5/8 Release of Contamaination of Radionuclides in the Sky within 80km radius

This post is pretty outdated as well--the link below show the map of 80km from FNPP and its contamination levels up high in the air. MEXT and the U.S. forces fled the inner 80km radius and gathered data on contamination.


The guy below (who posted the link) dramatically calls the map, "Map of Hell" but don't let him freak you out. He should have reconsidered re-naming, it's too insensitive. He should be compassionate and caring, especially during these hard times. As of May 31st, 18% of entire people living in Iitate refused to evacuate the area for not being able to find a place to live outside their region. People still live there. Even those who left have part of themselves there.
Good or bad, it's one accumulated data. Good or bad, it's something that affected people has to face.


Well, here it is.




Hirotsugu Nakanishi

The map of hell.
Mext and the U.S published latest level report.
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/saigaijohou/syousai/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/05/06/1304694_0506.pdf

Geoffrey Can’t find an english version, only Japanese, is there one in english?

Jill And can't see it on the browser I'm using.

James I can see it... but why is it the "map of hell"?

Hirotsugu it's in Japanese. Sorry
If you can't see it on your browser Then try to in MEXT web site. and maybe there's subscription in English.
why it's hell? cos there are too spoiled purification badly in radiation for human tough to livelihood. made a place no one wants to go. I beg to people to get out of there soon...

Jill Well, so has the government.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Hirostugu: Thank you for this map. There are danger areas and some places will not be able to be safely inhabited for quite a while. The dangerous places 30km from the plant and Iitate have been evacuated. The other areas do have a high background radiation level but not immediately dangerous or cumulative. It is risky for children in some places my opinion but not deadly. However, there are hotspots in these towns, and parks seem to be quite high as my Koriyama trip suggests. Certainly more attention and information needs to be given to the people living there, and the government and science bodies finally seem to be getting their act together and have started putting out un-glossed over information (like what you just posted).

But people live there still and you need to sensitive to this. So please don't post these kind of "map of hell" and fear mongering stuff from the safety of Tokyo or where you live (unless you live in the affected areas) because it doesn't help anyone. I get the feeling you don't quite understand the map, since an area marked on it doesn't mean it's spoiled land. It's showing concentrations of particular contaminants.

Jill Hell is just too dramatic. Say it like it is "A map of radiation concentration. Red is really, really bad."

Tokyo Radiation Levels The first map is dose. Red and orange will put you over the yearly limit in 3 months. Yellow is OK for a short while too. Green is livable but you'll get a higher yearly dose than normal (but under 20 mSv year).

Second, third and fourth map is concentration of contaminants on the ground. Green is OK for living but wouldn't eat food unless grew in the blue areas.

Interesting to note from the first map that a few kilometers north of the fukuhsima daiichi plant and also less than 20 km south (both inside the exclusion zone) it's marked as blue and it would be safe to live in those areas. However 50km to the north west (outside the exclusion zone) it's unsafe.

Thanks Romain, some good points actually. Judging by what happened in Chernobyl about 20-50% of the yearly dose of people in affected USSR states could be attributed to internal radiation. However the water and food were not regulated so people were ingesting heavily contaminated water and food. I think this is less an issue here so internal dose will mostly be incidental do what you breath in or drank in the last 2 months (if drinking Fukushima tap water).

You're right that some people may be able to go over 20 mSv/year in the green in certain circumstances, but it would seem that even though there is a high dose outside, the sheer amount of time people spend in cement areas, parks or forests is likely negligible compared to time spent inside and in places with lower amounts of contaminants. Still it seems that the effects of a dose below 200 mSv/year and 100 mSv the next year are not really understood because cancer doesn't particularly stand out in those groups according to a few papers I read (also in the first link below). However dose doesn't equal exposure to particular contaminants so I'm not talking about ingesting say I-131, and certainly there will be plenty of Cs-137 around for a while now. But people being educated properly about the risks by the government and being careful not to eat food they grow in contaminated areas is an important factor in prevention of long term risk factors. Looking at google maps, it seems that not a lot of populated places fortunately lie in the green. The big population centers are in the light and dark blue and Iitate is evacuated (though there seems to be one town in the green but I can't read it's name).

Sorry I'm rambling but thanks for making me think about it more. I haven't been called a Pollyanna before, but I really liked the book when I was a kid.

Some interesting sources if you want to read more.

About internal dose and exposure the Europeans (1997): http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/187.full.pdf

WHO report on chernobyl from 1986:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull283/28302792729.pdf

Paper critical of IAEA (2006):
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/187.full.pdf

Decidedly anti nuclear:
Fallout and genetic effects:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/RIGEinEuroandCNPPc.pdf

Health effects of Chernobyl slide:
http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/fairlie.pdf

I just want to add that this is completely my opinion. I've read up on this quite a bit and I've come to this conclusion on my own. I don't want to mislead anyone into making a decision based solely on what I think. I'm also not saying this because I doubt myself either, but I just want to not pass myself off as THE definitive expert on this.

Romain Fair enough :-). I am no expert either. But it is by always listening and criticize each other in a positive manner that we can reconsider our position and understand things better, as long as it is driven by logic. Btw, I have read that radiation in building is 40% of the amount you would get outside. I am really wondering how they get those values considering the half-distance for gamma rays in material. Honestly, a 80% seems a lot more logical to me for typical Japanese houses. (some wood, very light metal plate, etc...) compared to a concrete based building (even in thise case, it really depends on the position of your apartment inside the building)

4/21 Discussion on Helen Caldicott Video

Hello Helen Caldicott fans.

Videos of Helen Caldicott were posted on TRL facebook community page for a number of times (yes, exactly the same video). Here's a compilation of discussion on her claims--this is the April 21st version. For part 2 (May 30 version), click HERE or "May 30." Looking for how the TRL community responded on her New York Times opinion article? Click HERE.

Hope you find them helpful--well, at least, able to zip your mouth on TRL page.

Alright, here is part 1.

Maria Aki Dougherty

GLOBAL RESEARCH. Dangers of Nuclear War. Press conference by Helen Caldicott in Montreal. March2011

Press conference by Helen Caldicott in Montreal: The Dangers of Nuclear War. March 18 2011.

Please watch, something you won't see on mainstream news.

Frank Sanns There are so many false statements in this video, I do not even know where to start. It is over sensational journalism.

Maria Aki I'm glad that you say so.

Frank Sanns She also finished it off nicely with her slip of a little misandry in the quote: "the reptilian mid-brain of some men's brains is pathological" .

Maria Aki not nice... mean. Hoping for the best.

Tokyo Radiation Levels Does it make you scared? Scared of nuclear energy and all the horrors it brings? That's what Caldicott basically does. Plays on your fears to push her anti-nuclear agenda. Basically, it's mostly a gross exaggeration without supporting facts. She say "you get a lump in your breast, how can you say it's not from Sr-90 you ate in a fish 20 years ago?". This is vague and sounds scary, but it's just playing on your fears. Like Frank said, too many false statements.

Frank Sanns @Maria, I did not mean an insult to you but this video is not based on scientific facts. Sure there are some facts mixed into there but this is classic smoke and mirrors. Let me give you an example, she mentions that cesium and strontium are around for 600 years. They have a 30 year half life. In 30 years there is half, 60 years a quarter, 90 one eight, 120 one sixteenth, 150 one thirty second up to 600 years which is around one millionth the starting amount. She is exaggerating the truth to make the numbers sound like forever. An the isotopes that she mentions that have millions of years of half life do not emit much radioactivity at all so they are no more dangerous than other heavy metals. Then she says don't eat any food in Europe. Chernobyl was in 1986, did the population of Europe disappear? No, last I looked it was fairly well populated.

Maria Aki Dougherty No, I meant that she is mean... I want to know what you have to say. I am not afraid. This is what is circulating on facebook. Don't really know what to think.  I am glad that you both are telling me that this is a gross exaggeration. Thank you.

Lynn Brogan Sounds like gross exaggeration to me too -compare wth other information about Tokyo radiation levels.If we believe this woman Japan would not have recovered from the atom bombs dropped in world war two

Chris I think most strongly anti-nuclear activists like to stir the pot at times like this... she is well-known for doing all she can to dirty an already taboo subject in nuclear energy so I wouldn't take anything from her on this subject as being gospel ��Ｓ � C � � ��� ��� ;mso-font-kerning:0pt'>
About internal dose and exposure the Europeans (1997): http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/187.full.pdf

WHO report on chernobyl from 1986:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull283/28302792729.pdf

Paper critical of IAEA (2006):
http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/187.full.pdf

Decidedly anti nuclear:
Fallout and genetic effects:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/RIGEinEuroandCNPPc.pdf

Health effects of Chernobyl slide:
http://www.chernobylcongress.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/fairlie.pdf

Tokyo Radiation Levels I just want to add that this is completely my opinion. I've read up on this quite a bit and I've come to this conclusion on my own. I don't want to mislead anyone into making a decision based solely on what I think. I'm also not saying this because I doubt myself either, but I just want to not pass myself off as THE definitive expert on this.

Romain Fair enough :-). I am no expert either. But it is by always listening and criticize each other in a positive manner that we can reconsider our position and understand things better, as long as it is driven by logic. Btw, I have read that radiation in building is 40% of the amount you would get outside. I am really wondering how they get those values considering the half-distance for gamma rays in material. Honestly, a 80% seems a lot more logical to me for typical Japanese houses. (some wood, very light metal plate, etc...) compared to a concrete based building (even in thise case, it really depends on the position of your apartment inside the building)

5/16 "Japan evacuates villages outside nuclear zone"--ABC.net.au

Yet another "what do you think" article.
The Japanese government started to evacuate people in areas outside the 30km exclusion zone, after a month of letting people to get ready for evacuation. The area northwest or NPP was high in radiation levels because of wind direction and geography. (Ahem)

Japan evacuates villages outside nuclear zone

www.abc.net.au

Japan began evacuating people from outside the official exclusion zone around the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant after it was revealed fuel rods there probably melted hours after March's devastating earthquake.

Frank Sanns The key here is not meltdown but melted and exposed to air. When the early radiation readings were made they were based on Iodine and Cesium isotopes. The exclusion zone was based on the gamma radiation readings from just those isotopes because they are present in vented gases. Once the core was hot and open to the air, then core material itself was aerosolized and carried by the wind. These materials are typically alpha emitters and are much more dangerous internally than Cesium for example. The selective expansion of the exclusion zone is taking into account the extra dangers of the core isotopes like Plutonium, Americium, Strontium and the like. The evidence has been indisputable in my mind and I have shared that in posts. My only question is why did it take these morons this long to verify what was suspected in March? Were they hiding it or were they hiding from it???

Jill And have been telling and warning people to prepare for, what, a month?

Frank Sanns I do not know the exact areas of evacuation but I would expect them to be where the darkest orange colors are on the map that was posted a few threads back. According to the map, evacuations out to 50 km to the north west of the reactors is possible. There also may be some small isolated areas outside of the elliptical orange area too but nothing close to Tokyo. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ow.ly%2Fphotos%2Foriginal%2FaAT2.png&h=7e91c

I just ran a quick calculation to see what amounts of core materials might be present as a function of distance. Using the 3 km report of neutrons being detected with a conventional instrument and using the inverse square law of fall off (double the distance is one quarter the amount). I came up with a distance of 48 km for the level to be at 1 x 10-9 g/m^2. One nanogram per meter squared with I think would be a reasonable answer. The winds and other factors would weigh in but a 40km to 50km evacuation distance in a particular direction seems reasonable to me.

4/20 Discussion on spread of radionuclide released from NILU

*6/1 Update: Link to Norwegian Institute for Air Research is lost, perhaps because it's old.

4/20

Vincent Patrick Moran

Can you tell me what you make of this?

If you look at Japan 2011 -04-21 3:00 UTC (12pm Japan) it looks like Tokyo gets hit pretty hard.

Thomas  If I read that right Surface Concentration Cs-137 would be at highest 3400Bq/m2 around Tokyo area. For comparison: Contaminated air moving through Germany after the Chernobyl accident was up to 80.000 Bq/m2 in South Bavaria and around 4.000Bq/m2 in North Germany. The total additional lifetime exposure because of the accident is at average 0.8mSv (North Germany), max. 2.5 mSv (S Bavaria).

o                                                         

Try it from here: http://transport.nilu.no/products/fukushima and push the blue arrow. What's your opinion Frank?

Frank Sanns  Yesterday I looked at some weather system maps and wind patterns and posted that I thought the levels would be elevated Wednesday 20th and Thursday 21st but the weather system has slowed a bit so it may arrive a little slower and stay a little longer. The map in the link is consistent in what I believe the WIND PATTERNS will be but it is showing large levels of I-131 which have been measured to be very low. Either the reports of the iodine and cesium levels are inaccurate or the isotope concentration numbers that the NILU website put into their model are wrong. By Saturday it should be obvious what the reality is at the reactor site and the accuracy of the NILU data. I will stay on this one and I hope that TRL might double up on his readings for the next three days or so if any elevations above 0.3 microSv are seen. It will help assess the current condition at the reactors and to more accurately asses the risk to Tokyo at T plus 5 weeks from the initial incident at the plant.

Antonio  They have this disclaimer on their site: "ATTENTION: 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 info...See more 

Frank Sanns  I believe the IAEA and all other data to date that says all is very low. This weather pattern will be the confirmation as it will be the least favorable since the accident. The numbers should stay under 0.3 microsieverts but will be a good data point for sure.

4/5 Discussion on Beyond Nuclear: NYT reports new threats at FNPP reactors

Another "What do you think about this?" thing.  Not sure if the discussion took place on early to mid-April, but it's one of the April discussion anyway.

Tristan Gribbin

I don't know if you've seen this article from the NY Times from April 5th? It analyzes the leaked NRC Report in depth and explains that the catastrophe at Fukushima is far from under control. There are many dangers that will only be averted if the right measures are taken. The article clearly outlines the challenges ahead.

Beyond Nuclear - Home - New York Times reports new threats at Fukushima Dai-Ichi reactors

Frank Sanns

If I may interpret the most important data from the actual NRC report that was posted. I can not verify that it is authentic but the details are scientifically sound and I believe the report to be accurate. The most important statement for those in Japan is this portion of the report is "neutron sources found up to I mile from the units". This is important for the fact that there are NO naturally occurring neutron sources in nature and no gaseous emanations of nuclear plants emit neutrons. ONLY and ONLY core material does. Interpretation is Uranium and Plutonium were ejected from the plant and found well outside of the plant perimeter. This material was ejected as fine particles via a "burn" of fuel or by a steam or hydrogen explosion from a fuel pool or reactor. The density of uranium and plutonium is very high (heavy) so it is not typically carried long distances in the wind so it is unlikely that Tokyo has received any of this material but the people should have been informed of this information as it may have been prudent to stay inside on the day or two following that event. I hope that a repeat of this does not happen but if the plant is temporarily evacuated again, it may be prudent to stay indoors as much as possible for 2 or 3 days following such an event just as an extra safeguard. The day to day radiation levels measure and the radioactive materials measured by TRL continue to be at a very safe level and I do not see any reason for any concern but I would push those in charge in Japan for more timely and complete disclosure of what is being put into the air over Japan. There is a great danger that there would be irrational and unfounded panic but I think people have the right to know. If TRL feels this language is too strong for his site I will understand if he choses to delete it as his service is invaluable to the people of Tokyo and my technical and one line political statement my not be consistent with his mission here.

Carlo ‎@Frank, I remember very well they said that "nothing" leaked from the reactors during explosions here in Japan "just the shell exploded so no need to worry".

Frank Sanns Either the report is wrong ( not likely) or they lied (likely). :-(

Pje I'm not sure whether this relates to what you're discussing, but findings of plutonium were reported last month: "After taking soil samples at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Japanese authorities today confirmed finding traces of plutonium that most likely resulted from the nuclear accident there". Sources / DATE 28 MARCH :http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima280311.html

Frank Sanns @pje It is not the presence of plutonium alone that is of concern it it the quantity that was detected that is of concern. Modern analysis techniques can detect quantities so small that they are nearly meaningless. Parts per billion or trillion and beyond are the norm for detection. The significance is that they detected neutrons. Plutonium emits just an occasional neutron and it is not a strong source of them so you need an appreciable quantity of plutonium to detect them. On top of that neutrons are not easy to detect. Milligram to gram quantities of plutonium per square meter would have to have been present to detect the neutrons. It is not news that plutonium was detected, it is news that large quantities were detected.

Carlo There is also reference to "neutron beam" detected by TEPCO from March 13th during 3 days (reported on March 23rd thought) :
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/80539.html

James Thank you Frank for your assessment. You mention that you think its unlikely that Tokyo has received any of this material.  But if it has, would it be detected in the hourly radiation amounts?  In other words, how can we monitor the situation ourselves to see if there is danger here in Tokyo.

Reisel Mary If or when the situation will be stable, we could try them to monitor the situation. But as long as things are so fluid and changing, I think it's very hard. I never know what news we're going to have in the morning, it's impossible to know something for sure.

Frank Sanns

‎‎@Carlo, In the context of a shut down reactor or raw nuclear fuel, there cannot be a neutron beam. An opening in the shielding can let what might be described as a beam of neutrons stream out of an operating reactor but it must be operating with much active fission occurring. The article that you referenced was most likely describing an active debris field of reactor fuel in which neutrons were being detected. This would have to be a significant debris field to be detecting neutrons.

‎‎

@James, I am fairly confident that Tokyo would not have received much of this material. Although milligrams were present 2 km from the site, Tokyo is a long way from the reactor site and the winds would have had to been strong on those days and directly at Tokyo. I do remember that there was one day that the Iodine spiked but I am traveling today and do not have the opportunity to cross references those dates with reactor events. If any day was so it would have been on that day or days.  [And] to monitor for plutonium the most reliable is an alpha only probe. A setup used would cost about 600 USD. Unless there is much radon in an area, this would be the most reliable methode.

‎@Mary, I empathize with you but I think there is very low risk of anything of significant health hazard in Tokyo occurring. If something really catastrophic happened, you would have a days warning because of the distance. Staying indoors would essentially make the risk zero on those days if something were to happen. Do not worry but keep a little diligent over the next couple of months.

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.

5/14 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.