Japan earthquake - contamination & consequences outside Fukushima NPP

[zapperzero]

I am not suggesting that we discard or ignore anything. Right now the most important things are to stabilize and cool the plant, restore some degree of containment to eliminate ongoing releases.

That activity too seems to be hindered by an unwillingness to find (and thus make public) unpleasant facts, on the part of TEPCO, at least. Once again, the human factor interferes with engineering.

Once that is done the Japanese will have time for investigation for causes and corrective actions including criminal proceedings, if the evidence supports it. I doubt that any government that follows Mr. Kan would survive if they whitewash this event.

I will not defend the mistakes that have been made, but the sheer magnitude of the economic loss and social upset from evacuations and fear and distrust that have followed will be nearly impossible to resolve unless somebody is held responsible. But that is an issue for the Japanese to resolve in their courts and under their laws. I am sure that some of the mistakes we see today may be caused by training weaknesses or errors in procedures. Those problems may not be criminal and it is premature to start hanging people. Others, like potential negligence in considering the tsunami design basis, may require assigning blame to regulators as well as utility personnel.

Another consideration is that in the earthquake/tsunami, the Japanese have suffered thousands of people dead and injured, thousands of homes and businesses destroyed, and are faced with some very serious decisions for their future. On this forum we are concentrating only on a small part of the problems they face. They can legitimately have some vastly different priorities than we may see here.

I want to learn as much as I can from the mistakes that have been made and the lessons that are there to learn. That will only happen if we are fair in evaluating what is good as well as what was wrong. I don't suggest that your emotionally-charged language is unjustified, but I wonder if it actually hurts the effectiveness of your arguments. I have lived in Japan and I have a lot of confidence that they will listen to the help they are getting from the rest of the world and adopt some of it, but they will also find some of their own solutions.

For the second and hopefully last time: when I say "criminal" I am not trying to inflame anyone, nor am I expressing an emotion. I am stating the facts, as I understand them to be. It is for the Japanese to deal with their own, for sure.

Because I believe some of the actors of this drama may have commited crimes, I am concerned that the truth about what happened and why (which should by rights belong to mankind, as nuclear accidents have the potential to affect us all) will get lost, or misplaced, or actively hidden.

 

[zapperzero]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304567604576453342206030686.html

A Wall Street Journal investigation of Japan's efforts to protect people living around the stricken plant reveals that government officials failed to warn those [Namie] residents despite projections showing a risk of radioactive contamination

 

[tsutsuji]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304567604576453342206030686.html

Let's hope the IAEA has a subscription to the Wall Street Journal so that the people who wrote "evacuation, has been impressive and extremely well organized" (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/missionsummary010611.pdf ) have a chance to revise their opinions. I wonder what the findings will be if a systematic survey is made concerning how iodine pills were distributed after the accident. Which percentage of concerned children received the pills in a timely manner ?

There is a 22 March Yomiuri article on this topic :

Some municipal governments in Fukushima Prefecture distributed pills containing nonradioactive iodine without waiting for the central government's go-ahead, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

(...)

Hidehiko Nishiyama, a senior official of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said Saturday night, "On the morning of March 16, we instructed the prefectural government to give iodine medicine to people who were evacuating from inside the 20-kilometer zone."

The evacuations had been completed by shortly after noon on March 15, however.

(...)

A NISA official said, "(...) as it turned out nobody actually received the pills."

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110321004250.htm

but this seems to concern the decision to give pills around 15 or 16 March. How many people in the evacuated groups received pills on 12 March ?

Did the local governments have a manual telling them how to proceed with pill distribution ?

 

[tsutsuji]

http://mainichi.jp/select/today/news/20110830k0000m040082000c.html Two maps of Earth contamination have been released. One is prepared by the ministry of Education and science and covers 2,200 locations in the 100 km range around the plant. It shows that the worse place is in Ookuma with 1,545,000 Bq/m² of cesium. 34 places in Minamisoma, Tomioka, Ookuma, Futaba, Namie and Iitate are above the 1,480,000 Bq/m² evacuation level decided by authorities in Chernobyl. The other one, prepared by the ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, shows where 5000 Bq/kg is exceeded, forbidding to grow rice, among 360 locations in Fukushima prefecture and 220 locations in Miyagi, Tochigi, Gunma, Ibaraki and Chiba prefectures. Both maps will be available on http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/ on 30 August. The ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries plans to extend its survey to 3000 locations.

"Shipments of early-harvested rice start in Fukushima Prefecture":

According to the Fukushima Prefectural Government, a small amount of radioactive cesium totaling 22 becquerels per kilogram against the government-set allowable limit of 500 becquerels was detected only in raw rice in Nihonmatsu's former Odaira village district.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110829p2a00m0na010000c.html

 

[Gary7]

Looks like the map will be released tomorrow (30th for those of us here in Japan).
http://www.fnn-news.com/news/headlines/articles/CONN00206426.html

 

[tsutsuji]

Looks like the map will be released tomorrow (30th for those of us here in Japan).
http://www.fnn-news.com/news/headlines/articles/CONN00206426.html

Thanks. I found the same information after switching from NHK to the Mainichi website and edited my post above.

 

[zapperzero]

http://mainichi.jp/select/today/news/20110830k0000m040082000c.html It shows that the worse place is in Ookuma with 1,545,000 Bq/m² of cesium.

I don't really understand why they are measuring only Cesium. Is it a good proxy for "overall contamination" or what?

 

[tsutsuji]

(TBS news) Wakasagi smelts with 640 Bq/kg of cesium have been found in Lake Oonuma, one of the caldera lakes of Mount Akagi in Gunma prefecture.

 

[zapperzero]

(TBS news) Wakasagi smelts with 640 Bq/kg of cesium have been found in Lake Oonuma, one of the caldera lakes of Mount Akagi in Gunma prefecture.

That's pretty far away. Bioaccumulation sucks.

 

[Gary7]

From Mainichi

http://mainichi.jp/select/wadai/news/20110830dde041040065000c.html

Tepco announced today that a Fukushima Daiichi worker in his 40s died from acute leukemia. The worker's external radiation exposure was 0.5 millisieverts, while his internal exposure was 0 millisieverts, and according to Tepco's acting regional manager Junichi Matsumoto, the attending physician said there was no causative link to the work performed at Daiichi.

According to Tepco, the man had been working for an on-site contractor for about a week in early August, and was in charge of radiation management and management of the entrance at an employee rest area.

He became ill and was attended to by a physician who diagnosed the man with acute leukemia, and the man passed away at the hospital to which he was sent. Tepco received the report of the death from the contracting company on the 16th. Previous health check-ups on the man showed no unusual signs in white blood-cell counts, and it was unclear if the man had performed any previous work at other nuclear power plants.

 

[tsutsuji]

Iodine tablets:

Gen Suzuki, who heads a clinic at the International University of Health and Welfare, told a meeting of the Japanese Association for Medical Management of Radiation Accident (JAMMRA) in Saitama on Aug. 27 that 40 percent of people tested for internal exposure to radiation may have needed iodine tablets. The Japanese government has not instructed any residents to take iodine tablets since the start of the nuclear crisis.
(...)
According to a March 16 analysis on the air outside a 30-kilometer radius of the plant, radioactive iodine-132 and substances that would turn into iodine-132 in about three days accounted for at least 70 percent of airborne radiation.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201108290202.html

Nuclear waste:

the central government will build final dumping sites for radioactive waste outside the prefecture, while at the same time asking Governor Yuhei Sato to host temporary sites for the waste.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201108290198.html

Industrial products:

"Since industrial products are used in a wide variety of ways--some are used in contact with human skin while others are buried under the ground--it would take a lot of time to set separate standards for each product category," a NISA official said.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201108290253.html

"Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments", IAEA technical reports series, 2010:

This report provides data for use in assessments of routine discharges of radionuclides to terrestrial and freshwater environments. Some of the data may also be useful for assessing the impacts of accidental releases and releases in the future. The report provides information on radionuclides and on processes to be taken into account in assessments of the radiation impact of radionuclide discharge to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.
http://jammra.org/trs472_web.pdf

 

[nikkkom]

I don't really understand why they are measuring only Cesium. Is it a good proxy for "overall contamination" or what?

Caesium is the most easily dispersed long-lived fission product/actinide, because of its volatility. Next one is strontium. Neptunium and Plutonium are, in turn, much less volatile than Sr...

Basically, if you map Cs deposition and determine the boundaries of exclusion zone(s) based on that data only, it is almost 100% certain that dangerous levels of Sr, Pu and everything else are inside this zone too, not outside. Check Chernobul Cs, SR and Pu maps, they can be easily found using google.

 

[clancy688]

It shows that the worse place is in Ookuma with 1,545,000 Bq/m² of cesium. 34 places in Minamisoma, Tomioka, Ookuma, Futaba, Namie and Iitate are above the 1,480,000 Bq/m² evacuation level decided by authorities in Chernobyl.

That sounds odd... the MEXT maps from april showed large areas with well other 15 Mbq C134 and C137 each. Where's that stuff gone to?

http://imgf.tw/892620416.jpg

 

[tsutsuji]

The new Ministry of Education and Science Earth sampling map is available here: http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/distribution_map_around_FukushimaNPP/0002/11555_0830.pdf (it is the first item at the top of the http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/distribution_map_around_FukushimaNPP/ menu)

The new Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries maps are available as attachments at the bottom of http://www.s.affrc.go.jp/docs/press/110830.htm

http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/press/kenkyu/110830.html 5 species of fish fished in the Pacific Ocean from April to July have been tested : no iodine detected. 0.03 Bq/kg of strontium detected for Pacific cods. No strontium detected in the 4 other species. The 2000-2010 data for strontium were below the 0.094 Bq/kg detection level. The highest cesium figures are 34 Bq/kg for Pacific cods and 19 Bq/kg for maiwashi pilchards.

That sounds odd... the MEXT maps from april showed large areas with well other 15 Mbq C134 and C137 each. Where's that stuff gone to?

http://imgf.tw/892620416.jpg

I am not sure if it answers your question, but please note that the document in your attachment says "cumulative deposits of Cs 134 and Cs 137" instead of "each".

 

[clancy688]

I am not sure if it answers your question, but please note that the document in your attachment says "cumulative deposits of Cs 134 and Cs 137" instead of "each".

Yeah, but that doesn't change the numbers. The C134/C137 deposition was roughly 1 to 1. So if the MEXT map shows us areas with 30 MBq/m², then it's most likely 15 MBq/m² C134 and 15 MBq/m² C137.

And even if that's not the case then there's something highly wrong. 1,5 MBq/m² C137 contrary to the 30 MBq/m² C134+C137 means, that there's 28,5 MBq/m² C134 which isn't included. And I absolutely don't think that they would leave such a number out. No, the 1,5 MBq/m² doesn't sound right at all. Or all those MEXT maps were indredibly off.

I found the late June MEXT readings: http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110708plane2_en.pdf

They're only giving ">3 MBq/m²" in this report (contrary to the 6 MBq/m² - 30 Mbq/m² in the first one) for C134 and C137 each, but that's still at least double the number you provided us with. And this 3 Mbq/m² is the lower boundary...

 

[Gary7]

Yeah, but that doesn't change the numbers.

I think there was a mistake in the translation of the original article. http://mainichi.jp/select/today/news/20110830k0000m040082000c.html states the highest reading from Ookuma town is 15,450,000 Bq/m2 (１５４５万ベクレル) not 1,545,000 Bq/m2.

 

[clancy688]

I think there was a mistake in the translation of the original article. http://mainichi.jp/select/today/news/20110830k0000m040082000c.html states the highest reading from Ookuma town is 15,450,000 Bq/m2 (１５４５万ベクレル) not 1,545,000 Bq/m2.

Ahhhh, thx. Should have occurred to me that a magnitude could've been lost in translation... ^^;

According to the IRSN report the biggest C137 deposition in Chernobyl was 37,000,000 Bq/m². Moreover, in Chernobyl 3100 km² surface had depositions of over 1,500,000 Bq/m² compared to 170 km² with over 1,500,000 Bq/m² in Fukushima.

 

[tsutsuji]

I think there was a mistake in the translation of the original article. http://mainichi.jp/select/today/news/20110830k0000m040082000c.html states the highest reading from Ookuma town is 15,450,000 Bq/m2 (１５４５万ベクレル) not 1,545,000 Bq/m2.

Sorry, I should have checked my translation again.

By the way, http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110829/2035_dojoosen.html was saying that the worse is in Ookuma with １平方メートル当たり２９４６万ベクレル (29 MBq/m², isn't it?) (probably for Cs-134 and Cs-137 added together?). But when I read the NHK's statement about １平方メートル当たり５５万５０００ベクレル (550,000 Bq/m²) "temporary relocation" limit at Chernobyl, I was afraid there was a problem in this NHK article. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tchernobyl_radiation_1996-de.svg says 550,000 Bq/m² (for Cs-137 alone) is for "permanent control zone", and my understanding is that people are allowed to live there, although they need to have regular health checks. For example there is a "pediatric population, 5-17 y old, living in the permanent control zone around the Chernobyl nuclear reactor" mentioned in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7730059 . The same NHK article says there is a １平方メートル当たり１０００万ベクレル (10 MBq/m²) limit for temporary relocation of populations set by the IAEA. I have no idea if this is for Cs 137 alone or Cs 134 and 137 added together.

 

[clancy688]

Here's a screenshot taken from the IRSN report which should provide at least some clarity:

http://imgf.tw/182135955.jpg

 

[tsutsuji]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110902/0500_kouhyo.html The Japanese government is releasing data and a map about 2696 locations in the "restricted area" and in the "planned evacuation zone". Locations where large numbers of people are likely to assemble like schools and parks are included. The highest spot is in the Ottozawa district of Ookuma with 139 μSv/hour at 1 m above ground. The over 19 μSv/hour ([yearly?] accumulation over 100 mSv) zone expands as far as 32 km away from the plant in the North-West direction. On the other hand, 3 km away North of the plant on the coast, it is only 1μSv/hour. These data are available on the MEXT website. They should be useful to build decontamination plans.

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/monitoring_around_FukushimaNPP_collect_basic_data/ :
* http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/1200/2011/09/1201_090116.pdf (33 pages, 8MB) general information about the data, and maps
* http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/20110901.html menu with the data and detailed maps for each town

The highest spot is spot Nr. 3001:

3001 [Kitadai, Ottozawa, Ookuma] 2011/7/21 11:00 139.0 [μSv/h at 1m above ground] 201.0 [μSv/h at 1 cm above ground]
page 2 of http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/monitor04_01.pdf

shown on the map on page 4 of http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/monitor04_02.pdf (the area neighbouring the plant on the South-West of the plant)

 

[Azby]

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/genpatsu-fukushima/20110902/0500_kouhyo.html The Japanese government is releasing data and a map about 2696 locations in the "restricted area" and in the "planned evacuation zone". Locations where large numbers of people are likely to assemble like schools and parks are included. The highest spot is in the Ottozawa district of Ookuma with 139 μSv/hour at 1 m above ground. The over 19 μSv/hour ([yearly?] accumulation over 100 mSv) zone expands as far as 32 km away from the plant in the North-West direction. On the other hand, 3 km away North of the plant on the coast, it is only http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/monitor04_02.pdf These data are available on the MEXT website. They should be useful to build decontamination plans.

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/monitoring_around_FukushimaNPP_collect_basic_data/ :
* http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/ja/1200/2011/09/1201_090116.pdf (33 pages, 8MB) general information about the data, and maps
* http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/20110901.html menu with the data and detailed maps for each town

The detailed map showing the area closest to the plant is on page 4 of http://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/pdf/monitor04_02.pdf (Ookuma town)

Tsutsuji, thanks again so much. You're almost always the fastest with the mostest.

 

[zapperzero]

There's a thread on fusor.net where someone analyzes a (recent) soil sample from a gutter in Tokyo.

http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn=fusor_announce&key=1314827083

Gives some idea of the process and the uncertainties involved. Also, Cesium.

 

[alpi]

There's a thread on fusor.net where someone analyzes a (recent) soil sample from a gutter in Tokyo.

http://www.fusor.net/board/view.php?bn=fusor_announce&key=1314827083

Gives some idea of the process and the uncertainties involved. Also, Cesium.

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

 

[zapperzero]

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

Please explain? It's certainly not "research". Just one guy testing one soil sample. Is there anything wrong with the test itself, or what?

EDIT: also, how can someone who experiments with nuclear fusion be "anti-nuclear"?

 

[zapperzero]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904279004576527470755113128.html

Date town peppered with >20mSv/year hotspots. Interesting measurement style:

At each house the inspectors measured two spots—in the yard and at the front door—at heights of about 20 inches and one yard (one meter). In choosing the spots, the inspectors were warned to stay away from areas such as drains, shrubbery and rainspouts, where radioactive elements tend to gather, potentially skewing results.

 

[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