Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

[tsutsuji]

Where're those samples taken from?

Just a clue: try Google's translation tool with the report's title name.

Or another clue: browse Tepco's English language press releases on the same date.

 

[clancy688]

~~~

Press Release (Apr 05,2012)
Report to NISA regarding the event of water or radioactive material leakage from concentrated water storage tank of water desalinations in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

Thanks for the hint...

 

[nikkkom]

Me too. And what to do with the huge amount of radioactive rubble after this so called "decontamination"?

In some cases it might be better to abandon this places and let the decay do the work.

Half-life of Cs-137 is 30 years. How long are you willing to wait?

 

[Yamanote]

Half-life of Cs-137 is 30 years. How long are you willing to wait?

I personally? Not even a second. But radiation won't ask for my opinion.

And that's exactly my issue with nuclear energy.
If it goes wrong, one might have to wait for a long long time. And not every price on Earth must be paid in money.

Surprisingly they are not even able to effectively decontaminate the water from the reactor buildings, so they have to collect and store huge amounts of radioactive water in tanks, waiting for better days. One year after the accident there is still no apparatus available to do this job. I would like to know why?

 

[nikkkom]

I personally? Not even a second. But radiation won't ask for my opinion.

I am confused. You proposed to not bother with decontamination and wait for decay. Now you say something different: that you don't want to wait. So what are you saying?

Surprisingly they are not even able to effectively decontaminate the water from the reactor buildings, so they have to collect and store huge amounts of radioactive water in tanks, waiting for better days. One year after the accident there is still no apparatus available to do this job. I would like to know why?

First, decontamination apparatus seem to be working well enough, in fact.

Second, technology exists to deal with even MUCH worse materials - the water from Fukushima basements is nothing compared to the first stage of nuclear fuel reprocessing. Ask French and/or Brits, they have it running for decades.

 

[clancy688]

Does anyone know where to find numbers for how many square kilometers are polluted with how much Cs-137?

For example (numbers are made up):

300 km²: 3 MBq/m² or higher
600 km²: 1 MBq/m² or higher

I searched for nearly an hour but didn't find anything useful.

 

[MadderDoc]

Does anyone know where to find numbers for how many square kilometers are polluted with how much Cs-137?

For example (numbers are made up):

300 km²: 3 MBq/m² or higher
600 km²: 1 MBq/m² or higher

I searched for nearly an hour but didn't find anything useful.

Perhaps this article
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/49/19530.full.pdf+html
Quote:
"Our estimates show that the area around NPP in Fukushima, secondarily effected areas (Miyagi and Ibaraki prefectures), and other effected areas (Iwate, Yamagata, Tochigi, and Chiba prefectures) had 137 Cs depositions of more than 100,000, 25,000, and 10,000 MBq km−2 , respectively."

 

[clancy688]

Not quite, but thanks.

 

[tsutsuji]

Also [wrong link] page 68/189: Cs-137 as of the summer of 2011

[Areas outside the forbidden zone]

higher than 1000 kBq/m² : 170 km²

600 to 1000 kBq/m² : 150 km²

30 to 600 kBq/m² : 8200 km²

Similar figures for Chernobyl are provided on the same page.

Edit. Sorry for the mistake. The correct link is http://www.irsn.fr/FR/expertise/rap.../IRSN_Rapport_Fukushima-1-an-apres_032012.pdf

The areas above are those outside the forbidden zone. The forbidden zone is 600 km².

 

[clancy688]

Also http://www.irsn.fr/FR/IRSN_Rapport_Fukushima-1-an-apres_032012.pdf page 68/189: Cs-137 as of the summer of 2011

Thanks! That was exactly what I was looking for. On page 67 there's a chart with more accurate values. Your link didn't work for me, if other members have the same problem, use this one instead:

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/irsn_rapport_complet-fukushima-1-an-.pdf

Thing is, I wanted to use those numbers to calculate how much Cs-137 ended up on japanese soil. Sadly the chart apparently only covers Fukushima prefecture, but it's a start.


10 - 30 kBq/m²: 14600 km²; 0.146 / 0.292 / 0.438 PBq total (min / mid / max)
30 - 60 kBq/m²: 4775 km²; 0.143 / 0.215 / 0.287 PBq total (min / mid / max)
60 - 100 kBq/m²: 1545 km²; 0.093 / 0.124 / 0.155 PBq total (min / mid / max)
100 - 300 kBq/m²: 1835 km²; 0.184 / 0.368 / 0.552 PBq total (min / mid / max)
300 - 600 kBq/m²: 380 km²: 0.114 / 0.171 / 0.228 PBq total (min / mid / max)
600 - 1000 kBq/m²: 225 km²; 0.135 / 0.180 / 0.225 PBq total (min / mid / max)
1000+ kBq/m²: 400 km²; 0.400 / 1.200 / 2.400 PBq total (1000 kBq/m² / 3000 kBq/m² / 6000 kBq/m²)

Total deposition: 1.215 / 2.550 / 4.285 PBq (min / mid / max)

 

[tsutsuji]

Why not make your own measurement using the helicopter maps and an area measuring software ?

 

[MadderDoc]

Why not make your own measurement using the helicopter maps and an area measuring software ?

Yes indeed. The fourth airborne monitoring maps would seem suitable for the most heavily contaminated areas, while the wider areas of lesser contamination could be judged from from one of the previous monitoring flights:

 

[clancy688]

Why not make your own measurement using the helicopter maps and an area measuring software ?

I had the same idea, but I'm afraid I have absolutely no clue on how to do that...

 

[MadderDoc]

I had the same idea, but I'm afraid I have absolutely no clue on how to do that...

Basically, you let a graphics program count the number of pixels with similar colors, and use the scale of the image to convert the number of pixels into area. It is not an exact science, but better than counting the pixels yourself :-)

Using that method on the source of the image below I get a total coloured area within the circles, of close to 10000 km2, of which

200 km2 red (>3000 kBq/m2
330 km2 yellow (1000-3000 kBq/m2)
330 km2 green (600-1000 kBq/m2)
510 km2 light blue (300-600 kq/m2)
2380 km2 blue (100-300 kBg/m2)
2370 km2 purple (60-100 kBq/m2)
1990 km2 gray (30-60 kBq/m2)
1880 km2 brown (10-30 kBq/m2)

 

[clancy688]

Thanks! Now we're getting closer.


Those areas are larger than in the IRSN paper...

 

[zapperzero]

The bailout fund keeps swelling. Now TEPCO is proposing (or is it demanding?) to receive 1 trillion yen from the J-gov, in exchange for a, quote, controlling stake in the company.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304811304577369550496643114.html

 

[BC1]

Does anyone here know anything about the levels of I-129 deposition from this event? Or about the ratio of I-131 to I-129 released?

Is I-129 a significant health hazard? I doubt it unless massive amounts were inhaled/consumed.

Thanks in advance to all of you, my nerdly brethren.

 

[r-j]

Scientists in New Zealand are voicing concerns after monitoring the muttonbird population as it travels back from spending the northern summer in Japan. In 2005, scientists attached tracking devices to a portion of the bird population. The New Zealand “muttonbirders” have been concerned ever since the Fukushima plant started leaking radiation last March.

The birds return to New Zealand every November to mate, but Department of Conservation researcher Graeme Taylor says the birds that did return were in a poor condition.

http://enformable.com/2012/05/new-zealand-scientists-concerns-over-most-unusual-event-in-20-years-of-studies/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[tsutsuji]

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/contents/6000/5197/24/191_0511.pdf Helicopter maps of Kyūshū and Okinawa.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120514/1030_nezumi.html 3100 Bq/kg in akanezumi (Japanese field mice) taken in Kawauchi (Fukushima prefecture, 30 km away from plant, 3.11 microsievert/hour external exposure), and 790 Bq/kg in those from Kita-Ibaraki (Ibaraki prefecture, 70 km away from the plant, 0.2 microsievert/hour). The mice were taken in mountains and forests in October and December 2011 by specialists of the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (Tsukuba city).

 

[Yamanote]

I am confused. You proposed to not bother with decontamination and wait for decay. Now you say something different: that you don't want to wait. So what are you saying?

As it appears to be quite difficult to collect the radioactive stuff that was distributed over a large area, there is simply no other choice than to wait for support from decay.

First, decontamination apparatus seem to be working well enough, in fact.

Second, technology exists to deal with even MUCH worse materials - the water from Fukushima basements is nothing compared to the first stage of nuclear fuel reprocessing. Ask French and/or Brits, they have it running for decades.

Obviously not, because if the water would be clean, they could simply discharge it into the ocean (what they will have to do at a certain point in time anyway). So either this technology is not available in Fukushima for some reason, or doesn't work at this scale with this large quantities of contaminated water. At my former company we installed 8 tanks with a volume of 2000 m³ each and I can tell you they were already huge...

IMHO they are just entering new territory an many cases. Think about the sludge from the water decontamination apparatus with highly radioactive material. Where to store it? Do they have to cool the vessels? What about corrosion due to salt water? Questions upon questions.

 

[zapperzero]

Think about the sludge from the water decontamination apparatus with highly radioactive material. Where to store it? Do they have to cool the vessels? What about corrosion due to salt water? Questions upon questions.

They are storing it on site in above-ground tanks. The used filters are also stored on site. From the numbers they publish, it appears the water is much cleaner now than when they started. No, the sludge does not need cooling. I don't know about corrosion, but I'd expect they are lining the tank(s?) with some polymer or another.

 

[nikkkom]

Second, technology exists to deal with even MUCH worse materials - the water from Fukushima basements is nothing compared to the first stage of nuclear fuel reprocessing. Ask French and/or Brits, they have it running for decades.

Obviously not, because if the water would be clean, they could simply discharge it into the ocean (what they will have to do at a certain point in time anyway).

I'm interested in facts: with what exactly the "cleaned" water is still contaminated above allowable limits.

I heard one of the hard to remove contaminants is tritium.

If it's the only above-limits contaminant, I'd say "screw it, dump it in the ocean now". Tritium is one of the least-harmless radioisotopes.

So either this technology is not available in Fukushima for some reason, or doesn't work at this scale with this large quantities of contaminated water.

Large quantities can be made smaller by distillation etc.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120524/index.html The World Health organization has published its report. It is based on the assumption that people did not evacuate and it ignores the food regulations.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2012/9789241503662_eng.pdf

Page 63:
"In Fukushima prefecture the estimated effective doses are within a dose band of 1−10 mSv, except in two of the example locations where the effective doses are estimated to be within a dose band of 10–50 mSv.

In prefectures neighbouring Fukushima, the estimated effective doses are within a dose band of 0.1−10 mSv, and in all other prefectures the effective doses are estimated to be within a dose band of 0.1−1 mSv"

Page 33: "Measured levels of activity in marketed rice harvested in 2011 were available in August and September 2011 and none of the reported levels was above the limit of detection"

But we know that rice above detection level was harvested in Fukushima prefecture, although it was mostly not sold, or in rare cases recalled from the shops (see https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3757864&postcount=489 ). The contamination of the rice harvest was found in November (beginning with the Oonami district in Fukushima City : https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3623896&postcount=438 ). The reason why the WHO report ignores the rice harvest's contamination could be that it is "based on data available to the panel up to September 2011." (WHO report, p. 63)They don't seem to take the nuclear workers who worked at the plant into account (although their number is 23,000 http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120508/index.html ).

 

[SteveElbows]

Here is another press article about the WHO report:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/24/fukushima-gets-mixed-radiation-report?newsfeed=true

It does seem to me to add weight to the criticisms of the failure to change the evacuation zone in a timely fashion, given the delay of evacuation from certain locations to the north west of the Fukushima plant even when initial contamination estimates suggested hotspots in these areas.

 

[Rive]

A small question.

On the MEXT site there are those reports about "Results of monitoring the environmental radioactivity level of fallout".

Is this 'fallout' means newly released radioactive particles, or 'just' plainly "radioactivity measured in stuff captured high above the ground"?

 

[MadderDoc]

A small question.

On the MEXT site there are those reports about "Results of monitoring the environmental radioactivity level of fallout".

Is this 'fallout' means newly released radioactive particles, or 'just' plainly "radioactivity measured in stuff captured high above the ground"?

On the face of it, they are daily deposition rate measurements (unit Bq/m2), not accumulated. I imagine they measure the radioactivity of captured deposition on discs representing a known surface area. They appear to change discs daily. It wouldn't be possible to distinguish between newly released and and not newly released particles.

 

[Rive]

On the face of it, they are daily deposition rate measurements (unit Bq/m2), not accumulated. I imagine they measure the radioactivity of captured deposition on discs representing a known surface area. They appear to change discs daily. It wouldn't be possible to distinguish between newly released and and not newly released particles.

Is there any visual map or so about these measurements?

The only way I think up to distinguish between the new release and the locally re-mobilized particles is to check if the 'fallout' relates to the wind and distance of the NPP or to the local contamination. What do you think about this?

 

[MadderDoc]

Is there any visual map or so about these measurements?

The only way I think up to distinguish between the new release and the locally re-mobilized particles is to check if the 'fallout' relates to the wind and distance of the NPP or to the local contamination. What do you think about this?

New release would be best measured close to the source. Barred the possibility that new release would be of more recent fission products, I can see no possibility to make the distinction from a distance whether a radioactive particle has come directly from the source or by a number of hops between waystations.

 

[benny61]

I have friends who live in Nihonmatsu and they've told me it's now leaking badly into the water table.., fish have been found around the coast of the US "glowing" if it may from the Fukishima melt down.

 

[mheslep]

I have friends who live in Nihonmatsu and they've told me it's now leaking badly into the water table.., fish have been found around the coast of the US "glowing" if it may from the Fukishima melt down.

Not surprisingly google reports no hits re "glowing fish" off the US coast.

 

[Yamanote]

I have friends who live in Nihonmatsu and they've told me it's now leaking badly into the water table..

How do they see that? Did they do measurements?
I mean, the whole plant is leaking radioactivity since March 11th 2011, so in general this is no news.

fish have been found around the coast of the US "glowing" if it may from the Fukishima melt down.

What do you mean with "glowing fishes" in the US?

I don't understand your post.

 

[Shinjukusam]

Not surprisingly google reports no hits re "glowing fish" off the US coast.

Doesn't seem to have anything about Nihonmatsu water table either, in English or Japanese...

So...people in the city know something they can only find out from high tech analysis, but no one thought to tell anyone with access to a news outlet. Hmm...

 

[etudiant]

The fish report presumably reflects the US research recently published that indicates increased radioactivity in tuna caught off the west coast. The scale of the contamination however was small, but it was a detectable increase from earlier.
Radioactive water contamination migrating inland by many kilometers however would be a material development.

 

[Thermalne]

I have friends who live in Nihonmatsu and they've told me it's now leaking badly into the water table.., fish have been found around the coast of the US "glowing" if it may from the Fukishima melt down.

I strongly can not believe that without any real evidence or source. There have been no "glowing" fish off the west coast of the USA. There is no cover up... get over yourself.

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20120612/1620_yukidoke.html the forestry and forest products research institute surveyed the water generated by melted snow in rivers in 6 locations in Fukushima prefecture mountains. Cesium was detected in 3 locations (Date, Nihonmatsu and Iitate), the highest being 5.9 Bq/l in an Iitate river. 97% of the measurements are below 1 Bq/l of cesium. They conclude that the consequences of melted snow on agricultural land is small.