[R. Cromack] Disturbing map from IAEA re: Cs-137, -134 deposition (Japan)
All,
Yesterday I read, in detail, the latest IAEA Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log, dated Friday, May 20, 2011 (recently the IAEA has moved to once-weekly published updates, occurring each Friday).
There are many aspects of the IAEA's most recent "sitrep" that make me very, very uneasy: The nebulous, nonspecific, perversely detail-averse insistence upon unhelpful platitiudes, like "progress has been made" and the rote repetition of what minimally successful steps are being taken to avert further calamity, such as the injection or spraying of water; the lack of firm data regarding temperatures, pressures, and the amounts of water being injected or introduced to forestall same; and the slow, unheralded release of absolutely nightmarish information, buried deep within the report and going virtually unreported by any media whatsoever.
It is to this last point that I would like to draw particular attention. At the very bottom of the May 20 update can be found the results of an aerial survey, conducted and provided by MEXT (the Japanese government's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, that is also maintaining fairly rigorous monitoring of seaborne radiation resulting from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear event), that claims to estimate the contamination of Cs-137 and Cs-134 on lands across the region out to a distance of 80km in every direction from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant.
The map is here: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
It is a sobering image: Through April 29, 2010, the expanse of real estate found to be afflicted by the deposition of cesium-134 and -137 in amounts equal to or greater than 300,000 Bq/m^2 is, by my rough estimation, an area of approximately 3,500 square kilometers -- larger than the size of the state of Rhode Island, or about one-third the total area of the prefecture of Fukushima (some small area of Miyagi Prefecture, which lies directly to the north of Fukushima Prefecture, is similarly contaminated).
When compared to maps documenting the contamination of Eurasia following Chernobyl, such as the one found here (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/deposition-from-chernobyl...), it's easy to be so taken aback by the sheet geographic scale of that 1986 disaster, that Fukushima's deposition by comparison seems quite manageable, even trivial. But take a look again at the levels cited in each source document.
The areas of greatest cesium-137 irradiation, according to the Chernobyl map, are of amounts equaling or exceeding 185,000 Bq/m^2 -- A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF THE AMOUNT DESIGNATED "SECOND-LEAST" IN TERMS OF CONTAMINATION IN THE FUKUSHIMA MAP. The pockets of absolute MAXIMUM contamination by Cs-137 appearing on the Chernobyl map, though difficult to quantify in terms of actual land area due to that map's scale and resolution, are of an amount LESS THAN HALF THAT CITED BY MEXT AND THE THE IAEA AS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF IRRADIATION FROM FUKUSHIMA DAI-ICHI: 1,480,000 Bq/m^2 (and higher) in certain regions of extreme western Russia and Belarus, versus 3,000,000-PLUS Bq/m^2 in a broad, contiguous swath comprising some FOUR TO FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE KILOMETERS EXTENDING NORTHWEST SOME 40 KILOMETERS FROM THE PLANT.
Now, I realize that Cs-137 and Cs-134 may be occurring in near-equivalent amounts, and a simple doubling of the Chernobyl map's deposition amounts may well bring both estimations to something approaching parity. (I would love the folks at BRAWM / UCBNE to address this hypothesis.) And it APPEARS at this time, that the (Japan land component of this) most significant contamination resulting from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear event MAY cover a total area less than, and almost certainly no GREATER than, what resulted from the Chernobyl disaster.
But, I think this initial estimate makes it pretty plain: If there was EVER a question about "how bad" this was going to get, relative to Chernobyl, I think we can now state with some confidence: THE LAND COMPONENT ALONE OF FUKUSHIMA WILL BE COMPARABLE TO THE EFFECTS OF CHERNOBYL. Which doesn't even BEGIN to address what's happened, and continues to occur, in the Pacific Ocean. I would not be surprised if the total release into the open sea were TWENTY TIMES WHAT WILL BE FOUND ON LAND.
...Again, I'd LOVE to hear from BRAWM / UCBNE. And these results are EXTREMELY EARLY / PROVISIONAL, and I'm certain can be argued many different ways at present. So, have a look, yourselves, and let's hear others' takes on this - because, I'll be honest: This about turned my mouth to cotton. I doubt anyone will call this "good news".
Where the Hell are the media? A world wonders.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
The IAEA's full report can be read here: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
Wow, you guys all seem to
Wow, you guys all seem to have difficulties interpreting a simple diagram, and I don't blame you because the scalings between the Fukushima and Chernobyl plots are so different!
Let me try to help: if you look at the inner 100 kilometer radius the contamination looks about similar, order-of-magnitude wise.
A third of the Fukushima inner 100 km has contamination levels of 300-600 kBq/m2.
On the other hand about two thirds of the Chernobyl inner 100 km have relatively "low" levels of 10-185 kBq/m2. There is no indication that any of the inner 100 km have such "low" levels, as all the plot shows is that two thirds of the area are at <300 kBq/m2 (with the rest being >300 kBq/m2). Those two thirds could be 200-300 kBq/m2 or 100 kBq/m2 on average, but in any case they seem well above Chernobyl's two thirds, which is not surprising because Fukushima contained about 24 times more fissile materials than Chernobyl and it could be that half of that stuff melted.
clarification
When I wrote "There is no indication that any of the inner 100 km have such "low" levels" I was referring to Fukushima's zone.
Also note that in all of
Also note that in all of March Fukushima had only one or two days of wind directed into the land, all other days it blew out onto the pacific ocean (approximately *ten times* more of the active days, i.e. an order of magnitude). The figure doesn't show this ocean deposition.
Chernobyl on the other hand is in the centre of eurasia, so that the figure shows ALL trails.
Given that the two figures show comparable fallout levels within the inner 100 km, and maybe a factor of a couple higher in Fukushima than in Chernobyl, one can conclude from the wind pattern tracking that Fukushima lead to about ten times (see above) more emission of radioactive Cesium than Chernobyl.
Makes all sense given 24 times more fissile materials and full meltdown in reactors 1 and half meltdowns in reactors 2 and 3, plus emissions of cesium from spent fuel pools.
I think you have the scale wrong on the Chernobyl map
Given that the Fukushima map is only showing 80km, if you look at the
scale on the Chernobyl map, you'll see that contamination in the 185-1480
KBq/m2 range extends for approx. 100km in at least two different
directions. And there's contamination in the 1480+ KBq/m2 range extending
well into that. Plus, there's the same level of contaminationin a
competely seperate area around 200km to the north north east of the plant
that is even larger. Which also contains areas in the 1480+ KBq/m2 range.
A range, as has been pointed out earlier, has no upper limit. So, we don't
know how high the level of contamination is in those areas beyone 1480
KBq/M2.
One last point, if you are a "UCB physicist", please post your name so the
BRAWM team can vouch for you. Short of that, we will just consider you a
layman with an opinion.
I really don't care if you
I really don't care if you consider me a layman or a physicist. Call me a layman if it makes you feel better.
Now to your post, I'm not sure how you disagree with me since the points you make agree with mine, i.e. that Fukushima is at least at the level of Chernobyl, if not higher: There is no evidence of >200kBq/m2 contamination outside of the 100 km radius in case of Chernobyl (only >185kBq/m2) and there is evidence of the same level of contamination outside of 100 km in case of Fukushima (unless the "blue zone" magically stopped at 80 km, which is unlikely.
As to your other point about the area 200 km north of Chernobyl containing 1,480+, I don't see that area. And btw it is entirely conceivable that such an area exists for Fukushima as well, extrapolating from the huge amounts measured inside the 80 km radius that we do have data for. It is nearly certain that such areas existed over the pacific, since 90% of the time the wind blew it there. If you want to get close to a realistic comparison of the two maps, look at the region east of Chernobyl, which at the time had very little wind go its way. Then you'll see how much larger the Japanese disaster really is. Which btw is very natural given that core 1 has fully melted and cores 2&3 mostly melted. It would be bizarre if the emissions from Fukushima were NOT massively larger than Chernobyl.
Look harder at the maps
There is no evidence in the Fukushima map that shows deposition of
greater than 600 KBq/M2 beyond 60km. The majority of 30-60km range
is <300 KBq/M2. With the obvious exceptions to the north west. And
the vast majority of the 60-80km range is <300 KBq/M2. With the
exception of two relatively small areas that fall in the 300-600 KBq/M2
range (near Koriyama/Sukagawa and Fukushima/Kori/Kunimi). Now, going
by the trend of deposition declining with distance as shown in the map,
one could assume that deposition beyond 80km was also <300 KBq/M2.
Now to your statement that "there is evidence of the same level of
contamination outside of 100 km in case of Fukushima (unless the "blue
zone" magically stopped at 80 km, which is unlikely". Based on the
Fukushima map, there is no evidence that there is deposition beyond
80km. One can certainly assume there is with a high level of certainty.
But, with a lowest range in the map being "<300,000 Bq/M2", we have no
idea what the deposition is in those areas. All we know it is less than
300,000 KBq/M2. It could be 299,999 Bq/M2 or it could be zero. So, I
don't know how you can make comparisons with the Chernobyl map based on
data you don't have.
Look again at the Chernobyl map. You are saying you don't see the dark
red (>1480 KBq/M2) and dark pink (185-1480 KBq/M2) extending to the
west and north north east? The dark red extends for approx 50km immediately
from the plant. There are areas out to 350km NE that are in the 185-1480
KBq/M2 range. Then there are dark red areas (>1480 KBq/M2)150km to the
north north east. And the dark red sets no upper limit. So, you can't say
that it's 1480 KBq/M2. The top range is infinite. So, again, making any
statements about the levels in that range is similar to making statements
about the <300,000 KBq/M2 range in the Fukushima map. You just don't know
how high or low those areas are.
Lastly, the maps are showing ground deposition. So, talking about what
went out to sea is not relevant to this specific discussion. It's the
land impact (and consequently the impact to the inhabitants) they are
measuring.
@UCB physicist....or laymen,
@UCB physicist....or laymen, whatever others are more comfortable calling you ;-)
That's the most honest assessment that we've heard anyone give, thank you. It makes sense with what all our logic is telling us, although folks keep trying to tell us otherwise.
I'm sure if the BRAWM team disagrees, they'll let us know.
Aerial Measuring Results for Fukushima Cesium (IAEA, 5/20/11)
Yes, Rick, I also was dumbfounded, when late Friday night I saw the May 20th International Atomic Energy Association map of Aerial cesium concentrations (measured within 80 km of the Fukushima nuclear plant). While I posted the IAEA website link on BRAWM's forum, unfortunately I had little sleep over the prior three days, so was too tired to discuss the implications of this IAEA cesium map. Thank you so much for doing so, Rick. As you know and can see, this is an aerial map! These atmospheric cesium radiation concentrations are not going to hover quietly in place over Japan. The Fukushima nuclear plume express is extremely efficient at quickly transporting radioactive poison across the Pacific ocean to the the West Coast of the United States, or to where ever the Japan jet stream chooses to flow over the Northern Hemisphere. Now, we no longer have the NILU forecasts to at least track the flow patterns and arrival times of the cesium radiation. What on earth is going on? While I have found other similar aerial maps to the IAEA cesium measurement mapping, I have not found any that predict Fukushima radioactive plume pattern flows and corresponding arrival times to the West Coast and the greater northern hemisphere. Has any one else found any such forecast maps?
Growing unease / concern...
Yeah, I understand being too tired to effectively review / analyze / discuss the implications of data, revelations, etc... Information is now coming out pretty steadily, often in "dumps" over weekends (I imagine to minimize media attention / publication), and quite a bit of it is quite complex and often revelatory. Again, and I hate to keep beating this drum, but I am just floored at the total ignorance, ineptitude and increasingly obvious worthlessness of the western media. If it weren't for NHK, Asahi and Kyodo, I wouldn't have a clue as to what the Hell is going on in Japan.
As far as the IAEA / METI / MEXT "aerial" map goes, yeah, and I wonder what, exactly, that means -- this is clearly intended to be a DEPOSTION map, so I ASSUME that "aerial" refers, somehow, to its methodology, and does NOT mean that those colored areas represent plumes of concentrated death looming ominously somewhere above the ground. (Bearing in mind, however, those atmospheric tests conducted by, I believe, Fukushima University researchers a few weeks ago that seemed to reveal a veritable river of doom flowing far above, in the upper atmosphere.) But I haven't had much opportunity to run that theory to ground -- if anyone else can shed some light on this question, I'd certainly appreciate their input!
I have NOT found any maps that offer deposition data for North America as a result of Fukushima -- and the few published guesstimates I've seen on the Internet, so far, have fallen anywhere in a range from 10% of what we received from Chernobyl, to 100%. And I've been looking, hard. I suspect we MAY start seeing these within the next few weeks... We'll see.
Keep up the good work!
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
More Japanese/English news links:
For you, Rick (and for whoever else so desires) a couple more Japan news links:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/workers-enter-no-2-reac...
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/
And, I hope you are right about seeing renewed plume forecasting sites in the next few weeks, Rick! So, I know when to basically hide inside!
And, to all of you, have a great upcoming week!
Angusmerlin
Not just a Chernobyl map
The map says that it's "nulcear weapons test, Chernobyl". Which makes
sense given that the fallout from weapons tests was already there and
there's nothing that can be done about that. So, without a baseline,
the map is not really a clear depiction of the deposition from Chernobyl.
I also have reservations about any data coming out of Russia.
According to the IAEA
According to the IAEA website itself, the cesium mapping measurements were obtained from:
"Fig. 1.: Map of deposition of radiocaesium (sum of Cs-134 and Cs-137) for the land area within 80 km of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, as reported by the Japanese authorities (MEXT)".
Where do you see the reference to Chernobyl and nuclear weapons testing?
Never mind above post.
I see what you guys are talking about now.
Now 4 Fish On The List
It was just the sand lance before. Which isn't in the latest list. So,
I guess we can consider the complete list to be 5.
"four samples of fish (two samples of whitebait, one sample of ayu and one sample of Japanese smelt"
Exactly
Rick - I think you have it exactly right. I did the comparison too (only I was using the METI map, instead of the IAEA map) when comparing to Chernobyl. It tells the same story.
It is indeed very unsettling
I've been looking at those maps for a few days now. I found them
very unsettling. And I posted comments a couple of times. The latest
being: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4142
But, while the area and amount of contamination is staggering, I
had a very basic question. Why do they stop at the "<300,000" range?
It's as if anything under 300,000 Bq/M2 wasn't worth assessing. The
only answers I got was that maybe they are setting 300,000 Bq/M2 as
the cut off for evactuations.
I wish we had maps extending out past Tokyo. Although, I probably
wouldn't like what I saw.
Eventually
Eventually, one day, the maps will come out. Unfortunately, Fukushima is still emitting, so final levels will be higher. The METI maps only go out until April 29th.
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/05/10...
right, isn't THAT the most
right, isn't THAT the most alarming thing? throw out the discrepancies and interpretations of the map, the fact they are on the same maginitude when that was the final Chernobyl count and we're 2 months into a 10+ year ordeal. That's kind of a kiss your ass goodbye scenario, no?
"equaling or exceeding
"equaling or exceeding 185,000 Bq/m^2"
Equaling or exceeding by how much? Unless you have that info (including a map of the contamination 100 km around Chernobyl) you just wrote a whole article based on the lack of data. I assume you were using the maps that show the contamination spread all over Europe. If you check this map you can compare the extension of the contamination in Europe and compare it with the map published by MEXT.
Also, I noted you are
Also, I noted you are comparing Cesium 134 & 137 in the case of Fukushima and Cesium 137 only in the case of Chernobyl, having a map available showing contamination by Cesium 137 only in the area surrounding Fukushima I.
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/05/10...
Responding...
"'equaling or exceeding 185,000 Bq/m^2' ...Equaling or exceeding by how much? Unless you have that info (including a map of the contamination 100 km around Chernobyl) you just wrote a whole article based on the lack of data."
The Chernobyl contamination map I referred to listed that range as being from 185,000 Bq/m^2 - 1,480,000 Bq/m^2, the second-highest value range in their survey (the highest being 1,480,000 Bq/m^2-plus).
"I assume you were using the maps that show the contamination spread all over Europe."
Yes. I said as much in my original post, again, referring to the Chernobyl assessment I sourced and provided a specific link to.
"Also, I noted you are comparing Cesium 134 & 137 in the case of Fukushima and Cesium 137 only in the case of Chernobyl..."
Again... That's correct, and I said as much, repeatedly, and pointed out near the end of my "article" that a doubling of the Cs-137 values, to account for the un-documented Cs-134, might bring BOTH maps into a kind of balance.
Love the dismissive attitude, though, I gotta say. Thanks for that.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
There is no limit to the upper range
The Chernobyl map doesn't have an upper limit. So, it can't be said
that the level of deposition in Japan is higher. The upper limit in
the 5th range of the Chernobyl map is 8x upper limit of the 4th. I
realize this is a swag, but 8x the upper limit of the 5th range/lower
limit of the top range is almost 12 KBq/M2. But, we don't know if it's
only 8x. As far as we are concerned, the dark red/top range is infinate.
Yes... That's fair & sensible (incl. correction below)
I concur, thanks very much for that assessment!
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Correction
I meant to say 8x the upper limit of the 5th range/lower
limit of the top range is almost 12 MBq/M2 (12 million Bq/M2)