubs nearby. The park I'm talking about (Soka Koen) is located 5.3km north of Tokyo, so I have no doubt that it is easy to find contamination in Tokyo too.

I'm not an activist. My only reason for surveying the park is to keep my children away from the areas I find with elevated contamination.

 

[zapperzero]

It is all a matter of resources and speed. Obviously the choice is between quick low resolution scan of large area, or slow high resolution scan. Quick scan doesn't block the high resolution scan, but - and that's an important thing IMHO - gives results for large area much faster. I would prefer a fast scan first.

I would prefer to see resources allocated for a fast, hi-res scan. But yea.

 

[NUCENG]

I checked the local park where my children play to ensure that the area was safe. Only 15 meters away from the swing-set and slide, there is a spot where my GM counter reads 0.70μSv/h to 1.0μSv/h. The 'hot' area is not a gutter, but rather above ground in a grassy area with shrubs nearby. The park I'm talking about (Soka Koen) is located 5.3km north of Tokyo, so I have no doubt that it is easy to find contamination in Tokyo too.

I'm not an activist. My only reason for surveying the park is to keep my children away from the areas I find with elevated contamination.

Your objective is to find the maximum contamination so you can keep your family safe. You can survey where your children actually go and play. That makes your survey efficient and effective.

The Japanese government and TEPCO do not have targets that are so clear so their surveys are trying to find out where the contamination went. When it comes to free release or cleanup their surveys should be more detailed.

What you found should be shouted from the rooftops as an example that every citizen in the exposed areas should understand. Large area surveys do not prove it is risk free for an individual.

That does not mean they are deliberately trying to miss the hotspots as zapperzero accuses, It is a valid criticism that they have not explained this to the public. And unfortunately that isn't the first time.

 

[zapperzero]

TEPCO says it was 571 billion yen in the red in Q2.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T110810005340.htm

 

[Caniche]

TEPCO says it was 571 billion yen in the red in Q2.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T110810005340.htm

So who is paying the bill? As if

 

[nikkkom]

The 'hot' area is not a gutter, but rather above ground in a grassy area with shrubs nearby.

Bioaccumulation perhaps. These plants concentrated Cs as plants would usually concentrate K.

 

[Dmytry]

Your objective is to find the maximum contamination so you can keep your family safe. You can survey where your children actually go and play. That makes your survey efficient and effective.

The Japanese government and TEPCO do not have targets that are so clear so their surveys are trying to find out where the contamination went. When it comes to free release or cleanup their surveys should be more detailed.

What you found should be shouted from the rooftops as an example that every citizen in the exposed areas should understand. Large area surveys do not prove it is risk free for an individual.

Hundred percent agreed.

That does not mean they are deliberately trying to miss the hotspots as zapperzero accuses, It is a valid criticism that they have not explained this to the public. And unfortunately that isn't the first time.

One thing that really irked me about this disaster, in the beginning when it was the most important, is the lack of good information on this aspect of the contamination - they would report the contamination figures for cities with two, three, even four figures of accuracy, creating entirely false sense of accuracy, and to some extent playing on people's misunderstanding of difference between radioactivity (as in radioactive dirt) and radiation (as in something that falls off smoothly with distance). They treated the radiation as if it was UV index.

This also goes for this fraud of radiation hormesis and the threshold model, which tries to set a safe threshold or claim a benefit from the low average dose. In principle there could be no safe threshold on the average dose, even if there was a threshold on the safe max dose rate for any tissue, because the doses are not uniform in space and time and may exceed the safe threshold even if the average is below threshold. Thus rendering the threshold model of little use when it comes to declaring contaminated areas safe. Japanese government seem to be rejecting LNT and declaring safe thresholds, while at same time using the averaged doses as if they were to use linear model. That is just bad math.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20110907-OYT1T00524.htm & http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=soc_30&k=2011090700630 Pr Kunihiko Takeda of Chubu university was asked by the mayor of Ichinoseki, Iwate, to retract his comment aired on television on 4 September asking viewers to throw away Tohoku-grown food, and saying that agriculture should be suspended for one year.

 

[zapperzero]

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20110907-OYT1T00524.htm & http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=soc_30&k=2011090700630 Pr Kunihiko Takeda of Chubu university was asked by the mayor of Ichinoseki, Iwate, to retract his comment aired on television on 4 September asking viewers to throw away Tohoku-grown food, and saying that agriculture should be suspended for one year.

Go Streisand effect go.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110908p2g00m0dm107000c.html "Above-the-limit cesium found in Iwate beef"

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110908p2g00m0dm109000c.html A 15,000 terabecquerel sea release estimate calculated by researchers doesn't match Tepco's estimate for the unit 2 inlet leak last April. "The big gap indicates radioactive substances could have leaked through other channels"

 

[zapperzero]

"The big gap indicates radioactive substances could have leaked through other channels"

Some of it is simply airborne contamination that fell to the water surface, no?

 

[tsutsuji]

Some of it is simply airborne contamination that fell to the water surface, no?

Yes, the NHK seems to view it that way too :

The researchers say the estimated amount of radioactivity includes a large amount that was first released into the air but entered the sea after coming down in the rain.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/08_25.html

 

[clancy688]

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110908p2g00m0dm109000c.html A 15,000 terabecquerel sea release estimate calculated by researchers doesn't match Tepco's estimate for the unit 2 inlet leak last April. "The big gap indicates radioactive substances could have leaked through other channels"

It would be nice to know how much of that stuff was C137/134

 

[Caniche]

Some of it is simply airborne contamination that fell to the water surface, no?

True, but concrete is porous. Also what are the chances of a single leak occurring in a plant of this size after an earthquake of that magnitude with multiple aftershocks combined with the pressure of 100,000 tons of radioactive effluent that was never designed for?
Some relevant groundwater analysis might prove enlightening

 

[zapperzero]

True, but concrete is porous. Also what are the chances of a single leak occurring in a plant of this size after an earthquake of that magnitude with multiple aftershocks combined with the pressure of 100,000 tons of radioactive effluent that was never designed for?
Some relevant groundwater analysis might prove enlightening

There was a lot of talk re site geology in the main thread.

 

[tsutsuji]

It would be nice to know how much of that stuff was C137/134

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/science/news/20110908-OYT1T00890.htm "The [15000 TBq] estimate does not comprise Cs-134, so the total is even greater".

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110909/index.html Internal contamination checks are not progressing fast enough. NHK interviewed local governments and found that 5400, mostly children and pregnant women, or 0.3% of Fukushima population have been tested so far (as of 1 September). The number of whole body counters is not sufficient. The cost of the transportation fees of each person from home to an hospital equipped with a whole body counter is also a problem.

http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/news/20110909k0000m040089000c.html The number of refugees is 101,931 as of the end of August.

 

[Borek]

http://mainichi.jp/select/jiken/news/20110909k0000m040089000c.html The number of refugees is 101,931 as of the end of August.

Can you clarify - are these just NPP disaster victims, or all earthquake victims?

 

[tsutsuji]

Can you clarify - are these just NPP disaster victims, or all earthquake victims?

The article title is "Fukushima Daiichi NPP: 100,000 refugees outside local government bodies - no prospect of return", so the intention of journalists is to talk about nuclear refugees. Apparently they asked each local government body (city, town or village) in the restricted zone, planned evacuation zone, and evacuation-prepared zone, for the number of inhabitants from their territory who are living outside that territory, and they calculated the total. See the figures for each local government body in the map attached to the article. The name between brackets is the name of the place where each town hall was relocated. Futaba town hall is relocated in Kazo, Saitama prefecture. The question is whether earthquake or tsunami refugees who decided not to come back home although their house is not in a restricted area (like the northern part of Miniamisoma) are included or not. If the map horizontal caption "原発事故で避難している住民の数/number of inhabitants refuging from the nuclear accident" is correct, they should not be included. If the vertical caption "人数は自治体外で生活している住民数/number of inhabitants living outside local government body" means strictly that, then they are. On the other hand, inhabitants of Minamisoma's restricted southern part who took refuge in Minamisoma's northern part are probably not included.

 

[clancy688]

So all in all 0.5 - 1 % of the whole japanese population has been displaced?

What's the meaning of the "25184"-number in the upper corner of the picture, at the location of Minamisoma?

 

[tsutsuji]

What's the meaning of the "25184"-number in the upper corner of the picture, at the location of Minamisoma?

My understanding is that 25,184 Miniamisoma citizens have left the Minamisoma territory and are currently living elsewhere in Japan.

Blog page http://hiroko-abe.at.webry.info/201107/article_8.html provides the following data for Minamisoma

11 March population: 71,635
25 June population: 34,503
Killed: 580
Missing: 109
households whose homes were damaged by tsunami: 1509

 

[clancy688]

Thanks for your answer.

So those citizens are probably from the voluntary evacuation zone or even from locations outside the voluntary evacuation zone.
Do you know how or if they're getting compensated for moving away? Because the government could always argue that they're outside all of the declared zones...

 

[tsutsuji]

So all in all 0.5 - 1 % of the whole japanese population has been displaced?

According to http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/jinsui/tsuki/index.htm , Japan's population estimate for August 2011 is 127,920,000.

101,931 / 127,920,000 = 0.0007968 (0.08 %)

So those citizens are probably from the voluntary evacuation zone or even from locations outside the voluntary evacuation zone.

As is shown with the colors on the map, the Minamisoma territory is divided into 4 parts. The Southern part is in the restricted (forbidden) red zone. The Northern part is in the normal, unrestricted, white zone. The Middle part is in the evacuation-prepared blue zone. The Western part is in the planned-evacuation yellow zone.

Do you know how or if they're getting compensated for moving away? Because the government could always argue that they're outside all of the declared zones...

According to Tepco's website:

What is temporary compensation (with regard to the evacuation)?

It is payment of temporary compensation, that is, for those who live in the areas, due to the accident of out nuclear power station, of "Evacuation" or "Shelter in Place", or "Planned Evacuation" or "Emergency Evacuation Preparation" , designated by the Prime Minister pursuant to Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, we pay 1,000,000 yen per multi-person household (750,000 yen per single-person household) that will be appropriated to the damages that result from the evacuation, as a part of compensation money.
(...)
With regard to the final compensation, we will announce officially after the accident caused by the nuclear power station is settled and the final version of the above-mentioned policy is established.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/karibaraihosyou/faq-e.html

The Article's text is fully translated into English at http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110909p2a00m0na014000c.html (but the map is not available in the English version)

 

[clancy688]

According to http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/jinsui/tsuki/index.htm , Japan's population estimate for August 2011 is 127,920,000.

101,931 / 127,920,000 = 0.0007968 (0.08 %)

Ouch... my mistake, thanks for correction. Mental math isn't my strong suit.

 

[zapperzero]

I'll just leave this here. Citizens decon a school yard, with small child(ren?) in tow.
http://ow.ly/i/hkag
via ex-skf.