The Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU)

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2011-04-04 12:17

NILU has a modeling system online that plots the course of dispersions from Fukushima. Could someone comment on this tool? It seems to me it could be used to for some kind of event correlation. The console can be set to Xe-133, Cs-137 and I-131, and areas of interest and then renders about 40 images in a predictive manner. I don't know much about the concentration or how they are getting the data for this.

http://transport.nilu.no/browser/fpv_fuku?fpp=conccol_Cs-137_;region=Pac...

http://transport.nilu.no/products/fukushima

‹ Latest Report (5/5/11) From Calif. Dept of Public Health How much of the Cesium found in vegetables is simply leftover from Chernobyl? ›

A few disclaimers

Submitted by bandstra on Mon, 2011-04-04 16:10.

The tools they are using appear to be very sophisticated and realistic codes for air transport modeling. This is not my area of expertise, but I am getting this from reading the technical parts of their website.

I think there are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting this information:

  • In Berkeley we are measuring the "Surface Concentration" of the radioisotopes -- their density in air near the ground. The "Total Column" data gives the total amount of the radionuclide per area, summed from the surface to the top of the atmosphere -- that is, it hasn't settled yet. So I would ignore the "total column" information since the "surface concentration" is more like what we are measuring.
  • The color code uses a logarithmic scale, not a linear one, so be careful when interpreting the amounts.
  • They are plotting the surface concentration in units of Bq/m^3. Our data is in Bq/L. To convert our measurements from Bq/L to Bq/m^3, you need to multiply by 1000. So for example, we are measuring ~2E-6 Bq/L = 2E-3 Bq/m^3 of I-131 and ~2E-7 Bq/L = 2E-4 Bq/m^3 of Cs-137. We can measure down to ~1E-8 Bq/L = 1E-5 Bq/m^3. The bottom of their scales seem to go to 0.1 or 1 Bq/m^3. So we would *definitely* be able to measure anything that is plotted with a color on their maps if it comes here.
  • Last, I found the following disclaimer on the page you linked. I have put some parts in bold:

    "These products are highly uncertain based on limited information for the source terms. Please use with caution and understand that the values are likely to change once we obtain more information on the overall nature of the accident. The products should be considered informational and only indicate 'worst case scenario' releases. From what we've learned recently, it seems releases of this magnitude have not yet occurred. Furthermore, these modeling products are based on global meteorological data, which are too coarse to provide reliable details of the transport of the plume across Japan.

    "Currently we are using a daily releases distributed evenly of 0.1E18 Bq I-131, 0.1 E17 Cs-137, and 0.1 E19 Xe-133 per day."

    So keep in mind that they are doing an absolute worst-case of a HUGE amount of constant radiation release. There is no evidence that there is a release of that size, and there is no evidence that it is constant. Also, I noticed that they are not taking into account the half-life of the isotopes in their daily release rates, so that is another place where they are being conservative. If nuclear fission stopped when the reactors were scrammed on 3/11, then the amounts of I-131 and Xe-133 inside the reactors would have begun decaying away. It would be likely that the release rates of I-131 and Xe-133 would be affected -- i.e., less and less would be released. However, as they note, there is not much yet known about the "source term" -- how much was released at what time(s).

I hope this helps.

If you check NILU, you'll

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-09 09:36.

If you check NILU, you'll see the density of various radioactive plumes change daily. As of today, May 9th, a very dense cloud of Xenon 133 starting it's track across the U.S.

So, less and less radioactivity is not being seen. Just the opposite.

Plus, according to a May 2nd news release, a reactor in the Tsuruga nuclear plant is releasing 3900 becquerels per Centimeter of Xenon 133 and 4.2 bq/cm3 of Iodine 133.

I'm wondering if one of you generous, math-minded people would be willing to explain question found below to me?

NILU says it is using daily releases distributed evenly of 0.1E18 Bq I-131, 0.1 E17 Cs-137, and 0.1 E19 Xe-133 per day

Does 0.1E18 = 1 Trillion?

As late as April 5th (no one is telling us how much it is now) radiation was being released at about 154 TERABq/m3 of radiation per day. From what I could glean from the news, according to Japan's "Nuclear Safety Commission", 154 TERABq/m3 was only for iodine and cesium.

Question: How do the NILU "worst case scenario" projections/modeling releasses compare to the 154 TERABq/m3/day that were finally admitted by Japan in early April?

Why would we be seeing quite variable densities of radioactive plumes in NILU projections if they are based on the same daily release amounts of 0.1E18 Bq I-131, 0.1 E17 Cs-137, and 0.1 E19 Xe-133?

Final question:How much is, say, 0.E18 Bq/m3 compared to 154 TERABq/m3?

With 4 reactors and a few storage pools releasing radiation, it seems as if we are in a worst case scenario already. But, as Pooh says, "I am a bear of small brain."

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/n

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-09 10:32.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3686

CTBTO says forecasts are proven to be 95% accurate.

The CTBTO claims that their

Submitted by bandstra on Mon, 2011-05-09 10:52.

The CTBTO claims that their own forecasts have proven to be 95% accurate. There is no mention let alone endorsement of NILU anywhere on their website.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Please read the parent post

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-09 10:18.

Please read the parent post again:

"Also, I noticed that they are not taking into account the half-life of the isotopes in their daily release rates..."

Without taking decay rates into account the maps will show cumulative Xe-133, where this is not physically possible given the half life and time since SCRAM. Even if reactor #2 is still undergoing fission, as has been suggested, and hypothetically assuming it's the only source of emissions, it's release would be approximately 50% Xenon and therefore ~75 TBq/day. 1 TBq = 1x10^12 Bq so 0.1x10^18 Bq is 100,000 times bigger, or 100,000 TBq.

The TBq number is output per cubic meter per day, not an instantaneous reading of one cubic meter.

Thanks, Anonymous.

Submitted by bandstra on Mon, 2011-05-09 10:30.

Thanks, Anonymous. Actually, I think NILU is accounting for the half-life of the isotopes once they're released into the atmosphere. For example, if you watch their maps of I-131 as it crosses the Pacific, the concentration goes down faster than can be accounted for with dispersion, in my estimation.

Originally, I meant that the NILU release rates have remained constant and high, but a high constant sustained release for weeks would not be possible for the shorter-lived isotopes just due to radioactive decay.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

NILU is still a worst case scenario

Submitted by bandstra on Mon, 2011-05-09 10:08.

NILU is a simulation, not actual measurements. They continue to use very high release numbers and that is why their simulations continue to show "plumes" wafting across North America. If their simulations reflected reality, we would see the continued levels in our air filter measurements. And in fact, less and less radioactivity is being seen in our measurements.

The NILU worst-case scenario release continues to be a worst-case scenario. The report a couple weeks ago from TEPCO estimates a release 154 TeraBecquerels/day. In scientific notation, this is 1.54E14 Bq/day or 0.154E15 Bq/day. This is a factor of 10 to 10,000 times lower than NILU has been assuming for the daily emission rates for the various isotopes.

Also, Xenon-133 is not dangerous.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Thank you for the post.

Submitted by Tom (not verified) on Mon, 2011-04-04 23:36.

Thank you for the post.

Troubling amounts of I-131 in French rain, vegetables and milk

Submitted by Bill (not verified) on Mon, 2011-04-04 13:02.

This site is in French but if you scroll down the charts are easy enough to figure out:

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Documents/IRSN_Bullet...

This shows actual amounts measured by French Nuclear Security Agencies in rain water, air and green vegetables.

These amounts roughly correspond with many of the readings found here at the Berkeley site.

This indicates to me that the plumes are intensely full of radioistopes which will bio-accumulate and the rates of exposure do not seem to be dropping off as long as the plant continues to release radiation into the environment (even as it enters the sea it will eventually evaporate and turn into fog and mist and enter the food chain) even as the plumes travel and drop their mutagenic and carcinogenic radionuclide load on us.

IF levels in France are somewhat the same as levels here it seems to me that the levels are NOT declining but are simply moving and being deposited at relatively similar rates as the gas and particulate matter circles the globe (which it will do again and again btw)

Any thoughts Berkeley folks on why it seems these radionuclides are not really seeming to disperse or dissipate or be diluted as they traverse the globe? Or is there simply SO MUCH radiation in these plumes and in the atmosphere that it will take YEARS before all the radiation eventually falls out of the sky in rain, snow or in the winds?

Or what?

If it continues to bioaccumulate and recircles the globe the work you are doing is critical to measure the amounts so that epidemiological studies can be done. So Thanks!

But please do comment, or weigh in, on the fact that levels in France seem as high as they are here for iodine and cesium in milk, rain and green vegetables.

I can tell you why

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-04-04 23:07.

I can tell you why, because in my opinion the measurements of the UC berkely team underestimate the true concentration by the factor 10 000 or 100 000.
They even do not match official test results of iodine by the EPA.
I am not sure whether it is their method (hepa filter) or what it is.
The levels they are reporting is what is reported in GErmany. Logic tells me that cannot be the case due to the distance.

That's an incredibly frightening statement...

Submitted by R. Cromack (not verified) on Mon, 2011-04-04 23:26.

"[I]n my opinion the measurements of the UC berkely team underestimate the true concentration by the factor 10 000 or 100 000. They even do not match official test results of iodine by the EPA."

Source, please? I get what you're saying about the U.S. concentrations versus Europe... I don't know what to make of that at all. At the sorts of levels you're citing, we're in deep, deep trouble. I pray you're wrong.

Just when I was beginning to breathe a little easier... THIS makes the point I've been harping on for a few days, now: The U.S. Government NEEDS TO STEP IN HERE AND PROVIDE SOME FACTS! QUICKLY!

(And, I don't care if someone doesn't like my use of CAPS, there. I'm making a point.)

Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
www.facebook.com/lonestarplano
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575

I am guessing by the

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-05-09 09:40.

I am guessing by the involvement of US bureaucrats in top-secret Bilderberg meetings that there is a heavy degree of US-elite collusion going on.

Sorry - this post was meant to be in its own topic

Submitted by Bill (not verified) on Mon, 2011-04-04 13:04.

I will repost it.

Thanks for this model again though btw. It is scary as hell when you look at the xenon northenr hemisphere projections. The sh*t is EVERWHERE.

Thanks for this and although...

Submitted by bill (not verified) on Mon, 2011-04-04 12:46.

it is a little hard to really understand the methodology (for example this model for iodine 131 predicts a HUGE plume of radiation starting in a few days and I imagine this may be from seawater release but am unsure how they arrive at that).

The thing that troubled me is that if you click on the link for total xenon you get the big picture of the dispersion globally of the radioactive gases. It is literally spreading EVERYWHERE in disturbing amounts (at least to me as ANY exposure may cause increase cancers and illness if it ingested or absorbed.

I just took a look at this site which is in French, but the charts are easy enough to understand as they use the same measurements:

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Documents/IRSN_Bullet...

Scroll down and these
charts show levels of radio-iodine, cesium etc which are somewhat comparable to what the Berkeley group is finding (Meaning the dispersion throughout the entire Northern Hemisphere is pervasive at relatively consistent rates. As long as they are still spewing radiation these plants will be adding to the total biological load.

Take a look and see what the French Nuclear Security folks have found in their air (gaz/aerosol) milk (leche) and rainwater. It is damn close to what Berkeley has found and it is ALL over France. Because of the presence of Iodine 131 they have concluded this is Fukushima radiation.

To me the situation seems to be getting graver and graver in terms of bio-accumulation for us in the US as well as globally.

It seems