Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-31 23:42.
It's helpful to see the difference in geographic scale between the two
accidents.
I disagree with the attempt at overlaying the scales, however. The upper
range for the Chernobyl map is not bounded like the Fukushima map. And the
Chernobyl ranges do not increase linearly. So, you can't determine where
any subsequent levels would be above 1480 kBq/M2 (1.48 million Bq/M2). At
least with the Fukushima map, you know what the limit of the upper range
is (30 million Bq/M2). Any statements regarding the maximum deposition on
the Chernobyl map is pure guess work. The dark brown in the Chernobyl map
could be from 1.48 million Bq/M2 up to or beyond 30 million Bq/M2.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-01 08:27.
But the lighter colored regions in the Fukushima map have higher or comparable deposition than the lower deposition regions in the Chernobyl map in the immediate perimeter of the plant (e.g. east of it). From this it follows that the darker Chernobyl regions also can't have much higher values than the minimum indicated in the legend (also, if they did, why wouldn't they have included another, say black, layer?), and that the amount of deposition in Fukushima was comparable to that in Chernobyl. Also taking into account that the wind was blowing toward the ocean most of the time, it is clear that Fukushima way surpassed Chernobyl as the biggest meltdown in history.
There is also no theoretical reason to believe Fukushima would have lead to lower emission of radioisotopes than Chernobyl. About 12 times the amount of fuel was exposed and from all we know at least 75% of that melted while it was exposed. Cesium is highly volatile, so chances are the majority of it made it into the atmosphere and ocean. What hasn't made it out yet will do so in the long run through the water that's been poured over the reactor with no place else to go but the ground water and closely connected pacific ocean.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-01 08:47.
The scale of the European map makes it very difficult to compare. If we had a high detail map of the depositions within 80 Km of Chernobyl one month after the accident we could reach conclusions, but comparing the DOE-MEXT map of accumulation of both cesium-134 and cesium-137 with 1996 estimates of only cesium-137 around a 2000 km area in Europe is a bit meaningless.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-31 22:08.
The only problem I see is that the map from the Chernobyl contamination is based on estimates from 1996, 10 years after the accident and with cesium having moved to lower layers of the soil.
Well, that and the interpretation of the >300,000 Bq/Kg of the DOE-MEXT map.
Submitted by R. Cromack (not verified) on Tue, 2011-05-31 22:00.
I reached similar conclusions a couple weeks ago, though I didn't attempt such phenomenal visual devices. The scale and potential impact of Fukushima is staggering... And I maintain that the airborne component is likely to be a mere FRACTION of the event's ultimate environmental (and human) impact. The REAL legacy of Fukushima will be in the ocean(s). I have never been more certain of this.
Submitted by Tdm (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-01 10:10.
URBAN/SUBURBAN: Radioactive cesium-134 and cesium-137 were detected at various concns in the atmosphere following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant on April 26, 1986(1). The avg concns of cesium-134 and cesium-137 in eastern Canada were reported as 0.024 and 0.046 pCi/cu m, respectively, during May 10-24, 1986 (2). The max atmospheric concn of cesium-137 measured in New York City in May 1986 was 0.26 pCi/cu m (3). In 1975, the max concn of cesium-137 in the atmosphere, in Poland, was 1.89 pCi/cu m (4). The concn of cesium-137 in the atmosphere of Thessaloniki, Greece ranged from 8.1X10-4 to 0.044 pCi/cu m from July 1987 to Dec 1988(5). The concn of cesium-137 in Tsukuba, Japan during May 1986 ranged from about 0.054 to 1.6 pCi/cu m(6).
[(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cesium (Draft for Public Comment). Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2001) (2) Huda M et al; J Can Assoc Radiol 39: 37-41 (1988) (3) Feely HW et al; J Environ Radioact 7: 177-91 (1988) (4) Glowiak BJ et al; Environ Pollut 14: 101-11 (1977) (5) Papastefanou C et al; Sci Total Environ 84: 283-9 (1989) (6) Hirose K et al; J Atmos Chem 17: 61-71 (1993) ]**PEER REVIEWED** http://www.frankmckinnon.com/cesium.htm
Good comparison
It's helpful to see the difference in geographic scale between the two
accidents.
I disagree with the attempt at overlaying the scales, however. The upper
range for the Chernobyl map is not bounded like the Fukushima map. And the
Chernobyl ranges do not increase linearly. So, you can't determine where
any subsequent levels would be above 1480 kBq/M2 (1.48 million Bq/M2). At
least with the Fukushima map, you know what the limit of the upper range
is (30 million Bq/M2). Any statements regarding the maximum deposition on
the Chernobyl map is pure guess work. The dark brown in the Chernobyl map
could be from 1.48 million Bq/M2 up to or beyond 30 million Bq/M2.
But the lighter colored
But the lighter colored regions in the Fukushima map have higher or comparable deposition than the lower deposition regions in the Chernobyl map in the immediate perimeter of the plant (e.g. east of it). From this it follows that the darker Chernobyl regions also can't have much higher values than the minimum indicated in the legend (also, if they did, why wouldn't they have included another, say black, layer?), and that the amount of deposition in Fukushima was comparable to that in Chernobyl. Also taking into account that the wind was blowing toward the ocean most of the time, it is clear that Fukushima way surpassed Chernobyl as the biggest meltdown in history.
There is also no theoretical reason to believe Fukushima would have lead to lower emission of radioisotopes than Chernobyl. About 12 times the amount of fuel was exposed and from all we know at least 75% of that melted while it was exposed. Cesium is highly volatile, so chances are the majority of it made it into the atmosphere and ocean. What hasn't made it out yet will do so in the long run through the water that's been poured over the reactor with no place else to go but the ground water and closely connected pacific ocean.
The scale of the European
The scale of the European map makes it very difficult to compare. If we had a high detail map of the depositions within 80 Km of Chernobyl one month after the accident we could reach conclusions, but comparing the DOE-MEXT map of accumulation of both cesium-134 and cesium-137 with 1996 estimates of only cesium-137 around a 2000 km area in Europe is a bit meaningless.
I agree
And more granular ranges at the high end of the Chernobyl map and
low end of the Fukushima map would paint a more complete picture.
I view the lack of additional ranges at the upper and lower ends of
those maps as a "we don't even care at that point" statement.
The only problem I see is
The only problem I see is that the map from the Chernobyl contamination is based on estimates from 1996, 10 years after the accident and with cesium having moved to lower layers of the soil.
Well, that and the interpretation of the >300,000 Bq/Kg of the DOE-MEXT map.
Sobering at best, absolutely horrifying at worst...
I reached similar conclusions a couple weeks ago, though I didn't attempt such phenomenal visual devices. The scale and potential impact of Fukushima is staggering... And I maintain that the airborne component is likely to be a mere FRACTION of the event's ultimate environmental (and human) impact. The REAL legacy of Fukushima will be in the ocean(s). I have never been more certain of this.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Good data on chernoble Atmospheric monitoring
URBAN/SUBURBAN: Radioactive cesium-134 and cesium-137 were detected at various concns in the atmosphere following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant on April 26, 1986(1). The avg concns of cesium-134 and cesium-137 in eastern Canada were reported as 0.024 and 0.046 pCi/cu m, respectively, during May 10-24, 1986 (2). The max atmospheric concn of cesium-137 measured in New York City in May 1986 was 0.26 pCi/cu m (3). In 1975, the max concn of cesium-137 in the atmosphere, in Poland, was 1.89 pCi/cu m (4). The concn of cesium-137 in the atmosphere of Thessaloniki, Greece ranged from 8.1X10-4 to 0.044 pCi/cu m from July 1987 to Dec 1988(5). The concn of cesium-137 in Tsukuba, Japan during May 1986 ranged from about 0.054 to 1.6 pCi/cu m(6).
[(1) ATSDR; Toxicological Profile for Cesium (Draft for Public Comment). Atlanta, GA: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2001) (2) Huda M et al; J Can Assoc Radiol 39: 37-41 (1988) (3) Feely HW et al; J Environ Radioact 7: 177-91 (1988) (4) Glowiak BJ et al; Environ Pollut 14: 101-11 (1977) (5) Papastefanou C et al; Sci Total Environ 84: 283-9 (1989) (6) Hirose K et al; J Atmos Chem 17: 61-71 (1993) ]**PEER REVIEWED**
http://www.frankmckinnon.com/cesium.htm