Request for cumulative data compared to Chernobyl
Hello team
To reiterate what others have said , while perhaps open to debate, there is substantial evidence that low levels of radiation can have grave human health consequences. Indeed, Chernobyl is a very troubling example of this. In addition to the Swedish study please see this link to effects in the United States: http://www.mitchelcohen.com/?page_id=329
In light of this and what others have been underscoring about how these isotopes pose a very disproportionate risk to fetuses, infants and young children, I’m really hoping your team can help us put the fallout in CA in perspective. Specifically how does the cumulative total of what we’re seeing in our air, water and food compare to what was seen after Chernobyl in Europe and the United States. Do you have the wherewithal to do any comparisons Dr Chivers?
Thank you in advance
Christine Fasano
Cs-137 ~ 30X TEPCO Report
…
Cesium-137 flow into sea 30 times greater than stated by TEPCO: report
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111029p2g00m0dm016000c.html
The amount of radioactive cesium-137 that flowed into the Pacific was probably nearly 30 times the amount stated by TEPCO in May, according to a French research institute. The Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety said the amount of the isotope that flowed into the ocean from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant between March 21 and mid-July reached an estimated 27.1 quadrillion becquerels. A quadrillion is equivalent to 1,000 trillion.
Of the amount, 82 percent had flowed into the sea by April 8, according to the study, which noted that the amount released as a result of the disaster triggered by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami was unprecedented.
(Mainichi Japan) October 29, 2011
Cs ? 3X10?6 Bq/M?2
:(
So, how much cesium do the crosshatched areas closest to the Fukushima Daiichi Power Station indicate?
Areas in red show ? 3X10?6 Bq/M?2 of cesium fallout
English: http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111028p2a00m0na016000c.html
Japanese: http://mainichi.jp/life/food/archive/news/2011/10/20111028dde00104003500...
(Mainichi Japan) October 28, 2011
A government map displaying radiation levels in 10 prefectures relatively close to the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. Areas in red show over 3 million becquerels of cesium per square meter, whereas those in light brown show less than 10,000.
Data as of Sept. 18. - Image courtesy of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
66 PBq Cs-137 - ZAMG
66 PBq published by ZAMG
Our total a posteriori emission is lower than the first estimate of 66 PBq published by the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (ZAMG 2011) on 22 March
considerably higher than the estimate of Chino et al. (2011) of 13 PBq
The upper panel of Fig. 5 shows the a priori and a posteriori emissions of 137Cs. The total a posteriori 137Cs emission is 35.8 PBq, 34% more than the first guess emission (Table 3) and about 42% of the estimated Chernobyl emission of 85 PBq (NEA, 2002). Our total a posteriori emission is lower than the first estimate of 66 PBq published by the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (2011) on 22 March, but considerably higher than the estimate of Chino et al. (2011) of 13 PBq. Both previous estimates were based on only few selected measurements. Our emission is in relatively good agreement with the Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire (2011) estimate of 30 PBq caesium (including isotopes other than 137Cs) for the period 12–22 March.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011.pdf
Supplementary material related to this article is available online at:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011-...
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111025/full/478435a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111025/full/478435a/box/2.html
Soil Cesium Concentrations
*
Map of Radioactive Cesium Concentration in Soil
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/08/1270_083014-2.pdf
Corrections to the Readings of Airborne Monitoring Surveys (Soil Concentration Map) based on the Prepared Distribution Map of Radiation Doses, etc. (Map of Radioactive Cesium Concentration in Soil) by MEXT(August 30, 2011)?PDF:2750KB?
Hot Earth
terra fervesco
It is noted that the Cesium-134 concentration in the Red Zone exceeds 3,000 Bq/M?2 and that the Cesium-137 similarly exceeds the red maximum value.
Thus the cumulative value, in much of the red area exceeds 6,000 Bq/M?.
It is also noted that the inner radius, near the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant Campus is 'hatch-marked' rather than red, and indicated to be incomplete. Presumably that can be interpreted to be quite hot earth.
It would be appropriate at some point to provide public access to composite maps of the seabed radionuclide concentrations as well as the soil radionuclide concentrations.
Accipe quam primum, brevis est occasio lucri.
Data Dump
The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster data log-jam is beginning to break-up.
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/monitoring_around_FukushimaNPP_MEXT_D...
MEXT and DOE Airborne Monitoring
Results of Airborne Monitoring Survey by MEXT in the Western Part of Fukushima Prefecture(September 12, 2011)?PDF:5860KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/09/1270_0912_2.pdf
Results of Airborne Monitoring Survey by MEXT and Yamagata Prefecture(September 8, 2011)?PDF:3191KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/09/1270_0908.pdf
Corrections of the Results of Airborne Monitoring Survey by MEXT and Ibaraki Prefecture(August 31, 2011)?PDF:3427KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/08/1270_083114.pdf
Results of Airborne Monitoring Survey by MEXT and Ibaraki Prefecture(August 30, 2011)?PDF:2253KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/08/1270_083014.pdf
Corrections to the Readings of Airborne Monitoring Surveys (Soil Concentration Map) based on the Prepared Distribution Map of Radiation Doses, etc. (Map of Radioactive Cesium Concentration in Soil) by MEXT(August 30, 2011)?PDF:2750KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/08/1270_083014-2.pdf
Results of Airborne Monitoring by MEXT and Tochigi Prefecture(July 27,2011)?PDF:1635KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/07/1270_0727.pdf
Results of aircraft monitoring by MEXT and Miyagi Prefecture(July 22, 2011)?PDF:925KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/5000/2011/07/1304797_0722.pdf
Results of Airborne Monitoring Survey by MEXT and Miyagi Prefecture(July 20, 2011)?PDF:1350KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/07/1270_072018.pdf
Results of the Third Airborne Monitoring Survey by MEXT(July 8, 2011)?PDF:612KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1840/2011/07/1304797_0708e.pdf
Results of the 2nd Airborne Monitoring by the MEXT and the U.S. Department of Energy(June 16, 2011)?PDF:460KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/06/1304797_0616e.pdf
Results of Airborne Monitoring by the MEXT and the U.S. Department of Energy(May 6, 2011)?PDF:1635KB?
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1280/2011/05/1304797_0506.pdf
Reference
…
Contacts
Emergency Operation Center Horita, Oku Tel : 03-5253-4111 Ex.4604, 4605
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) 3-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8959, Japan Tel : +81-(0)3-5253-4111(Reception)
Map
Copyright© Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
environmental radioactivity
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/
Monitoring information of environmental radioactivity level
Updates
October 21, 2011Reading of radioactivity level in drinking water by prefecture(be collected in October 20, 2011)
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/monitoring_by_prefecture_drinking_wat...
October 21, 2011Readings at Monitoring Post out of 20 Km Zone of Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP (18:00 October 21, 2011)
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/monitoring_around_FukushimaNPP_monito...
October 21, 2011Readings of Air Dose Rate in Fukushima Prefecture (18:00 October 21,2011)
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/monitoring_by_Fukushima_air_dose/2011...
October 21, 2011Reading of environmental radioactivity level by prefecture?14:00 October 21, 2011)
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/monitoring_by_prefecture_environmenta...
TEPCO lowball
>
After only 100 hours, more Cesium than Chernobyl and still counting. These TEPCO numbers are probably still lowballed.
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/pdf/attach_04_2.pdf
Abstracts of the cross check analysis on the evaluation of the cores
of Unit 1, 2 and 3 of Fukkushima Dai-ichi NPP reported by TEPCO
Attachment IV-2 (Page 7) ---- Table 5
Preliminary calculation of Fission Products released to the environment
in the early stage (1st 100 Hours) of Fukushima Ddai-ichi accident
Radionuclide --- Becquerel Total for 1st 100 Hours
Xe-133 ---------- 1.1×10?19
Cs-134 ---------- 1.8×10?16
Cs-137 ---------- 1.5×10?16
Do you have the numbers for
Do you have the numbers for Chernobyl?
You check
Someone posted these partial 10 Day Chernobyl numbers relative to these 100 Hour (4 Day) partial Fukushima Daiichi numbers. I have not verified the numbers as of yet, so proceed with caution.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5774#comment-20287
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.
There doesn't seem to be
There doesn't seem to be more cesium than in Chernobyl.
10 > 4
*
Does 10 Days (Chernobyl) seem longer than 4 Days (Fukushima)?
10 > 4
Oh and the Fukushima leaks have not been plugged yet.
Yes, I was just referring to
Yes, I was just referring to this: "After only 100 hours, more Cesium than Chernobyl and still counting." Even multiplying by 2.5 the Fukushima numbers you still don't have more cesium than in Chernobyl.
Also, Chernobyl wasn't plugged until the Sarcophagus was finished around November.
There has been fallout on
There has been fallout on the order of 50 Bq/m^2 for Cesium-137 and 500 Bq/m^2 for Iodine-131. This compares favorably with Chernobyl fallout over Europe which was above 1,000 Bq/m^2 for Cesium for most areas. But this is only what we have so far. I don't know if there is a plan to stop release of those and other radioisotopes from Fukushima, and the international community of governments and specialist doesn't give a damn, so it might go on for a long time and by the fall we should be very close to Cesium levels in Europe after Chernobyl, even if there is no precipitation (a couple of Bq/m^2 are deposited even without rain).
Cesium ? 6,000 Bq/M?2
Cesium-134 concentration in the 'Red Zone' exceeds 3,000 Bq/M?2 and that the Cesium-137 similarly exceeds the 'Red Zone; maximum value.
Thus the cumulative value, in much of the red area exceeds 6,000 Bq/M?2.
Radioactive Cesium is 6,000 Bq/M?2 in Fukushima soil samples ...
It is also noted that the inner radius, near the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant Campus is 'hatch-marked' rather than red, and indicated to be incomplete. Presumably that can be interpreted to be quite hot earth.
Map of Radioactive Cesium Concentration in Soil
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/1270/2011/08/1270_083014-2.pdf
Corrections to the Readings of Airborne Monitoring Surveys (Soil Concentration Map) based on the Prepared Distribution Map of Radiation Doses, etc. (Map of Radioactive Cesium Concentration in Soil) by MEXT(August 30, 2011)?PDF:2750KB?
"This compares favorably
"This compares favorably with Chernobyl fallout over Europe which was above 1,000 Bq/m^2 for Cesium for most areas."
Way above: http://www.unscear.org/docs/JfigXI.pdf
How did you come up with 500 Bq/m2 for Iodine? That seems high
Hello,
is fallout different than current concentration in the air as the Livermore/Los angeles reading for the air concentraion was around 10 to 30 Bequerel per cubic meter?
Yes it is different. Fallout
Yes it is different. Fallout says how much gets dumped on one square meter of surface area, concentration in air says how much is contained in one cubic meter of air. Concentration in air is much smaller than fallout, especially when there is precipitation. The number you're quoting is wrong, the actual activity in air measured in Livermore being 0.01 Bq/m^3.
Jesus, the NY Academy of sicences says 980,000 Chernobyl deaths
I will find the link and post it
But if you are a UCB Physicist associated with this group, poster, then I hope you will look at these facts:
If we for the sake of argument postulate that 50% of the exposure in Europe from Chernobyl equals a result equal to 50% of the cancer mortality risk, then can we expect nearly a half million cancer deaths and a million cancers altogether as the recent Chernobyl study concluded.
Chris Busby of the Eurpoean Committee on Radiation Risk has already predictwed at least 120,000 cancers will occur (I am not sure if this is mortality or just cancer wherein half the people who get it from this radiation will die according to the numbers of the Gofman study I cited in another link).
I will brb with the study on Chernobyl
120 000 cancers for the US or Japan?
120 000 for the US or California?
I'm not associated with the
I'm not associated with the nuclear engineering department, and not a radiation expert. I just did a simple calculation based on available data from NUC about the Bq/L and from meteorological stations about the inches of precipitation observed on the various days so I could compare to data from Europe after Chernobyl.
I'm not downplaying the risk but just saying that a factor of >20 less fallout than Europe means CA compares favorably with Europe. We have to look to the future: how can we encourage our politicians and specialists to help stop leakage from Fukushima so the levels here don't end up where they were after Chernobyl? Simply being upset about the current state of affairs is not enough...
I recommend all UCB students/staff and the public read these
http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm
executive summary of the European Commission on Radiation Risk report which addresss models for assessing long term risks from low level radiation.
Chernobyl study published by NY Academy of sciences:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/146619/book%27s_astounding_allegatio...
This article lays outa description of the book and study which cites the reasons the IAEA and other international bodies have failed to accurately assess the long term risks of low level radiation such as the ones we are facing now from Fukushima.
Published by the NY Academy of Sciences last year it explains why we cannot let facil4e risk assessments and assurances blind us to potential dangers and I urge the UCB folks to at least keep an open mind and look at the data offered in these studies - especially before telling us the amounts are miniscule (after all so is the atoms that are being split) and that the harm is minimal (unlike the harm from a miniscule split hydrogen atom)
Also...
Other Chernobyl fallout studies give folks with pregnant wives a reason to be more concerned about low fallout than people here are saying we should be:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00814.x/abst...
"Adolescents exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation in utero scored significantly lower in full-scale IQ than unexposed adolescents. The difference was restricted to verbal IQ and was not evident for nonverbal IQ. The effect was not observed in exposed adolescents who had passed the most sensitive gestational period prior to the accident and thus were exposed to the radiation from Chernobyl exclusively after gestational week 16. These participants performed as well as the controls. Although the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the study’s nonrandomized design, the data add new and important support to the hypothesis that the Chernobyl accident may have had a subtle effect on the cognitive functioning of those exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation in utero during the most sensitive gestational period."
and
http://nonuclear.se/files/ijerph-06-03105.pdf
"The fetal exposures to fallout from the Chernobyl accident in the combined exposed population of 2204055 children in Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom resulted in a 43% increase in infant leukemia, a disease associated with a gene mutation in utero. The specificity of the cohort defined it as one in which exposure to the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident is the only possible cause of the increased infant leukemia incidence. Since the mean calculated weighted fetal dose to this population was 0.067mSv, this finding defined an error in the ICRP risk model for this kind of exposure and suggests that it is unsafe to predict risks from chronic exposure to internal radionuclides on the basis of external doses. Using the best data for external fetal exposures and leukemia, that of the Oxford Obstetric X-ray studies of Stewart et al. [18,19] the error in employing such an approach is upward of 160-fold."
also
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html
A review of 5000 studies, many in Slavic countries, concludes many more died from Chenrobyl than any international atomic agencies and governments admit. Published by the New York Academy of Sciencthe article linked is a good read for a layperson.
It puts Fukushima in perspective as do the articles cited in the post I am responding to (thanks)
Thanks to all who responded.
Thanks to all who responded. I look forward to learning more from the UCB team. Christine
Thanks
The truth is emerging
Can someone please explain
Can someone please explain why governments are not preparing any fallout maps with calculated or measured soil contamination in either both the US or Canada post-Fukushima? Well, we know the reason. But they were done for Europe post Chernobyl. Crazy that we have to keep asking, and asking and asking our governments to produce these.
See No Evil
*
The data was collected and the maps have been prepared. Comprehensive reports have been written. Computer models have been programmed.
The data include measurements of atmospheric, oceanic, seabed, soil, fish, fowl, crops, beef, sheep, goats, wild animals and humans.
USA Taxpayers have paid for these items.
However, USA Taxpayers are not allowed to review these scientific documents.