Give me a reason to doubt this: Leaked TEPCO report: 120 billion Becquerels of plutonium, 7.6 trillion Becquerels of neptunium
http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/10/news-media-knew-1-2%C3%971012-bq-of-p...
Leaked TEPCO report: 120 billion Becquerels of plutonium, 7.6 trillion Becquerels of neptunium released in first 100 hours — Media concealed risk to public
I don't read Japanese. Does the report say that? Can it be a fabrication? How can we know?
If this is true, there is nothing comparable in history, is there? This seems very dark indeed. These would be the hot particles we were looking for, no?
Tritium & Tritiated H2O
Too clever, by half ...
Do you mean to imply; or do you wish the reader to infer, that: Light Water Reactors do not produce tritium and/or tritiated water?
Quite the contrary, heavy water is commonly released, from light water reactors, in concentrations far exceeding the natural occurance level.
Vermont Yankee is a General Electric boiling water reactor (BWR a type of light water nuclear reactor), nuclear power plant currently owned by Entergy. On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee, (substantially identical to the Fukushima reactors) reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l. On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel. The pipes were repaired, stopping the leak.
WRONG WRONG!!
Quite the contrary, heavy water is commonly released, from light water reactors, in concentrations far exceeding the natural occurance level.
============================
GADS - you appear incapable of learning.
First, you need to learn some basic chemistry. Even IF reactors released heavy water; that would be of no consequence.
Heavy water is NOT RADIOACTIVE. Heavy water is used in some reactors because it has less of a tendency to absorb neutrons.
Secondly, you keep confusing "heavy water" and tritium. Heavy water is not radioactive, and tritium is radioactive.
Just because you can make tritium from irradiating heavy water, doesn't mean that they are somehow the same.
I can make water from burning hydrogen. Does that mean that if I have hydrogen that I also have water?
Light water reactors don't release heavy water, contrary to the statement of a previous poster.
The primary source of tritium made by reactors actually comes from the boron in the boric acid that is used as a neutron absorber in PWRs. Boron is also found in the control rods of BWRs.
When Boron absorbs a neutron, you can get the (n,alpha) reaction; that is the Boron absorbs the neutron and the products of the reaction are Lithium and an alpha particle. If the Lithium from this reaction then absorbs another neutron, you can get Tritium.
So although one "can" make tritium by irradiating heavy water, the tritium produced by reactors isn't made that way. The tritium made by reactors comes from Lithium which comes from Boron.
However, you and the other poster are in error in saying that light water reactors release heavy water, and even if they did; that wouldn't be bad.
Heavy water occurs naturally; and in fact, a little less than 1% of the water molecules that you drink naturally, are actually heavy water. That's where we get heavy water to begin with; from Mother Nature.
heavy water is a Tritium Source
:(
'Heavy water' is a commercial Tritium Source
"from the least expensive deuterium and tritium source, heavy water"
http://www.lbl.gov/tt/techs/lbnl1698.html
Berkeley Laboratories
Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Management
Available Technologies
Novel Catalyst Exchanges Deuterium or Tritium into Organic and Organometallic Compounds
Preparing deuterium- or tritium-labeled organic and organometallic compounds for: ...
ADVANTAGES:
•Catalyzes hydrogen/deuterium (H/D) exchange from the least expensive deuterium and tritium source, heavy water, into organic and organometallic compounds with activated or unactivated protons
WRONG!!
Do you mean to imply; or do you wish the reader to infer, that: Light Water Reactors do not produce tritium and/or tritiated water?
Quite the contrary, heavy water is commonly released, from light water reactors, in concentrations far exceeding the natural occurance level.
================================================
It seems I can always count on some arrogant, self-righteous anti-nuke to come along and trumpet their manifest ignorance
To answer the question, in saying that LWRs don't discharge heavy water, I am NOT saying or implying anything about tritium or tritiated water.
That's because "heavy water" and "tritium" have NOTHING to do with each other!!
Once again the anti-nukes demonstrate that they don't have the education one would expect from a school child. For the 99% of the population that knows this, please bear with me while I conduct some remedial education for our ignorant anti-nuke.
"Heavy water" is the oxide of Deuterium, NOT Tritium!!!
You've got your isotopes screwed up!!!
The element "hydrogen" has 3 isotopes. The lightest and most common which is usually referred to as "hydrogen", but is also called "protium" is Hydrogen-1 or H-1. The oxide of this isotope is ordinary light water.
The 2nd isotope is called "Deuterium" or Hydrogen-2 and is denoted D-2 or H-2. Deuterium is STABLE, i.e. it is NOT radioactive. The oxide of this isotope is D2O or "heavy water". This is what I was talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
Heavy water is water highly enriched in the hydrogen isotope deuterium...
The non-sequitur raised by our uneducated anti-nuke concerns the 3rd isotope of hydrogen called "Tritium". Tritium is radioactive; it is a beta-emitter that decays with a 12 year half-life to Helium-3.
Why can't the anti-nukes get the facts right? The scientists and engineers that are educated in nuclear technology support it at >99% approval. So the fact that one is an anti-nuke is a pretty good indicator that one's education in nuclear technology is rather lacking. Why don't the anti-nukes just Google "heavy water" and discover the above link to Wikipedia, and learn that "heavy water" does not mean tritium or radioactivity.
As for the marginal amounts of tritium that are released, we see that this along with all other releases of radioactivity from nuclear power plants amounts to a negligible amount of radiation dose compared with what Mother Nature gives us due to background radiation.
Courtesy of the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
We see that the proportion of the average dose due to nuclear power ( "nuclear fuel cycle" in table ) amounts to only 0.03% of our average dose.
This means that Mother Nature is responsible for giving us 3000 times as much radiation dose as that we get from nuclear power plants.
With Mother Nature giving me the vast majority of the radiation dose I receive, with no ill effects; then I'm not going to sweat that tiny amount from nuclear power.
Excellent Post
What do anti-nukes use for brains anyways? Whatever it is, it is beginning to smell.
IDIOT
I can't believe there was actually someone here that was stupid enough not to know the difference between heavy water and tritium.
I know that the education system is going into the toilet, but please, not knowing the difference between radioactive tritium and harmless, non-radioactive heavy water is a bit much to believe.
Must by a political "science" major.
BRAWM Condones This Conduct On Threads Now?
Hey, guess what, asshole. Some of us didn't study nuclear physics, and NONE of us learned it in primary education schools.
I'll bet I know a whole bunch of stuff that has to do with MY specialties that you haven't the faintest, foggiest clue about. For example, manners.
There is absolutely nothing in this thread that should condone the kind of bullying, insulting, hostile, abusive crap that's being dished out here. I take personal offense to this. This is a major issue--a MAJOR PROBLEM.
If you think it's all good, go live in Japan. If you're such the expert, why aren't you over there helping them?
I bet I know....because all those Japanese are stupid idiots who think they're being poisoned.
There's no problem! Everyone move along.
If this is the kind of conversation that's being supported here I don't know how much longer I can use this forum to try to find information.
The first sentence of the above post is absolutely unbelievable.
I don't care how smart YOU are--you, my friend, are an idiot. And BRAWM is letting the level of discourse here sink into propoganda with attitudes like these. How shameful.
Minimum graduation requirements
>> The first sentence of the above post is absolutely unbelievable.
I think that a reasonable grounding in the sciences, including knowing the difference between the isotopes of hydrogen, would be a good prerequisite for obtaining a high school diploma.
Evidently that is not the case. In fact, a recent study by American Association for the Advancement of Science states that only about 2% of the US populace has an adequate education in science.
Evidently many of that other 98% have chose to post here. They don't know their science, and when they are corrected in their misunderstandings, they complain.
If you were wrong, then accept you were wrong and don't blame other people. You have nobody to blame for your ignorance but yourself. Nobody is hiding scientific information about which isotopes of hydrogen are radioactive and which are not.
Someone just showed you up.
I think you are just upset because someone showed you up. If nuclear science and technology is not your forte, then why do you argue with someone who evidently knows more about the science than you do?
If someone says that heavy water is harmless, and you bring up tritium because you don't know the difference between heavy water and tritium, then you shouldn't be upset when they point out your error.
Instead of arguing with people who know more than you do, you should attempt to learn from them.
Sadly stupid
Shall we revisit the simple matter of ...
Hydrogen/Oxygen isotopes by atomic weight as constituents of common water 18, or the other 'flavors'.
Perhaps artificial arguments regarding junior high trivia will cause us to purchase your defective and dangerous, MOX fueled, Mark-1 nuclear reactor systems.
Gee, put me down for 2 ... NOT
That's your choice
That's your choice.
I only say that it should be an informed choice, and not one dictated by scare tactics.
Most certainly it should not be a choice made on the basis of the manifest STUPIDITY and IGNORANCE shown by some people.
Suppose we had some moronic pinhead say that penicillin and other antibiotics used by licensed physicians were harmful. Should such an ignorant and stupid person be allowed to offer questionable advice on a public forum and have it go unchallenged?
Do we give free reign to those that don't know what any graduating high school senior should know?
The worthless opinions of those with questionable mental faculties should be shown to be worthless, so that responses based on good science will carry the day.
Shameful
It is a shame that these "pro nuclear" posters are so rude with few manners. Yes, they have been very effective at ruining this blog. Telling people that they are stupid and they should shut up is a good way of scaring off those that are interested in learning about nuclear energy. With this being the first major nuclear accident since the internet it should be expected that blogs like this will be compromised when posts get to the really nasty industry-sensitive issues. Pay special attention to the posts that get attacked or are buried, they are exposing a industry that has lived in the shadows. The more abusive and rude the poster is, past history dictates, the more of a cover up of some vial fact. That's the best they can do, that's what the propaganda spin doctors went to school to learn and are paid well for their expertise in the execution thereof. The tactics are so obvious and disingenuous that their arguments seem hollow.
Misrepresenting the science is not learning..
Telling people that they are stupid and they should shut up is a good way of scaring off those that are interested in learning about nuclear energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone that is interested in learning about nuclear energy can learn about nuclear energy without being labeled as stupid, and is not told to shut up.
The stupid people that should shut up are those that are peddling misinformation. Peddling misinformation is not learning.
I'm so grateful that a few of
I'm so grateful that a few of you have made note of this re: insulting, bullying tactics being used by one person in particular on this forum. He stalks the threads, and because he spends so much time and energy on so many posts (it's creepy), it's obvious there is a serious agenda on his part.
It's kind of funny, though- you can tell by his writing style that he often posts follow up comments, complimenting his own bully tactics. Like we don't know it's him.
But BRAWM permits the bully to roam unfettered stalking and insulting, and he is accomplishing his task - to drive away intelligent debate. Have you noticed how drastically the readership/posting has dropped since this guy started trolling? I have. I've been here from the start.
I have to say that at least
I have to say that at least his style is consistent. You know, WRONG, etc.
He popped into a thread I had been posting in about a month back and just went nuts on me. I was solidly in possession of the facts, but he still kept right on with his jive. Mark jumped in and made a comment that what I was saying made good sense and he went away. This was on the Kansas NPP thread.
I don't know any of you, but I am glad that this forum is still going, and I expect that there will be more data soon not only from our hosts but other parties.
BC 12/11
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
I didn't post anything to the Kansas thread.
There's more than one of us that use the word "WRONG".
And to great effect, I might
And to great effect, I might add.
Thanks for hanging in there
You guys rock. It's really important.
So Tritium is harmful then,
So Tritium is harmful then, you agree?
Depends on dose
As with all things; it depends on dose.
Is aspirin harmful? It depends; are you taking 2 tablets or the whole bottle?
We can't be "binary thinkers" - single bit, on/off, good/bad.
You will find traces of tritium in rainwater from Mother Nature; it's made by the interaction of cosmic rays with the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
Cosmic rays
Tritium occurs naturally due to cosmic rays interacting with atmospheric gases. In the most important reaction for natural production, a fast neutron (which must have energy greater than 4.0 MeV[10]) interacts with atmospheric nitrogen:
N-14 + n --> C-12 + T-3
USA Reactor Tritium Releases
http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/16-1/tritium_releases_gaseous_2004.pdf
TABLES
2004 Gaseous Effluent Releases of Tritium
From Nuclear Reactors Operating in the United States
• 2004 Gaseous Tritium Releases from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs), in curies
• 2004 Gaseous Tritium Releases from Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), in curies
• Summary of 2004 Gaseous Tritium Releases from Operating Reactors in U.S., in curies
Example:
Sequoyah = 108
How can you tell that????
This brings us to an uncomfortable, but familiar impasse. The rather dramatic explosions of the reactors appear to vigorously expel more than 5 kg of radioactive material,
============================================
How can you tell that??? Are you equipped with "super-powers" so that you can SEE radioactivity??
On what basis do you make the conclusion that there was more than 5 kg of radioactive material in the plume? Not everything in a nuclear power plant is radioactive.
A lot of the material going up in those explosions was just the regular building materials that the plant structures are made of.
There's no conundrum or problem here. We have measurements of how much radioactive material was released, and from that one can calculate the masses.
BS detector
;)
No Super Powers are required. However, a decent education is helpful.
A reasonably accurate, and occasionally calibrated BS detector is essential; when entering the realms of Agenda Based Research and Pseudoscience.
A strong mathematical and computer backgground is quite helpful; when interpreting the GIGO of shill mathematicians and faux-physicists.
Classical and digital logic training are indespensible; when deluged with deliberate logical fallacy.
A degree of ethical and/or religious education is perhap necessary; when confronted with sociopathic organizations.
A sound business and economics basis can be of assitance; when fascism and communism are presented as 'sound economic theory'.
Gobbledy Gook!!!
No Super Powers are required. However, a decent education is helpful.
A reasonably accurate, and occasionally calibrated BS detector is essential; when entering the realms of Agenda Based Research and Pseudoscience.
---------------------------------
I consider the tripe above to be totally non-responsive.
Forget the hyperbole about "BS detectors" and give us some logic and scientific facts to back up your assertions instead of crap about some mythical "BS detector" that you possess.
The facts are that various agencies have measured the radioactivity released, and as BRAWM has done, we can then back-calculate the amount.
For example, the reports are that 36,000 TBq of Cesium-137 was released. I did the calculation here that showed that 36,000 TBq of Cs-137 amount to 11.2 kg or a little under 25 pounds.
Another poster demonstrated you can get this result from Wolfram Alpha:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+36%2C000+TBq+of+Cs-137
There's nothing inconsistent here.
The only inconsistency is with the ill-considered prejudice of the anti-nukes. They sincerely want there to be "large amounts" of radioactivity released so they can bleat about it. Sorry, but the laws of Mother Nature were not created for your perverted political desires.
The facts as measured and calculated by BRAWM here are solid.
Go take your anti-nuke prejudices to an anti-nuke site where science and mathematics are dispensed with in favor of self-serving politics.
rush to defend - relax - we just do not know yet
"The facts are that various agencies have measured the radioactivity released, and as BRAWM has done, we can then back-calculate the amount."
The amount will be determined, as clearly as then possible, when the aftermath is examined.
What, about thirty years from now?
Back atcha
;)
Go take your pro-nuke prejudices to a pro-nuke site where science and mathematics are dispensed with in favor of self-serving politics
Perhaps one of the 'green nuke' sites would be a properly hypocritical 'best fit'.
I shall maintain a healthy skepticism in science, business, politics and religion. This makes me a tepid supporter of continued nukes, in spite of the criminal element within the nuclear power electrical generation industry.
On the contrary...
Go take your pro-nuke prejudices to a pro-nuke site where science and mathematics are dispensed with in favor of self-serving politics
=======================
On the pro-nuke sides; you will see science and mathematics being used.
That's because the the people that know and use the mathematics; physicists, engineers, and other "hard" scientists; support nuclear power with >99% approval.
The pro-nukes aren't the ones that are dispensing with math and science; because they are the ones that actually know the math and science.
a void in the center
:(
There is also a ‘void’ in the center of the soul …
“Dozens of fuel rods have shattered and melted, forming a molten mass below a void in the center of the vessel.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/chron...
Three Mile Island: A Chronology
The Washington Post - Tuesday, March 28, 1989
May 1982: The first television inspection of the reactor vessel shows that damage is worse than expected. Dozens of fuel rods have shattered and melted, forming a molten mass below a void in the center of the vessel.
Nov. 7, 1983: Metropolitan Edison is indicted for falsifying leak rate data at TMI-2 and for destroying documents before the accident.
Feb. 29, 1984: Metropolitan Edison pleads guilty to one count and no contest to six counts of the 11-count indictment.
May 29, 1985: NRC votes 4 to 1 to restart TMI-1, the reactor's undamaged sister, which was down for refueling at the time of the accident. The plant is restarted in October.
September 1985: Still probing the damage inside the reactor, workers find a mound of rubble at the bottom of the vessel. The discovery leads to new estimates of the accident's severity: Core temperatures reached 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit; as much as 50 percent of the fuel melted.
How much escaped is what is important.
How much of the core was damaged and what the temperatures reached are really quite peripheral to what the risk was to the public. The TMI reactor had a containment building that was designed to withstand an accident of greater magnitude than what happened at TMI. That containment building worked 100%.
However, in order to reduce the dose to some personnel entering the containment building, a portion was vented to the environment. That venting accounts for the total risk to the public.
The amount vented was within the regulatory limits, but that didn't stop residents nearby from suing Metropolitan Edison. The judge ruled their case had no merit and dismissed it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html
As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.
These are the same numbers
These are the same numbers compared to the total releases during the first 10 days after Chernobyl, as estimated by the OECD:
------- CHERNOBYL ----- FUKUSHIMA
134Cs ~5.4x10^16 --- 1.8×10^16
137Cs ~8.5x10^16 --- 1.5×10^16
89Sr ~1.15x10^17 --- 2.0×10^15
90Sr ~1.00x10^16 --- 1.4×10^14
Pu-238 3.5x10^13 --- 1.9×10^10
Pu-239 3.0x10^13 --- 3.2×10^09
Pu-240 4.2x10^13 --- 3.2×10^09
Pu-241 ~6x10^15 --- 1.2×10^12
I-131 ~1.76x10^18 --- 1.6×10^17
I-132 NA ---------------- 4.7×10^14
I-133 NA ---------------- 6.8×10^14
I-135 NA ---------------- 6.3×10^14
http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c02.html
I may have messed up the numbers, if anyone can cross-check with the OECD page it would be nice.
From the numbers, even if we multiply the Fukushima releases by 2.5 to account for the difference in time (100 hours Vs 10 days), it seems like this time it was more or less the same cesium-134, around half of Cs-137, around 25% of Iodine-131. around 5% of strontium and around 1% of the plutonium released during Chernobyl into the atmosphere? And then we would have to add the Pacific. Clearly we need new estimates.
100 Hour Magic
*
Casually reviewing the 100 Hour MAGIC cutoff time for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster …
Just glancing over the 10 DAY (240 Hour) Chernobyl numbers, versus the 4.17 DAY (100 Hour) Fukushima Daiichi numbers. How odd, or shall we say convenient, which events and radioactive releases are excluded. Oh and we should certainly confirm the timelines from a more accredited source than wiki …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents
Friday, 11 March 14:46: A 9.0 magnitude earthquake strikes off the coast of Honshu Island at a depth of about 24 kilometres (15 mi). The Fukushima I power plant's nuclear reactors 1, 2, and 3 are automatically shut down by the shake.
Friday, 11 March 15:46: A 14-metre (46 ft) tsunami, overtops the 5.7 metres (19 ft) seawall, inundating the Fukushima facility and disabling the backup diesel generators and washing away their fuel tanks. With the loss of all electrical power supply, the low-pressure core spray, the residual heat removal and low-pressure coolant injection system main pumps, and the automatic depressurization systems all failed. Only the steam-powered pump systems (isolation condenser in reactor 1, high-pressure coolant injection and reactor core isolation cooling system in reactors 2 and 3) remained available. Later, as the temperature rose, a system started that used steam-powered pumps and battery-powered valves.
Saturday, 12 March 15:36: There is a massive explosion in the outer structure of unit 1. The concrete building surrounding the steel reactor vessel collapses as a result of the explosion. Four workers are injured.
Monday, 14 March 11:01: The unit 3 reactor building explodes, injuring six workers. According to TEPCO there was no release of radioactive material beyond that already being vented, but blast damage affected the water supply to unit 2.
Tuesday, 15 March 18.63 - End of 100 Hours
…
Tuesday, 15 March 20:00: A majority of the fuel in reactor 2 drops to the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel. An explosion in the "pressure suppression room" causes some damage to unit 2’s containment system.
Fire beaks out at unit 4 involving exposed spent fuel rods.
…
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/topics/201109/201109_additional_rep... [page 395]
The total release amounts of radioactive materials to date (September 2011) are thought to be ~ 2X10?17 Bq for I-131 and 2X10?16 Bq for Cesium 137 …
I don't know at what point
I don't know at what point they started counting the 100 hours, to be sincere, but it doesn't seem to be the earthquake. Based on the additional report there doesn't seem to be a big increase after the 100 hours included in the first one.
It depends on each reactor.
It depends on each reactor. For units 2 and 3 they included data until March 18, which would be the first week after the earthquake. Check the charts.
SCRAM
The reactors were scrammed in response to the earthquake.
According to the second
According to the second report to the IAEA, the releases until August were around 2x10^17 for Iodine-131 (25% more during 6 months after the first 100 hours) and 2x10^16 for Cesium-137 (33% more after the first 100 hours). It would seem like multiplying by 2.5 is inaccurate. I don't know how much of the report is just pure speculation and/or just for show.
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/topics/201109/201109_additional_rep... [page 395]
Thanks for the
Thanks for the Chernobyl/Fuku comparisons. Nice. Interesting that the heavy stuff is so much smaller for Fuku. A good thing, since that crap is the worst in some ways.
I would say that the vast majority of the emissions did happen in the first 100 hours or at the longest the first week or so.
As Bandstra said at one
As Bandstra said at one point (I don't remember the thread), the main difference is the path of release. Graphite fire burning into the open in the case of Chernobyl, mainly water soluble and more volatile contaminants being released by steam in the case of Fukushima.
Orders of Magnitude
First, one should get the order of magnitude correct: http://www.jimloy.com/math/billion.htm
TRILLION 1.2 × 10^12 Bq of plutonium - is 1.2 TRILLION - per the headline
The report itself, as translated by Google, indicates 120 BILLION. Thus some confusion is assured.
The Data Page confirms 1.2 Trillion (1.2 × 10^12) at http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/pdf/attach_04_2.pdf
http://www.jimloy.com/math/billion.htm
Number of zeros U.S. & scientific community
10^3 thousand
10^6 million
10^9 billion
10^12 trillion
10^15 quadrillion
10^18 quintillion
10^21 sextillion
bump! bump! bump! :(
can BRAWM please comment? this is truly unsettling.
Wasn't this presented to the
Wasn't this presented to the press several months ago? This is when they doubled the estimates of total releases: http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201106070171.html
I was also included in the
I was also included in the report presented to the IAEA in June, English translation here: http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/pdf/attach_04_2.pdf
The rest of the chapters from the report: http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/iaea_houkokusho_e.html
Well I must have missed it.
Well I must have missed it. Knowing how dangerous plutonium is if inhaled or ingested, is this not absolutely catastrophic? For Japan, the US, and Canada? (don't tell me atoms are that heavy). Isn't this the endgame? tell me why I'm wrong. I really want to be wrong.
Well, we ALL missed it and
Well, we ALL missed it and lots of us were looking for it. So the corrected 100 hour data was VERY well hidden indeed.
The Japanese population has networked arround the Japanese government, news media and the pro-nuclear industry lies.
So, recently there was a disclosure that citizen measurements were consistently about 300% ABOVE the Japan government figures.
That observation, if extrapolated, would convert the first 100 hour releases from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Campus to on the order of a 10^20 Becqueral disaster.
BIG UGLY radiation numbers, by my lights.
Very well hidden? It's been
Very well hidden? It's been posted in the japanese government official website for months, in English. The guys at physics forums were discussing the numbers since mid June:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507252
"So, recently there was a disclosure that citizen measurements were consistently about 300% ABOVE the Japan government figures. "
Which disclosure are you referring to? Again, this has been known for months. Official figures are gamma radiation levels, measured with scintillators in fixed monitoring stations. The numbers from independent citizens are taken with geiger counters, which measure gamma, beta and sometimes alpha depending on the model.
To estimate external dose, gamma levels are the important figure. To find hotspots where beta contaminants have accumulated, geiger counters are the way to go. But both numbers can't be compared directly, because you are measuring different things depending on the device.
50X Hot Spot
Uhh, how about 50X
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111012-706234.html
OCTOBER 12, 2011, 8:10 A.M. ET
TOKYO (Dow Jones)--Japanese researchers have discovered high levels of radioactive material in concentrated areas in Tokyo and Yokohama, more than 241 kilometers away from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, as increasingly thorough tests provide a more disturbing picture of just how far contamination has spread and accumulated after the March disaster.
In Tokyo, a sidewalk in Setagaya Ward in the western part of the city recorded radiation levels of 2.707 microsieverts per hour, about 50 times higher than another location in Setagaya where the ward regularly monitors radiation levels.
The one in Setagaya seems to
The one in Setagaya seems to have been caused by radium bottles from the 50s stored in an old house for decades: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20111014x3.html
"Dozens of bottles and test tubes emitting high radiation levels that were found Thursday in a house in Setagaya Ward, Tokyo, contained a white powdery substance believed to be radium-226, which can be used as luminous paint, the science ministry said Friday."
"A radiation level of 600 microsieverts per hour was measured around the surfaces of the bottles, which had been contained in a wooden box.
"At 1 meter from the bottles, the reading was 20 microsieverts per hour, science ministry official Takao Nakaya said."
But it doesn't matter, wherever dirt accumulates because of runoff near drains or ditches you would find similar readings because of the concentration of contamination, mainly radioactive cesium, but strontium has been detected also recently in Yokohama.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111018p2a00m0na005000c.html
Simple handheld geiger counters are good to find those, and it seems the Japanese are going to establish guidelines to find them and report them to the local authorities.
300%
Here is one reference to 300%
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110909005415.htm
Sea radiation '3 times higher than thought'
The Yomiuri Shimbun
The total amount of radioactive substances released into the sea as a result of the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is believed to have been three times the initial estimate by the plant's operator, according to the Japan Atomic Energy Agency.
A team led by senior researcher Takuya Kobayashi estimated the actual quantity at 15,000 terabecquerels, including substances in polluted water and substances released into the air that eventually fell into the sea. Tera means one trillion.
The figure is more than triple the estimate by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Also, the new estimate does not include cesium-134, meaning the actual total could be even larger.
As the article indicates,
As the article indicates, these are estimates of releases into the ocean. What they did in this study is:
a) to increase the time frame (from one week to six weeks.)
b) to calculate the atmospheric releases that eventually fell into the sea.
Not really useful to understand the existence of micro-hotspots in urban areas.
You are wrong.
This is less than the amount that has been in the environment for decades due to atmospheric nuclear testing in the '50s.
More bullets
More bullets on the battlefield, more dead soldiers.