4/17 Discussion on the Mainichi: Accumulated radiation tops 17mSv in Fukushima's Namie

April 17--"What do you think about this?" article discussed. Mr. Sanns and TRL involved.

David Knopfler: Not sure how to interpret this

Accumulated radiation tops 17,000 microsieverts in Fukushima's Namie - The Mainichi Daily News

Frank Sanns  The reported doses are for a three week period and are being compared to a one year normal background rate of 1,000 microSv/year. The three week numbers have to be multiplied by 52/3 (weeks) or 17.3 to give the yearly values to properly compare to the 1,000 microSv/year normal background. Doing the math gives 8,580 microSv/year for Minamisoma, 170,405 microSv/year for Iitate, and 294,273 microSv/year for Namie. These numbers will be smaller for the entire year because I assume they included I-131 which is now mostly gone so the accumulated dose for the next three weeks should be less. It also gives an idea of the quantities of radiation released was very high and the geography and wind direction played a key role in the deposition of radioactive elements.

Romain  It also shows that the japanese government seems to be not carefull enough concerning the people in those area (=worry more about the cost/reputation than health risk). If you consider pregnant women and children, risks seems high to me... While I am not a "green", I would say that Greenpeace was correct in their PR saying that the limit should be set to 50 km right away. Principle of precaution would require to have people out of those area ASAP, and if it is proven safe later on, they can still come back sooner.

Tokyo Radiation Levels  @Romain: I believe a review of the contaminated areas is being undertaken. There will probably be some new exclusion zones exclaves a bit further up north and maybe some reducing of the zone's radius south. Pregnant women have already been advised to move out of some areas. However it's not realistic evacuating everyone ASAP because of a Greenpeace PR only to let them come back AFTER it's proven save. You need a pretty solid reason or proof of danger to tell 200,000+ people to uproot your lives, move out of the area and go live in Saitama Super Arena.

Romain  @TRL : I do agree. But then it is a trade off between cost and risk. Principle of precaution says that cost is irrelevant and risk should be reduced as much as it can be. It is just a point of view against others but I believe it is "ok" to be overprotective once every 25 years, even if the end result looks like a waste of time and money. That's the whole point of paying an insurance for you, your car or your home, and you do not hear people complaining of having no accident and that they paid for nothing. It is better to have wasted money than have wasted people if things go wrong. When you see that in the first few hours after the earthquake, Tepco wanted to flee the powerplant and "let it go", you can foresee the irresponsability of some leaders. And that is why you also need a counterpower like Greenpeace (even if I do not like green extremist either).

Tokyo Radiation Levels  Tepco executives wanted to withdraw all workers 4 days after the disaster because the radiation levels were extremely dangerous on the 14th March. Not hours after the quake. I agree that if the radiation levels were hazardous it would be important to move, but the levels are not. They might be high and even hazardous over the course of a year, but not at evacuation levels. Not even close. 

While I agree that Greenpeace is an important counterbalance and does a lot of good in the world, they have a strong anti-nuclear power and an agenda, which they are leveraging with this situation. You shouldn't rest on their information alone for an argument. I'll say this though, they are getting out empirical data from measurements they are taking, which is great.
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110318p2a00m0na009000c.html

Tokyo Radiation Levels I made a mistake. The levels were previously high in some areas north and would have been a reasonable time to consider evacuation in March, but since, as Frank pointed out, I-131 has decayed substantially and has lowered the immediate radiation threat. The contamination threat needs to be addressed but is not an immediate cause to evacuate.

Romain I remember some article saying that prime minister Kan went to Tepco and saying something like : "If you do not do it, who will ? There will be no future for Tepco". Which can be decoded as : 1/ I dont care how many dead guys there will be, but fix it. 2/ Tepco : we do not want to go there. Thats just my 2 cents.

David @Romain : I share your concerns: Radiation doesn't leak in tidy geometric circles of course and it's only too easy to view this with the luxury of armchair reviews, distance and time. It seems to me they didn't do all that badly given the ...See more

Frank Sanns The situation is still active. Even though radioactive Iodine has declined, the other radioactives are piling up from the breached and vented reactors. This is still and active crisis and large amounts of radioactivity is still being deposited. Winds for just a brief few hours moved toward Tokyo on Sundayish and the background levels rose by 50%-100%. The areas closer to the plant are still seeing buildup of higher and higher levels of bad stuff so more evacuations come as the radioactive "snow fall" continues to accumulate. Not at as fast a rate as those first weeks but more accumulation is occuring.

4/21 and 4/25 "Lecture" by Frank Sanns

Title says it all--two notes written by Frank Sanns and three "Q&A sessions" copy and pasted from TRL Facebook community page. This post will cover the following:

1. Calculating Internal Dose Rate Exposure from Consuming 1kg of Food Containing 30Bq/kg of Caesium-137 per day (4/25)
2. First Phase of Crisis Ends (4/21)
3. Q: What affect is the radiation having in the ocean? Didn't they use ocean water to cool the reactors? Did they pump that water back into the ocean? If so, how will that affect the wildlife?
4. Q: Hi Frank, just interested in your thoughts on the effects of the total radiation load on the ocean in the vicinity of the reactors. Alarming levels are being reported at the moment from outside the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

For more notes written by Frank Sanns, click here. 

To science and tech geeks (or not), this might be interesting to you.

Here we go.

4/25

Calculating Internal Dose Rate Exposure from Consuming 1kg of Food Containing 30Bq/kg of Caesium-137 per day

It may be illustrative to look at the very worst case scenario of exposure and that would be infinite biological and radiological half lives.  Also include in the assumption that an entire Kg containing 30 Bq would be consumed each day and the isotope would be Cs-137  which is important for gamma energy for conversion to dose rate.  

The next assumption would be of the geometry of the human body.  Worst case would be a sphere.  This minimizes the distance from the emitting particle to the entire body.  Next we use a 60 kg body with a density of 1 so that would be a sphere 23.5 cm in radius and we will use this radius as the average distance to the particle of radiation but it also could be argued that 11.75 cm is appropriate.  Mathematical integration should be used but for this approximation it is an appropriate value.  Using the 30 Bq per kg of food, that gives an estimated average gamma internal dose rate for the entire body of 0.000043 microSv/hr.

Eating food with 30 Bq of cesium-137 activity would increase each day as the isotope concentration increased in the body since our assumption was no biological or radiological elimination.   In this absolute worse case scenario, the dose rate would be 0.000043 microSv/hr the first day, 0.000086 microSv/hr the second day, 0.000172 micro Sv/hr the third day and so on.  After a month of consuming a Kg of 30 Bq of Cesium-137 you would be having an internal dose rate of  0.00129 microSv/hr.  This is one hundredth of the normal background of Tokyo before the accident and is really a trivial dose as instead of the background being 0.12000 microSv/hr it would be 0.12129 microSv/hr.   If you want to insert your own background rate feel free.  For example 0.08 microSv/hr background will become 0.08129 microSv/hr when the month's worth of 30Bq/day of cesium ingestion is added.

Another way to look at it is 30 Bq x 365 days= 10,950 Bq intake for the year.   If you want to calculate this on your own there is an online calculator at:  http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx    Use whatever distance you feel for your calculation but a distance  of  12- 23.5 cm will give you the effective average distance from the emitter for the worst case spherical body estimation. 

The vegetables that will coming to market now, will not have surface contamination with radioactive elements. The time for that has past. I can not speak for plants harvested from some areas during March and very early April because that was the peak of the fallout. There should be good documentation on what areas are suitable for farming and which are not and that should be getting better each day. We are now getting into the long term phase of establishing these safe and not so safe regions. I would still be looking at the map here to make a judgement: http://www.slideshare.net/energy/radiation-monitoring-data-from-fukushima-area-04072011 Green, yellow and orange would be the higher risk compared to other regions for growing.

4/21:  First Phase of Crisis Ends

I would like to declare an un-official end to the first phase of the nuclear crisis in Tokyo.  From all of the data, the fallout phase is all but over and the peak source of the radioactivity, Iodine-131, is now essentially gone. http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan TRL's numbers from the last two days of northerly winds, will be the last verification needed to confirm that the high risk of radiation accumulation or exposure in Tokyo is now past.  The rains will now be washing away the small amounts of radioactive materials that did fall into the sewers, rivers and into the ocean and away from the population. 

The heat being generated by what is left in the reactors is a minute fraction of what was being produced in March and the dangers have fallen a hundredfold or more.  There is still a very small risk that something unexpected will happen at the plant but short of some other catastrophe or some other unforeseen development, breath easier today.   The next important information will be on the long term levels of radiation in the soil for food growing as air levels are now essentially a non-issue.  Really good news I would say after all that the people of Tokyo have endured for the last 40 days.   

Q:  What affect is the radiation having in the ocean? Didn't they use ocean water to cool the reactors? Did they pump that water back into the ocean? If so, how will that affect the wildlife?

Frank Sanns

These particular reactors use the same water to generate steam as they use to cool the reactor. In these kinds of reactors, the large pipes that carry the steam from the core of the reactor pass through the steel reactor pressure vessel and they also pass through the OUTER containment concrete structure and to a nearby turbine/generator to make electricity. The same water is then returned to the reactor through more pipes that go through the outer containment and back through the inner containment again to the core. Any break or fissure that occurs in these pipes can create at direct leak to the outside air. These are potential weak links in large earthquakes and in explosions with certain characteristics. Concrete is brittle compared to steel so I suspect earthquakes have and are opening up cracks that are letting water leak to places that it should not be leaking. It makes stopping the flow of cooling water from the reactor difficult to entirely contain and this is why I think there are continued surges in radiation in the ocean waters adjacent to the reactors. Water is used as a shield in some reactors and in all spent fuel pools because is shields the radiation so well. A fish swimming 25 feet from the core of the reactor would not hardly get any radiation at all. A person 250 feet from an exposed core in air would die quickly of radiation effects. The danger in the ocean is when wildlife comes in direct contact with high level water and that is not good. There are most likely negative effects going on to the wildlife just off the coast of the reactors and will continue for some time yet. The ocean is large and the radiation quickly dilutes. In the long term mother nature has great recovery powers so there should be no longterm effects.

4/1

Q: Hi , Frank, just interested in your thoughts on the effects of the total radiation load on the ocean in the vicinity of the reactors. Alarming levels are being reported at the moment from outside the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Frank Sanns  Recovery of a brief excursion into the ecosystem is not much of a concern. Longer excursions or extremely intense ones are more problematic. There will be radioactive plankton and fishes that will be eaten by larger fish that have larger migratory patterns. The levels are ultra high at the moment and will continue upward. This sea life will find its way into the human food supply and unsuspecting people will eat it. There also is the chance for genetic mutations that can affect entire species of ocean and bird life. It is not doomsday but it is sure playing Russian Roulette with the planet.

Dale There has been a discussion on the IAEA Briefing page on options for storing the contaminated water temporarily 1. You could mix in sawdust with the rad water, freeze it, and offload the icecube in Antartica! The addition of sawdust makes the ice tougher than steel and maybe converting the water to icecrete would minimize the spill risk and make it boyant 2. They are now negotiating with the US to pump radioactive water into the barges after the fresh water is removed http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/02_04.html Just intererested in your thoughts here Frank, do either of these ideas have any merit rather than contaminating the ocean?

4/27: Evidence of Ejection of the Reactor Core #3 at Fukushima NPP

On April 27, Frank Sanns posted a note on the unit 3 reactor at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant. Here it is.

4/27:  Evidence of Ejection of the Reactor Core #3 at Fukushima NPP--Frank Sanns

For those of you that have followed my posts, I have been saying, with facts that continue to support my claims, that #3 reactor was breached on that day it exploded in mid March. The facts are:

#1. Velocity of detonation not consistent with velocity, color, magnitude of hydrogen explosion alone. High pressure was vented on the day of the explosion of #3.

#2. Ultra high radiation had to be bulldozed between reactors 3 and 4.

#3. Neutrons were detected 2.2 Km from the reactors. Only comes from core material especially plutonium.  The reported "neutron beams" were most likely neutrons in the debris field of the core materials. 

#4.  Reactors #2 and #3 are at atmospheric pressure and not pressurized as would be normal.   Reactor #2 is breached below the core and #3 is breached above the core.

#5. Recent Hi RES photos show physical damage to pools and inner containment.

#6. Yet un realized by Tepco or any scientist that I have seen is the thermal evidence that the reactor is substantially empty of its core. I have heard time and time again that #3 is out of the woods and is near cold shut down temperature. Unbelievable that they do not understand what this is saying! If three reactors are the same size and operating at the same outputs when they are shut down, then the heat inside is the same for all three reactors, MOX or not. Each should be generating roughly the same amount of heat but they are NOT. #3 is cold compared especially compared to #1 which has not lost containment. The conclusion is #3 has lost most of its core, and #2 some but to or out of the bottom and maybe out to sea. Temperature alone is enough to get a guilty verdict without a shadow of a doubt. The rest is icing on the cake. This is also why I did not believe the zero plutonium and uranium numbers in the recent TEPCO report of soil samples at the plant. No soap box here, only the facts.

Marcela This is outrageous. How come they 'throw the neutrons and hide the hand' and nothing be published or discussed? Many a fact about Reac3 are obscure, like when TEPCO said to the journalists demanding info on Reac 3-MOx and plutonium measurings, they wouldn't provide it because at the moment they "did not have a measuring device for that" (sic).

David If you're right, sooner or later the truth will out Frank... this stuff doesn't disappear... too many people taking too many readings to hide it. I was just reading a report that in Belarus "‘of the 400,000 children measured for radiation since 1990, 90% of them have potentially harmful levels of radioactive material in their bodies." Vladimir Babenko, Deputy Director of the Belarus Institute of Radiation. That's quite a statistic. Thyroid cancer cases rose 5 fold in 1990s too. It would be nice to think we aren't going to have to have a third and fourth and fifth category seven, before these wretched water heaters are put permanently to bed!

Steven Sesselmann Last report from the IAEA confirm that the reactor pressure in #2 and #3 is at amospheric pressure. I just looked at the video of #3 blowing it's top, and I agree, the velocity of the debris, colour of the smoke is not consistent with a hydrogen explosion removing the roofing material, which most likely would be sheet iron. Chances are as you suggest that the primary containment vessel concrete slab has been blown off.

27 April at 04:13 · Like

Frank Sanns ‎@Marcela, I reviewed the video of the #3 explosion and the wind is blowing AWAY from the area that the three samples were taken for analysis by TEPCO for uranium and plutonium. There are just TOO MANY facts here. Unlike many conspiracy theories where the facts can be outrageous or scant, these facts are just piling up one after another against TEPCO. SOmebody is doctoring up the data for PR. Sure in time this will come out but it need to be out now when the safety of the people is at stake. In many ways it is too late but it does not give me much confidence in the food supply right now. I could not even start to make a recommendation on the safety of that from the areas in the north.

Marcela When a month ago we were reading that 'fuel bars were exposed >70%', 'that rad materials that only come out when fuel bars zirconium shaft molten/break had been found', etc., and JP gvmt/TEPCO was saying 'no meltdown", the 'pulling the citizens' leg' point had already been surpassed.

Frank Sanns ‎@Steven, Yes, I had that in my original posts but forgot to put it in my summary. Thank you for pointing out still another factor to help people make their own conclusions.

Steven Sesselmann Has General Electric had anything to say on the matter? my understanding is that the reactor is their design.

Frank Sanns From the IAEA’s website again today. The temperatures at the bottoms of the reactors are all at ~110 C but the top especially of #3 is much cooler than the other two reactors especially #1 which has not breached: "The reactor pressure vessel temperatures in Unit 1 remain above cold shutdown conditions. The indicated temperature at the feedwater nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is 134.7 °C and at the bottom of reactor pressure vessel is 110.9 °C.

The reactor pressure vessel temperatures in Unit 2 remain above cold shutdown conditions. The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is 121.2 °C. The reactor pressure vessel and the dry well remain at atmospheric pressure.

The temperature at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel in Unit 3 remains above cold shutdown conditions. The indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is 67.9 °C and at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel is 110.4 °C. The reactor pressure vessel and the dry well remain at atmospheric pressure.

5/2 Discussion on ECRR against ICRP

Highlight:  "On no not Chris Busby again..."




5/2 Marcela

Some positions against ICRP standard:
http://www.euradcom.org/2009/lesvosdeclaration.htm
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf
http://www.euradcom.org/publications/fukushima19032011.pdf
A different group of scientists, that believes the ICRP low-dose radiation standards overestimate risks:
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-Becker-IJLR-06.pdf

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/low-dose-Becker-IJLR-06.pdf

Antonio I've also been reading all the papers and communications I could find about the issue. It just seems that "scientists" are not able to reach any consensus, but there's a clear division. On one side you have studies presented mainly by nuclear engineers or individuals connected with the promotion of nuclear industry, which state that anything under 100mSv/year is perfectly safe. On the other you have doctors and epidemiologists that state that any dose of radiation already increases the risk of cancer (to which extent, nobody seems to know).

James Oh no not Chris Busby again.....

Tokyo Radiation Levels Thank you Marcela for researching those papers and sharing them. I appreciate reading those. It is indeed hard to say how much radiation is bad in the long term. I firmly believe that it is possible for 1 cosmic ray (naturally occurring) to damage the DNA of a cell and set the stage for cancer in later life, while at the same time someone could be exposed to 80 milli-Sieverts in 1 year and never develop cancer. Frank's story about risk (based on walking across the road) beautifully illustrates the concept of risk and chance. 

So essentially it is my position that statistically 100 mill-Sieverts in a year is the cancer risk level and staying below that is the goal. Therefore 50 milli-Sieverts (the nuclear worker's yearly limit) is acceptable but with small risks. I don't think it's acceptable normally but given the current circumstances I don't find the 20 milli-Sieverts a year for citizens unacceptable (though I DO find it unacceptable for children or pregnant women). I think the nature of the contaminants complicates things though since it's an indication of some unpleasant elements like Caesium-137 in the environment. So maybe 20 milli-Sieverts per year is OK for radiation but doesn't take into account the quantity of contaminants. Here I would look at the contamination factor of the soil. If it's below 2000 Bq/kg (the Japanese limit) then it's less risky.

So my view is that if that ground contamination (in a non food growing area) that is below 2000 Bq/kg, water contamination is under the limits and background radiation below 20 milli-Sieverts dose over the course of a year, it is acceptable in the current circumstances. I would not feel the need to move from the area if it was under those limits.

Frank Sanns Would you also like to eat and be exposed to the plutonium, uranium, americium, strontium and all of the other isotopes that were tossed into the air by #3? It is not just the dose rate which in itself is above the noise, but ingestion and inhalation of the above.

Charles ‎@Frank, no I would not want to, and I hope I am not.

Frank Sanns I hate to break the news to you but nuclear core material was detected even on the East Coast of the US including americium-241. Remember that it was the same with I-131. Trace. If it was trace on the East Coast of the US then how much I-131 must have been present in Japan and even in Tokyo for the levels of radiation that was detected there? You can use your imagination to figure out how much of core material also fell in across Japan and even into Tokyo during roughly March 19th to 23rd that could not be detected by TRLs measurement EXCEPT his beta experiment that implied some alpha that could have only been there from core material. Sorry for the heavy post but I must say what the evidence reveals.

Antonio Frank, thank you very much for your post. Maybe this is a stupid question, but, does this new information change the picture radically or is just a confirmation of what you previously suspected?

Tokyo Radiation Levels Frank: Where did you read about core material being detected in America? I'm having trouble getting reliable links from Google.

Tokyo Radiation Levels So far I've been able to find info from the EPA radiation monitoring unit that say uranium detected in air samples that is consistent with natural levels but nothing about other core material detected. Anyone else got any further info: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/rert/radnet-cart-filter-final.pdf

Antonio TRL. I have only seen the Fairewinds video, in which Gundersen mentions the Americium detected in New England. The guy seems to be quite level-headed, but what do I know.

Charles If detected in New England, then it most likely would be present across Canada/America as this is the way the winds blow...

Tokyo Radiation Levels Gunderson (the person who appears in the fairewinds videos) has very good credentials. He's been coming out heavily with dramatic stuff from day 1 of this crisis though. I'm inclined to believe what he says but would look for fairewinds results to be verified independently before accepting them, personally. If anyone hears more about Americium or core material in New England (or US), please share.

Encarnita the kyodo article: http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/87835.html - sorry...

Charles ‎@Encarnita - that is an opinion piece written by "(Tilman Ruff is chair of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and associate professor at the Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne, Australia.)"

Encarnita ‎@Charles- I know, he is working on the effect of nuclear weapons and biological weapons. But I do not agree, it is not an opinion, but rather a summary of some studies (probably not pro nuclear...but epidemiological studies... which is what we are talking here).

James Frank: Your posts here alarm me a bit. Let me put this bluntly, what is your assessment of Tokyo currently? It sounds like you have reassessed your opinion.

I ask this because I have been only seeing the steady decrease of radiation in the air, water etc. I feel that Tokyo is currently safe for anyone including children and pregnant women. Am I being naieve?

Frank Sanns I have not changed one bit my evaluation since March. There was core material released and I have tried since that time to express that with facts to back it up. People in Tokyo SHOULD HAVE BEEN told to stay indoors from March 19th (northern Tokyo) through the 23 rd. A radioactive cloud most likely containing core material moved over the city on that day. All of the other radiation before and after that is a non factor for people in Tokyo. I also think the risk of breathing in that cloud is not huge but it was avoidable. However, for the people near the reactor, it is a greater problem both then and now. From the DOE map that I have said I would not eat the food from those colored regions on the map, I still stand firm and I would not live there either because it is not just the external radiation but the short term inhalation risks and the long term ingestion risks that worry me. Hope this clears up what I am saying and explains why I have been so adamant about getting the people and government to recognize that core material is in the extended environment and only looking at external radiation from cesium-137 is not correct at indicating the true exposure risks.

‎@TRL, before I post, I cross check so called credible sources. Neither of them was Fairewinds. One was the EPA which had late April data. It was late yesterday when I posted and today, even though I bookmarked that particular page, as well as the press release on that data is now down. I am not suggesting coverup or conspiracy but they may be reevaluating the data that was put up. Perhaps an error, perhaps not. Lets give them a couple of days as their data update is due. It should not really change much as Hawaii reported Strontium milk so more dangerous elements than cesium are present. Here is a link on Forbse that discusses it as well as mis reading the two decade long original EPA and FDA statistics on Plutonium in the US.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Just a quick clear up: 19-20th of March I was up north so it's expected to be higher. The increase came on the 21-22nd March with rain from the north. About the core material: It's only been reported that there may have been some within the actual Fukushima plant and very close to it. Outside of that and in Tokyo there has never been reports of plutonium, uranium, americium or strontium. I suspect strontium to be around in some degree but the heavy metals have not been reported. With the great amount of international attention and people coming here to do independent test, if those materials were present we would have heard by now. It's been almost 2 months now and I personally have met with one team of independent testers in Tokyo (Radtech Services) doing testing and they didn't find evidence of those elements yet either. It could be omitted or not reported yet, but I would imagine independent testers would love to be the ones to break news of those previously unreported elements being detected.

Jamie Don't know if this is relevant, daw it yesterday http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/27/radioactive-strontium-found-in-hilo-hawaii-milk/

Charles Interesting. There have been a lot of strong winds blowing from Japan to the US, much more so than from North Japan to South Japan.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Jamie: That is relevant and backs up a point Frank raised.

フォームの終わり

After reading the posts and PM I believe I understand what is happening. This site was created for Tokyo but there appears to not be another site like it so TRL has become the clearing house for information Japan wide. I try to stay focused on specifics of the reactors and the situation in Tokyo only and I think this has made it seem like we are insensitive to others need for reliable information. Perhaps TRL would like to expand the information to include information for those closer to the reactor site or perhaps not. My person feeling is that since Tokyo is now in the safe portion for the moment, maybe it is time to talk a little more about the contamination and food supply and conditions very close and in the reactor complex as well as the ocean. Maybe some discussion would help TRL to make a decision or maybe it is not his vision. Either way will have my total support.

フォームの始まり

It's fine to keep this site radiation related about anything in Japan. I started it for my friends to give them updates but it doesn't have to just be about Tokyo. I'm living in Tokyo so I give measurements of this area, which is the heart of what this is about. But anyone can ask anything, or express concerns. I'm hoping you can express your opinions and thoughts too or use your knowledge to answer people's questions. Thanks for bringing this up. Please do.

(However I'm a little tired of the "what are your thoughts on this" posts about known... I won't say nut jobs, but unreliable sources.)

Jill  My brother in Seattle is afraid to visit Japan, and particularly here because we're a mere 90 miles from Fukushima. I've shared a few of the URLs with him saying this is all right, but he noted they were written by folks in Tokyo, and that with the internet you can easily find any article to support your point of view. Also he pointed out how people really don't want to admit they're wrong. Of course he's referring to me and not himself. My brother also said that Seattle's radiation count is 11 gross beta counts per minute. Now I have to look that up in sieverts.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Jill: roughly 11 cpm = 11 micro Roentgens/h = 0.11 micro Sieverts/h. These results diverge at high levels.

Jill Well, that should make him happy. I'm checking in with the Tochigi International Association to see today's readings. At 10am ours was 0.066 micro sieverts, and no water issues.

Frank Sanns ‎@Jill, I think he is detecting gammas rays at that level and not betas. It is very rare to find an isotope that emits an alpha or a beta without a gamma. I think Sr-90 is one of the very few beta only isotopes. @TRL and the rest, the CPM is actually CPM/cm^2. A bigger detector will get more counts but it needs to be normalized down to a detection area so it can be converted to R or Sv or Gy or rem.

Jill  Post getting eaten again? I don't know where he got his data from. Hm. Ah. "Washington has four sensors: in Seattle, Tumwater, the Tri-Cities and Spokane. The Tumwater station on Thursday reported levels of overall radiation, measured as counts per minute of gross beta radiation, ranging from 11 to 30. On March 7, before the earthquake and tsunami that damaged the nuclear plants, the same instrument logged beta counts between 11 and 61." All these different measurement systems. I hate searching for information about this, because the engine returns several of the asinine freak-out posts.

Frank Sanns My bad. I thought he was using his own detector. I understand now. Here is a link to the data that he is most likely referring to: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-seattle-bg.html . These stations are all over the US and draw air through a filter to concentrate any airborne radioactive materials.

If your brother is concerned, have him look at the readings of some other cities on the network that their low levels and then he may not be so concerned with the levels in Japan. http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-coloradosprings-bg.html

5/14 and 13: Arnold Gundersen's Fairwind video discussed

3 discussions on Gundersen's claims on Fairwind videos.
Specifically, this post covers discussions on the following:

1. Fukushima - One Step Forward and Four Steps Back as Each Unit Challenged by New Problems (5/14)
2. Another video from the Fairewinds site this one regarding radioactive particles. Question for those of us in Tokyo: In the end of the video Mr. Kaltofen mentions the only way to know where the radioactive particles are is by using expensive monitoring systems not your average geiger counter. There is a site that lists the amount of fallout in Tokyo, I will add the link below the Fairewinds one. Isnt this helpful in knowing how much radioactive "dust" is in Tokyo? (5/13)
3. Gregory A Bournet posted links to two pdf files from Fairwinds. This is simply just another "what do you think about this" thing.

Alright, here it is.

5/14  Le Chef De Tokio

Any comments, objections, criticism or denials ?
Fukushima - One Step Forward and Four Steps Back as Each Unit Challenged by New Problems
Gundersen says Fukushima's gaseous and liquid releases continue unabated. With a meltdown at Unit 1, Unit 4 leaning and facing possible collapse, several units contaminating ground water, and area school children outside the exclusion zone receiving...

Antonio I think it's a good summary of the situation. I'm not so sure about underground water from the plant reaching the sewers of Fukushima city, like he seems to indicate. It's a pity that he has no access to Japanese sources.

Tokyo Radiation Levels I get the feeling he is throwing around predictions so he can be the "I told you so" guy, though I have a lot of respect for his credentials. What he says about unit 1 state is a good description. Anything else is educated guess. But an educated guess is still a guess and I'm waiting on the facts.

Frank Sanns Two weeks ago, I wrote this gent with some numbers that showed one of his pet theories of criticality in pool #4 was wrong. He has adjusted course and is no longer claiming that. NOW HE IS CLAIMING #3 pool went critical. I can not answer the latter for sure because I am not privy to important test information that could confirm or deny it but the evidence is against it. Look at the debris that was IN THE POOL. an explosion of the magnitude that he is claiming would have ejected or crushed what was in there. Instead there is debris from the roof in there. No matter, there is a leak in #3 reactor and just like the other reactors, the core has melted between 30% and 60% from the IAEA website. Nothing is really new with this. There is steam and continued air and water contamination that needs to be addressed. The volume of water they are dealing with is around 190,000 liters per day to treat. This is large but not outrageous amount of water.

Manuela Let see.....where there is smoke there is fire.....if it walk like a duck and, squaks like a duck.........I could go on and on. Why all the readings, denials reporting......... If it's all good. Something is wrong, if they are trying so hard to convince us it's all good.

Frank Sanns ‎@Manuela, There is smoke but no fire. It is steam into the humid air. When you see your breath on a cool day does that mean there is fire in your lungs? The situation is essentially the same as it has been since the last week in March. It is a serious accident with many challenges but as time passes the fuel cools and more corrective actions can be taken. Those are the facts.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Frank: You wrote to Arnold with some facts? Nice!

David I really do wish that nuclear accidents were treated as an international disaster with an international response and oversight. It highly disturbs me that children are going to school in a potentially dangerous area. During the war they got many of the children out of London, might not be a bad idea now.

Frank Sanns ‎@TRL, Yes, I sent him an email with the data I posted here on April 22nd that was a thread started by Roman Piquois. Mr. Gundersen did not reply to me but he quickly stopped claiming criticality in #4 so I think he realized he was in error.

Manuela OOOOOOOHHHHH ! okay I feel better now.

Romain Actually Frank, I am pretty deceived that he did not answer you. I mean, if people want to be accurate, it is a must that discussion occurs (= as bidirectional communication). By just saying things and NOT answering you, given his exposure in the media, I feel more that he is just trying to use it for his credit more than finding the truth and helping people.

5/ 13

Another video from the Fairewinds site this one regarding radioactive particles. Question for those of us in Tokyo: In the end of the video Mr. Kaltofen mentions the only way to know where the radioactive particles are is by using expensive monitoring systems not your average geiger counter. There is a site that lists the amount of fallout in Tokyo, I will add the link below the Fairewinds one. Isnt this helpful in knowing how much radioactive "dust" is in Tokyo?

James

Here is the video about the particles: http://vimeo.com/23186557

Here are the radioactive material readings for Tokyo: http://ftp.jaist.ac.jp/pub/emergency/monitoring.tokyo-eiken.go.jp/monitoring/f-past_data.html

And throughout all the mild panic they create, does Fairewinds give any advice for the millions of people who live in Tokyo?

Charles I see the plan is to cover reactor 1, so hopefully that will help reduce the airborne radioactive leaks. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/14_02.html

Antonio I wrote a mail to Marco Kaltofen (the guy in the fairewinds interview) a while ago asking if he could compare his data to the one being made public by MEXT or KEK at Tsukuba. I specified that I was living in Tokyo. His reply was that they were measuring different things (indoor dust Vs outdoor dust). That's all. He didn't recommend evacuation. So either he doesn't care or the situation is not very dangerous.

Speaking of which, KEK released a new report on air monitoring: http://www.kek.jp/quake/radmonitor/GeMonitor8-e.html

Frank Sanns

The good news and the bad news. The bad news first. On or about March 21 a less than insignificant amount of radioactive particles from the innards of the reactors found its way to the air of Tokyo. By the end of March, the levels quickly decreased to essentially negligible levels. The good news is, the human body does a good job of filtering out dust from getting to the lungs. Big particles are trapped by the nose and the small particles go in and go right back out. Everything on the outside of the body will wash off with time and is a trivial dose and can be ignored. I am and have been concerned for the food in the fallout areas of the DOE maps (north of Tokyo but in a mostly elliptical and sometimes sporadic pattern). Chances are very high that there are bad materials in food coming from there or from the ocean in the vicinity of the plant. If possible, I would avoid it.

To assess what MIGHT have the potential to become airborne in Tokyo, it would be interesting to use a broom to sweep up an area of sidewalk or road of around 20 or 30 square meters. Then take the geiger counter and scintillator to it and see if anything is concentrated over background. If nothing is really concentrating then the rain has already washed the loose particles away.

James Ill help sweep if TRL measures it ;) To be honest its been a real pain trying to evaluate the dangers here in Tokyo. The levels are all down or Not Detectable, but this boogeyman of radioactive particles on the ground has been the last thing Ive been stressed over.

Alessandra I was under the impression that basically if after the rain there is no trace of those isotopes it means that maybe for the past days we've been free of those in Tokyo? Is this only a wishful hope?

Frank Sanns ‎@Alessandra, I think there is no problem in Tokyo but the experiment that I propose would give the firm answer especially with the reading from the geiger counter (no plastic bag) and the scintillator.

Charles ‎@James - That's where I'm at as well with this issue. Plus, I stress that what is there is mostly Cesium which has a half-life of 30 years (I believe), and will be with us for quite some time blowing in the wind.

Daniel There was a report today about an isotope found in incinerator ashes in a Tokyo sewage plant today. Apparently, it was discovered in late March and has already been recycled.

Jamie That would be this story, fyi. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110514a2.html

Frank Sanns None of this should be surprising. The rain washes everything to lower levels and to the drains and to the sea so it is not blowing around. Of course it does not help if it finds its way to the sanitary sewer and then get incinerated and made airborne again.

James ‎@Charles Yes Im right with you. As Frank mentioned, the more rain and time passes, the more everything gets washed away. The particle situation is more confusing that the other things that are easy to get readings on. I do think that the actual percentage of these things being dangerous to human health in Tokyo is pretty low. That is the only conclusion I have come to after studying about them.

Charles ‎@James, yes, I'm hoping that is the case - that being that the levels aren't dangerous to human health. But dang, it would help if TEPCO could cap those loose cannons and stop the emissions.

Gregory A Bournet

http://www.fairewinds.com/sites/default/files/fukuhealthrept.pdf

http://fairewinds.com/sites/default/files/fukuhealthrept.pdf

David Extrapolations from extrapolations are by their very nature v hypothetical hoewver I can't see this figure in this report being ignored for long "This is an extremely conservative set of assumptions...103,329 extra cancers due to the Fukushima exposures."

James They don't really discuss the predictions for Tokyo (250km outside) maybe I missed it though. Anyone else get a sense of their assessment of the big city?

David PS Chris Busby who authored that report appears to be a fringe scientist of minority reports - i'm not saying he's necessarily wrong - but clearly he's not mainstream http://junksciencewatch.wordpress.com/

James I thought I recognized that name before... he has been on Alex Jones prison planet before as well.  Here he is on BBC: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhlgks_radiation-risk-from-nuclear-power-station-in-japan_news

Antonio It would have been nice if he had used the data on beta contaminants (Radioactive Iodine and Cesium) by prefecture also published by MEXT, instead of deducing it by the increase of gamma radiation. I mean, the data is on the same website a couple of clicks away and it's being updated regularly.

Frank Sanns From the radiation that TRL has shown on this site, it is ridiculous to talk about cancer risks. So far, Tokyo is around 3% above its normal background for the year. The rain soon will wash away what is there in the urban environment. For very specific areas that are not necessarily the closest to the reactor, the levels there will be problematic and some living and farming exclusions zones will be mandated. Cancer statistics will be applied to those regions but it is way premature to see how expansive those areas are and to what extent.

Carlo ‎@Frank, some reported the "normal" background radiation in Tokyo to be 0.04μSv/h prior the accident so can you please develop how did you calculate your 3% above "normal" (TRL today's pic is showing 0.238μSv/h ) ?

Warren Frank, I saw another article in NHK World yesterday saying that it will take months for them stop the release of radioactivity from the plant. Last time we saw readings increase after it rained (both in air and especially tap water). With constant emissions from the plant, can't we deduce that instead of washing it away, the rainy season will actually cause spikes in radioactivity again? What are your thoughts?

Tokyo Radiation Levels

Carlo: The normal background in Roppongi hills is 0.14 uSv/h and 0.12 uSv/h in Kita-ku and Yoyogi Koen. 0.04 is probably taken higher up in the air or over cement. I've only even seen 0.04 uSv/h in the train (above ground).

Warren: It could. I wouldn't deduce it though. I'd speculate. The radiation emissions from the plant were massive around the last rain. The emissions are continuing on a smaller scaler now. Though we will likely have depositional contamination like we did before if they don't stop the emissions by June. The Rainy Season here is essentially a stationary front though so if it rains it's likely to be a problem around the Fukushima, Ibaraki and Tochigi. And it could find it's way to Tokyo if the wind blows it this way. It really depends on wind and emission quantity.

Frank Sanns @Carlo, the correct way to calculate is to integrate all of the individual measurements for each day. I do not have that data and it would be beyond what many in this group would easily grasp so let's use an easy to do estimation. Suppose the radiation level for two weeks were 6 times over normal background. That would mean that for each day of living in Tokyo, you would be getting 6 days of radiation in 1 day. That happened for 14 days so that means you had radiation equal to 84 more days than you actually had so 365 + 84 = 449 days of radiation in 365 days. So 449/365= 1.23 times or 23% more radiation than you normally would have. This is a far over estimation based on TRL numbers and the background number of 0.04 uSv is exceptionally low. Still, 23 % over a very low background and is far below what many people's normal background yearly dose would be.

‎@Warren, I find it unacceptable for TEPCO to let the reactors in their current state for months. There are options that should have be already done but many bad decisions were being made. I do not know why efforts to reuse the water are not underway. Pumping that water back over the reactors would be the normal scheme of cooling the reactor so why pump into barges and then take it away? I know there is a leak at an underground tunnel around #2 but pouring wet concrete over something flowing at that rate is really futile. I also do not know why a remote crane has not been brought in and some of the fuel removed to reduce cooling loads. I do not know why the radioactive water can not be diverted or pumped from above or below the leak and before it goes into the ocean. Gravity flow out of an 8" pipe is not that much volume of water to deal with. I do not know why the source of the radioactivity from uncovered fuel rods is not being covered. I do not know why many decisions are being made but much like the BP oil well spill in the Gulf of Mexico, this is new ground and the engineers are learning as they go. My biggest complaint is that time if of the essence then a one at a time approach is not acceptable. Multiple sound approaches need to be in the works simultaneously. The rate that this problem is fixed will be directly related to the amount of permanently contaminated area and health impact on the population. High stakes need parallel solutions.