Report: Emissions from Japan plant approach Chernobyl levels

[Octafish]

Source: USA Today

Emissions of radioactive iodine and cesium from the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant have approached levels after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, New Scientist reports.

Austrian researchers made the calculations by using the global network of detectors designed to sniff out clandestine nuclear bomb tests.

Iodine-131 is being released at daily levels 73% of those detected after Chernobyl, while the daily amount of cesium-137 is about 60%, according to researcher from Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics.

How do researchers contrast the two accidents?

The difference between this accident and Chernobyl, they say, is that at Chernobyl a huge fire released large amounts of many radioactive materials, including fuel particles, in smoke. At Fukushima Daiichi, only the volatile elements, such as iodine and caesium, are bubbling off the damaged fuel. But these substances could nevertheless pose a significant health risk outside the plant.

The organisation set up to verify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has a global network of air samplers that monitor and trace the origin of around a dozen radionuclides, the radioactive elements released by atomic bomb blasts – and nuclear accidents. These measurements can be combined with wind observations to track where the radionuclides come from, and how much was released.

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/03/report-radioactive-emissions-from-japan-plant-approach-chernobyl-levels/1

---

I'm thinking what Ms. Manzurova said.

[Wednesdays]

1. Oh, great.

:(

[Sabriel]

2. And how about this little addition at the bottom:

Update at 5:35 p.m. ET: Radiation 10,000 times normal levels has been measured in the water where three Fukushima plant workers were irradiated while laying power cable underground at the No. 3 reactor's turbine building, Kyodo News is reporting.

How much longer do they (plant owners, governments, DOE) think they can keep this under wraps?

The only concrete sarcophagus I see is the one being built around the emissions of truth about what's really occurring at Fukushima.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. lthey are staslling because they know a large portion of Japan may be uninhabitable and where ....

to send their people to live....who will take them in?

how do you move millions of people quickly out of harms way?

[slay]

44. This could very well be the case

i think many country will have to pitch in and take in a certain percentage of the japanese people - at least until the whole site can be buried in cement and we can see how much permanent damage has been done. this is horrible. i just hope they get them out before the radiation affects them too badly. :cry:

time to end the wars and start gettin the entire navy - cruise ships - whatever it takes - ready to help. man i hope japan asks for help in time. that place is TINY compared to russia i mean wow. :(

[StarsInHerHair]

109. lead dust needs to be part of that, not ingots but dust like a dentist gown

concrete alone is not enough.

[BrookBrew]

58. No way. If we drop a mk-82 nuclear bomb set to yield 250KTs on that plant

the radiation would still be less than what we did in nevada in the 50's. The scare comments are funny, to a point.

This photo taken 400miles from LA

[Aerows]

61. How much

...before it starts harming children and pregnant women? Would you ask your wife, sister or daughter who was pregnant to stay there? I wouldn't.

[BrookBrew]

64. In tokyo sure..

my wife works around nuclear energy all day. So far the evil X rays have not deformed our kids...

PET machines are more of a concern to me than the water. But hey, I actually took physics and astronomy courses and am not prone to fear based reactions.

[Aerows]

74. My B.S. is in Chemistry

You have a BS in something, but it isn't a Bachelor of Science.

[BrookBrew]

76. CS and Astronomy.

work in the (EDIT: Image Capture Analysis) field. Not that any of that matters on the internet. Only what you can link and prove.

The nuclear medicine field and DOE have studied exposure for decades.

Hey while everyone is getting their nuclear hate and fear fest on no one mentioned any Industrial processing damage.

Given your back ground which is more dangerous? Hydrofluoric acid dumped by the god knows how many tons or ionizing radiation in a form that can be tracked..

Lets see what else Hexavalent Chromium, Organo Phosphates, the list goes on. But hey, these are not as catchy as nuclear holocaust.

Chicken little is alive and well.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

92. and the falout was all on NY state....LA was safe ..It was a good day when we didn't have rain in NY

[aquart]

3. Oh, joy. "Tell the people of Japan to run!"

[RC]

4. Run where?

Japan is a bunch of islands.

[BrookBrew]

5. Not from what was measured there, but on their math...

How would the holocaust in japan compare to say a 250KT nuclear explosion 400 miles from LA. you know like this one.. Be afraid.

[fascisthunter]

7. you should move there to comfort the People There

[nc4bo]

12. This the 2nd post where I thought the same thing. nt

[Aerows]

63. Obviously...

...this person is not an interested commentator. This person is an evident shill for the nuclear power industry. Just put them on ignore, because they don't have anything that isn't pre-approved to say.

[psychopomp]

91. Forgive me for saying so, but you come off sounding like a complete idiot

I live in Japan and have a vested interest in knowing the facts on the potential for harm. You are justifiably concerned but you are blowing this all out of proportion. Your ill-advised advice to others who share your hysteria to put those with views that differ from yours on ignore while calling them "shills for the nuclear power industry" is out-and-out pathetic.

[marions ghost]

8. Japan is so lucky

that they're not being bombed?? What are you saying with this line of comparison? It's so foreign to my thinking I don't even get it.

Your Radiation Dose Chart says (bottom line):

"If you are basing radiation safety procedures on an internet png image and things go wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself."

(I would laugh but this ain't at all funny).

Fukushima can't be compared to anything until it's officially controlled.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marions ghost]

11. Well if the bombs

don't getcha I get the power plants will.

It's not under control.

[BrookBrew]

13. Well I will wait for the hiroshima levels of exposure

before i take cover from the falling sky. So far not quite there yet.

Control is an illusion. it not killing people on the scale of a fraction of lightning strikes yet.

[Taft_Bathtub]

15. Did you read the chart?

Civilians are being exposed to an amount of radiation equivalent to a dentist's x-ray. I know it's popular to bash Nuclear Power but you're not being rational.

[thereismore]

18. You are new here, so I will be gentle. Being exposed 24/7 does not compare

with a one-time dental exam. Exposure accumulates if you stay where there is radiation. You would be more accurate if you'd said that civilians are being exposed at a rate of one dental X-ray per day, hour, week, or so. Get it?

[Taft_Bathtub]

20. Please, read the chart

It says that's the radiation you get from one day. So living near Fukushima is barely more radioactive than living in the Colorado mountains. Or getting a daily x-ray for cavities.

Again, I know it's really popular to freak out about radiation, but the media is freaking people out for no reason.

[thereismore]

23. OK, there you go. It's like getting 1 dental X-ray every fucking day for as long as you stay there.

[marions ghost]

28. No doctor

would tell you a daily dental x-ray is OK.

[fascisthunter]

56. jesus.... you don't wanna get it.

[Taft_Bathtub]

21. Whoops, double post, nt

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marions ghost]

29. It's OK

Sabriel. You know why?

1. Gives everybody a chance to refute what are common misconceptions that other readers might have (and maybe change their minds).

2. The points being made are so relentless and simplistic. (One trick pony) Obvious agitator.
Let them bump the threads about nuclear power.

[marions ghost]

27. right

Daily dental x-rays. NOT acceptable.

[Devil_Fish]

32. You don't get a dental x-ray 24-7. Radiation is cumulative ya know. NT

[grahamhgreen]

35. One chest x-ray can cause cancer if ur very unlucky. We stopped the tests, next stop the power plant

s

[Aerows]

62. You know, you are the first person to get on my ignore list

because you don't discuss science, you just detract, move the goal posts and shill for the nuclear industry.

[jpak]

6. and they haven't raised the accident rating - why?

:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

9. They're saving up the panic for one Mother-Of-All-Panics.....

Responsible Government

[hayu_lol]

14. I rather enjoyed reading the cleverly-written USA article including...

the almost illiterate comments made by almost-educated posters at the bottom. If this was not apparent to all of our posters here, then you need to carefully re-read the USA article. Almost, but not quite, at the Sky Is Falling level. Only one of the comments were at a high level of comprehension. The journalist's efforts to compare this 'event' with the Russian debacle are all too plainly directed at scaring the britches off the uninformed.

Disagree? Well, that is what makes our board here interesting.

It is not yet time to head for Mars.

[Octafish]

22. Who's telling you to go to Mars? It reports radioactivity levels from 5 locations around the world.

The article references this from New Scientist: Fukushima radioactive fallout nears Chernobyl levels.

It's stating what the radioactivity readings from various locations have found: levels of radioactive iodine-131 and cesium-137 comparable to Chernobyl.

IMO, it's very well written, with links and sources for details.

FWIW: I'm not seeing too much reporting, let alone any in accurate detail, about what's happening to the people of Honshu or on what the wind dragged in.

[marions ghost]

30. Not much news coming out

except from a few posters who have friends or family there. Strange.

[fascisthunter]

57. I Just come here and Have to Shake my Head

how can people be this confused? I just don't get it...

thanks for the link.

[BrookBrew]

65. Lets see. I am confused. Now I live with a Nuclear Med Engineer

I design image capture systems for industrial robotics. So there are two people in the same house with advanced degrees who are not freaking the hell out because the TV tells me too.

But hey that's just me. But hey fear is cool, especially when based on the fear of more fear..

[fascisthunter]

71. I don't trust anything you have to say

bye

[BrookBrew]

79. Be sure to buy a SHITTON of KI tabs. A lead line room, 3 pallets

of bottled water and a gun. Because the world is ending any you better get prepared..

Its going to be a nuclear winter holocaust of EPIC proportions, billions dead.

Or you could try the library of congress and read data on actual exposure to radiation from the bomb tests we ran for 20 years..

[reorg]

84. The Japanese affected by this tragedy surely will appreciate your ridicule

As to the effects of the insane bomb tests, Der Spiegel had a nice feature yesterday:

Hanford Nuclear Waste Still Poses Serious Risks

The lambs were born without eyes or mouths. Some had legs that had grotesquely grown together; others had no legs at all. Many were stillborn. Thirty-one were lost in a single night.

Down by the river, men of the Yakama tribe pulled three-eyed salmon from the Columbia. Trout were covered in cancerous ulcers.

And then the babies started getting sick.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752944,00.html

[BrookBrew]

87. Yep, I am not saying the bombs had no impact. They clearly did..

any person who choses to be honest can find their numbers and judge for themselves.

I never saw a picture of a 3 eyed fish though.. Blinky is a simpsons thing, if you can find a picture that would be cool.

NEJM has plenty of data as well as the loc on each bomb test.

I;m betting the outcome in japan will be much less significant based on the logic that the total radiological impact so far is less than detonating a 250KT weapon in the open air.

[BrookBrew]

88. My only ridicule is pointed to the fear mongers and the soap boxers

preaching fear and bullshit either for anti nuke agenda or because they are simply to stupid to understand the subject at hand.

Hey did you hear there are 27,000 dead (including the missing, whom are dead) now how many dead from nukes? How many suffering radiation sickness?

How many dead thyroids from I 131? So far 0 that is 27,000 less than the number of dead.. hmm

(not you for the fear monger of course.)

[reorg]

90. I don't see any fearmongers

It was clear to me the first time I heard about the earthquake that the number of deaths was going to be in the tens of thousands.

You seem to find this very funny, what with your idiotic jokes and ridicule, trying to twist the tragedy into proof that leaking radiation from four reactors doesn't pose any risk to the population in that area.

[BrookBrew]

94. No I find the end is neigh people funny

because in a month they have to live with their stupidity. I mean unless "the road" is the new reality, then I will eat my hat, right before I kill myself so my kid can live..

Sure there is a risk, is that risk going to kill 10, 100, 1000, 100,000? none of the above..

Radiation is not new. Unlike the chemicals spilled it can be easily detected and in all but the worst cases exposure to large doses can be treated.

I side with the poster from Japan up thread calling out the fearmongers and agenda pimps.

[reorg]

97. studies estimate that Chernobyl caused between 200,000 and one million premature deaths

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment
Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, Alexey V. Nesterenko, Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger

"No fewer than three billion persons inhabit areas contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides. More than 50% of the surface of 13 European countries and 30% of eight ohter countries have been conatminated by Chernobyl fallout. Given biological and statistical laws the adverse effects in these areas will be apparent for many generations.

... Prior to 1985 more than 80% of children in the Chernobyl territories of Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia were healthy; today fewer than 20% are well. In the heavilyl contaminated areas it is difficult to find one healthy child.

We believe it is unreasonable to attribute the increased occurrence of disease in the contaminated territories to screening or socioeconomic factors because the only variable is radioactive loading. Among the terrible consequences of Chernobyl radiation are malignant neoplasms and brain damage, especially during intrauterine development.

Why are the assessments of experts so different?

There are several reasons, including that some experts believe that any conclusions about radiation-based disease requires a correlation between an illness and the received dose of radioactivity. We believe this is an impossibility because no measurements were taken in the first few days. Initial levels could have been a thousand times higher than the ones ultimately measured several weeks and months later. It is also impossible to calculate variable and "hot spots" deposition of nuclides or to measure the contribution of all the isotopes, such as Cs, I, Sr, Pu, and others, or to measure the kinds and total amount of radionuclides that a particular individual ingested from food and water.

A second reason is that some experts believe the only way to make conclusions is to calculate the effect of radiation based upon the total radiation, as was done for those exposed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For the first 4 years after the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, research was forbidden. During that time more than 100,000 of the weakest died. A similar pattern emerged after Chernobyl. However, the USSR authorities officially forbade doctors from connecting diseases with radiation, and, like the Japanese experience, all data were classified for the first 3 years.

In independent investigations scientists have compared the health of individuals in various territories that are identical in terms of ethnic, social and economic characteristics and differ only in the intensity of their exposure to radiation. It is scientificially valid to compare specific groups over time (a longitudianlal study), and such comparisons have unequivocally attributed differences in health outcomes to Chernobyl fallout."

pp 2-3
http://www.amazon.com/Chernobyl-Consequences-Catastrophe-Environment-Sciences/dp/1573317578/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301170804&sr=1-1

[Prana69]

17. Talking it down...

In Australia, the Fukushima Daiichi incident is really being talked down, as a "minor" incident. Even though I understand it is rated as a level 5 incident on the INES scale (Three Mile Island being a 6 and Chernobyl a 7).

There's always a comparison to Chernobyl - clearly the worst peacetime nuclear event - and then an explanation of how the Fukushima event is not nearly as serious.

I don't know about the technicalities of the event, and the subsequent truth of those claims, but this is what I interpret from the nature and tone of the discussions:

1. Serious nuclear accidents only happen in communist or former communist / totalitarian (READ = BAD) countries. When nuclear accidents happen in capitalist / democratic societies, they are by default, not as serious.

2. This is just a minor event. Nuclear is still the way of the future.

This second point is the most interesting. The nuclear industry in Australia has been spending tens of millions of dollars green-washing the industry over the last 10 years, unfortunately with significant success. This Fukushima event serves to remind us of the danagers of nuclear power - that even in the most technologically advanced society in the world, Japan, events beyond our control can result in catastrophes - and it has put the nuclear industry squarely on the back foot again.

It's been very entertaining seeing Ziggy Switkowski (chief of ANSTO, the nuclear industry lobby group) squirming as he tries to explain that nuclear is still safe and the way of the future.


P69



The nature and tone of the discussions

[defendandprotect]

24. Is Australia planning to nuke itself in the future -- or are they doing it now?

[Prana69]

26. Not nuclear weapons, but possibly nuclear power...

ANSTO - the government's nuclear research department (really just a nuclear lobby group) in Australia - is positioning nuclear as the only viable solution to this country's dependence on coal as both our primary energy source (coal fired power stations) and export earner. We export tonnes of coal to Japan and China in particular.

Uranium is also a big export earner. We don't use uranium as an energy source locally, but use it at the Lucas Heights reactor outside of Sydney to produce radioactive isotopes for medical use.

We have traditionally exported uranium only to countries that are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, however this tradition was challenged recently by the recommendation by ANSTO and other nuclear inductsry supporters to expand our exports to include India, which is desperate for high grade uranium. India has refused to sign the NPT.

The previous Rudd Labor govt was supportive of the expansion of exports to India. I am unsure what PM Gillard's position is, but she is such a traitor to her leftist roots that it wouldn't surprise me if she also provides in-principle support.

The Chernobyl disaster set the cause of nuclear power back 20 years. It was just starting to regain a foothold, particularly here in Australia.

It's unfortunate that it has taken another nuclear tragedy like Fukushima to again remind the public of the dangers of nuclear power.

P69

[marions ghost]

31. I hope Australians

will be able to stop it now. Australia and Japan are linked economically, right? It might be a good wake-up call.

Also that uranium export thing...problematic

thanx for the update Prana

[defendandprotect]

33. Sad --

[unkachuck]

19. K&R....n/t

[grahamhgreen]

34. Somehow, we have to get the nukers to "put down the weapon".

[Hannah Bell]

36. From the original article:

here's the google translation from the german for the original source:

The estimated source terms for iodine-131 are very constant, namely 1.3 10 17 Bq / day for the first two days (U.S. measurements) and 1.2 10 17 Bq / day for the third day (Japan). For cesium-137 measurements can the U.S. a source term of 5 10 15 Bq close, while Japan was much more air in the cesium in. On this day would Bq the source term with about 4 10 16 can be estimated.

In the nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl was the entire source term of iodine-131 1.76 10 18 Bq of cesium-137 8.5 10 16 Bq. The estimated for Fukuschima source terms are thus at 20% of Chernobyl-term for iodine, and 20-60% of the Chernobyl-term for cesium.

After cesium-137 and make iodine-131 only a fraction of the total dose rate in the vicinity of the reactor, does not mean that local radiation exposure in Fukushima as high as in Chernobyl. The source terms to explain but the burden of food and water. The dose rates of cesium and iodine, resulting from our source hypothesis are much lower than those observed in total in Japan.


1) This report is based on two (day's?) reading in the US & one in Japan.
2) Based on those readings, the authors make further *estimations* about how much iodine & cesium is being emitted at the source on those days.
3) They estimate the "source terms" would be about 20% of chernobyl (for iodine) & 20-60% (for cesium.


http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zamg.ac.at%2Faktuell%2Findex.php%3Fseite%3D1%26artikel%3DZAMG_2011-03-23GMT10%3A57&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

[reorg]

37. the article alerts us of possible grave consequences of the disaster

Whereas you appear to feel the need to talk down any such attempt at making the general public aware of the dangers. I have yet been unable to grasp your motivation for this.

What is your expertise in judging the estimates of the neutral Austrian Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (associated with the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research)?

I wonder what you have to say to that statement, of another EXPERT (admittedly not accredited by the nuclear industry):

As of March 22, the IAEA reported:

The IAEA took measurements at additional locations between 35 to 68 km from the Fukushima plant. The dose-rate results ranged from 0.8 to 9.1 microsieverts per hour. The beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.08 to 0.9 MBq per square metre. More precise interpretation of the results will be possible based on measurements to be made of the composition of the radioactive material that has been released.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima220311.html

According to Dr. Sebastian Pflugbeil, president of the (German) Society for Radiation Protection (http://www.gfstrahlenschutz.de/en/index.html ), the Russian authorities designated local contaminations of more than 555,000 Bequerel per square meter as "hot spots". This is the same order of magnitude as the measurements found between 16 and 58 km northwest of the Fukushima nuclear plant. The extension of that area is comparable in size to the exclusion zone west of Chernobyl.

Zur Bewertung liegt ein Blick zurück auf die Situation nach Tschernobyl nahe. Hot spots wurden von den russischen Behörden damals als lokal begrenzte Kontaminationen von mehr als 555.000 Becquerel pro Quadratmeter definiert. Das ist die Größenordnung, die in Japan zwischen 16 und 58 km von der IAEA gemessen wurde. Die Ausdehnung dieser Zone in Japan ist vergleichbar mit der Sperrzone westlich von Tschernobyl.

http://www.gfstrahlenschutz.de/pm110323.htm

[Hannah Bell]

38. I showed you the original. There are substantial differences between it & how it's reported in the

OP.

rather than explain or acknowledge the differences you attack me & move on to an entirely different report.

whatever.

[reorg]

40. ok, see post #39

The "entirely different report" provides just another estimate by a qualified expert regarding the comparability of the current catastrophe to that in Chernobyl. I thought this was obvious.

[Hannah Bell]

43. i am questioning the accuracy of the reporting about what *this* report actually says.

i thought that was obvious.

it does not seem to say what the op says it does. literally.

your second report is irrelevant to that particular question.

[reorg]

68. see post #43, I dont see any contradictions

between the daily briefings at the ZAMG website and the New Scientist report. The other statement from a different scientist supports what the headline says which you qualified as "hype".

[reorg]

39. some corrections

>>1) This report is based on two (day's?) reading in the US & one in Japan.<<
>>2) Based on those readings, the authors make further *estimations* about how much iodine & cesium is being emitted at the source on those days.<<
>>3) They estimate the "source terms" would be about 20% of chernobyl (for iodine) & 20-60% (for cesium.<<

ad 1) This report is based on numerous readings, data received from CTBTO stations in Japan, California, Alaska und Russia, starting on 12 March over several days (more than three).

ad 2) Since data from Japan and elsewhere can be compared, it is possible, they say, especially for the three days between March 12 and 15, to make rough estimates about source terms.

ad 3) These source terms, ie the estimated amount of radiation released during these three days, the report says, already constitute about 20% (iodine-131) and 20-60% (cesium-137) of the entire amount released during the Chernobyl catastrophe.

Since the estimates only take into account readings of iodine-131 and cesium-137, they don't mean that local radiation levels in Japan are the same as in Chernobyl. They only explain the contamination found in foodstuffs. However, the observed contamination levels in foodstuffs are much higher than the rough estimates of the "source terms" would suggest.

http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-24GMT11:24
http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-23GMT10:57
http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-22GMT13:31

[Hannah Bell]

46. if you speak german, i'll accept your translation over google's. however, i don't understand

how these two things can be true simultaneously:

"the estimated amount of radiation released during these three days, the report says, already constitute about 20% (iodine-131) and 20-60% (cesium-137) of the entire amount released during the Chernobyl catastrophe."

and:

"Iodine-131 is being released at daily levels 73% of those detected after Chernobyl, while the daily amount of cesium-137 is about 60%, according to researcher from Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics."

also there seems to be discrepancy between this "estimation" & what iaea is currently measuring near the site:

34-73 km from the plant, .04 to .4 megabecquerel/m2
30-32 km from the plant, 3.8 to 4.8 megabecquerel/m2

closer, couldn't be determined.

http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/iaea-update-briefing-on-fukushima-nuclear-emergency-24-march-2011-1530-utc


the new scientist article gives the impression that the estimates were made from the 3 days readings only.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html

[reorg]

66. It doesn't appear these numbers are taken from the ZAMG website

they are from the New Scientist report:

"... iodine-131 is being released at daily levels 73 per cent of those seen after the 1986 disaster. The daily amount of caesium-137 released from Fukushima Daiichi is around 60 per cent of the amount released from Chernobyl. ...

... caesium-137 emissions are on the same order of magnitude as at Chernobyl. The Sacramento readings suggest it has emitted 5 × 1015 becquerels of caesium-137 per day; Chernobyl put out 8.5 × 1016 in total – around 70 per cent more per day."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html

Apparently, the New Scientist interviewed Gerhard Wotawa of Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna and did not base their report on the daily briefings at the ZAMG website.

Note the distinction between the percentage released daily and the total amount of the radioactive elements released.


As to the numbers from IAEA, they publish different readings every day, individual readings from various locations, I suppose. I don't know how they compare to the readings made in Chernobyl. As I mentioned elsewhere, 555,000 Bequerel per square meter were considered "hot spots" by the government in Russia at the time. In some places, the IAEA measured up to 900,000 Bequerel per square meter:

"The IAEA took measurements at additional locations between 35 to 68 km from the Fukushima plant. The dose-rate results ranged from 0.8 to 9.1 microsieverts per hour. The beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.08 to 0.9 MBq per square metre."

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima220311.html

[Hannah Bell]

73. zamg is linked as the source of the estimates in articles about it:

the page i linked & google-translated. it is indeed the source according to published accounts. the same page that is linked in the new scientist article:

http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-23GMT10:57

it is the apparent discrepancy i am trying to clarify.

ZAMG: CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR METEOROLOGY AND GEODYNAMICS

ZAMG is the Austrian weather service. As member of WMO, EUMETNET and ECOMET it is in close co-operation with the other potential data holders in the study ...
www.medclivar.eu/institutions/ZAMG.htm - Cached - Similar

Fukushima Japan - ZAMG (Austria) simulates the spreading of ...Mar 23, 2011 ... ZAMG, the Vienna (Austria) based Central Insitute for Meteorology and Geodynamics publishes forecast simulations of the spreading of ...
www.nextlevelofnews.com/.../report-accident-in-the-japanese-npp-fukushima -spread-of-radioactivity-update-march-22-2011-1500-by-zamg-clip... - Cached

however, events have moved on.

[reorg]

80. Really, I have no idea what you are trying to do here

The page you linked is obviously NOT the source for the New Scientist. They nowhere claim that it is, they merely link to the page that introduces Dr Wotawa, and to one of the institute's briefs on the accident (to illustrate that "The level of radionuclides leaking from Fukushima Daiichi has been unclear, but the CTBT air samplers can shed some light"). It is not claimed anywhere that the information in the NS article, when they quote Wotawa as in "Wotawa says", can be found in Wotawa's daily briefs.

There is NO DISCREPANCY whatsoever. The information is different, but not contradictory.

Wotawa made rough estimates based on the data the institute has access to. Feel free to find someone who disputes these conclusions. Just stating over and over again that what Wotawa told the New Scientist can't be found verbatim in the institute's daily briefs doesn't help one bit.

Starting with 24 March the institute provides English translations of the briefs:

http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-03-24_1600_E.pdf
http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-03-25_1600_E_1.pdf
http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-03-25_1600_E_2.pdf

[Hannah Bell]

82. zamg, & the page i linked, have been linked as the source document

for the report in various reports all over the web.

that is the reason the new scientist article linked it.

It is zamg's analysis.

http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2011/03/24/calculated-estimate-of-fukushima-emissions-by-the-central-institute-for-meteorology-and-geodynamics-zamg-of-austria/

In fact, it is *wotawa's* analysis per this:

Mr. BRUMFIEL: The sensors are registering radioactive elements like iodine-131 and cesium-137. These are byproducts from nuclear fission inside the core of a reactor.

Wotawa has been�feeding the data into computer models�that can forecast where the radiation will go. He also uses the models to work backwards and calculate the amount of material first released. Based on those calculations, he says the accident, in some ways, is roughly the size of Chernobyl.

http://m.npr.org/news/Science/134833909?page=5


and here:

In Vienna, the Austrian institute’s Dr Gerhard Wotawa stressed that the two isotopes from Fukushima he had sought to estimate — iodine-131 and caesium-137 — normally make up only one tenth of total radiation. Unlike the Fukushima crisis, at Chernobyl, in what is now Ukraine, the reactor was blown apart and spewed heavily radioactive fuel core material into the atmosphere. Another key difference between the two was that most of the radioactivity from the Japanese plant was dispersed across the Pacific, not over land, Wotawa said. Based on measurements made at monitoring stations in Japan and the United States, Wotawa said the iodine released from Fukushima in the first three-four days was about 20 percent of that released from Chernobyl during a ten-day period. For Caesium-137, the figure could amount to some 50 percent. Wotawa said it was difficult to make day-by-day comparisons with Chernobyl, but he added: ’For caesium and iodine … the source terms (amounts released from the two accidents) are not so different’.

http://www.globalmediapost.com/2011/03/24/9979/

and here:

Meanwhile, radiation trackers have measured the fission products over North America to reveal the extent of radiation released by the Fukushima accident. The measurements showed that in the first four days following the March 11 quake and tsunami, Fukushima Daiichi released Iodine-131 packing 4x1017 Becquerels of radiation, says Gerhard Wotawa, a radiation tracker at the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna. His team generated the estimates using data from the global detectors installed to enforce nuclear weapons test bans.

http://technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=37127

[reorg]

83. yawn, the page you linked is NOT the source document for the NS article

stop it already. What the hell is your point, anyway?

"For caesium and iodine … the source terms (amounts released from the two accidents) are not so different"

Do you have any information to the contrary?

[Hannah Bell]

86. If there is some other report the new scientist article is based on, please link it.

every source i've seen links the zamg page.

[reorg]

89. the source for the article cited in the OP is the New Scientist

In the article of the New Scientist, Dr. Wotawa is cited several times "as saying" this or that, including some details you cannot find in the briefings of the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics.

The NS article links to information on Dr. Wotawa, and it links at one point to one of the briefings, but that in no way implies that the entire article is based on this briefing.

Why is this so hard to understand?

The main point of Dr Wotawa, that cesium and iodine levels are already close to what had been released in Chernobyl, is made in the NS article as well as in the briefings, you can check it out, I gave you the links to the English translations.

More info on ZAMG in English:

http://www.zamg.ac.at/about/tasks/

[Hannah Bell]

93. zamg is the source for the new scientist article. it's where the estimates & the analysis originate.

[reorg]

95. sigh, Dr. Wotawa from the ZAMG is the source cited by the New Scientist

Why don't you call him and ask if you have doubts they quoted him correctly.

I find your bickering about one number mentioned in the article that Dr. Wotawa didn't mention yet in one of his daily briefs unnecessary and, frankly, ridiculous - given that there is no contradiction whatsoever. I would appreciate it too if someone would publish a more comprehensive explanation of the rough estimates by Dr. Wotawa, though.

[Hannah Bell]

96. zamg is the source for the analysis & extrapolations. wotawa is their employee

& the person who apparently did or led the analysis per other reports.

the page i linked is the source document linked in the new scientist report & other reports on the article.

as you allow, they are estimates based on 3 days readings in various locations.

if you don't see any contradictions between the zamg source & some of the reporting on it -- oh well.

[reorg]

98. the page you linked is NOT the source for the New Scientist report

I told you, you could have checked, if you continue making that claim you are simply lying.

I do not "allow" that the numbers are estimates, I translated for you from one of the ZAMG briefs that Dr Wotawa considers them "rough estimates".

There is no contradiction between the ZAMG briefs by Dr Wotawa and the New Scientist article. If you are confused, tell us your problem, maybe we can help.

[Hannah Bell]

99. you can bluster all you like. the zamg report is the source for the new scientist

reporting on the matter.

Austrian scientists have released what appears to be the first clear, independent data concerning radiation levels in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima radiation leak.

By releasing data from two monitoring stations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) from Japan and California, researchers from the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna have calculated backwards to estimate the true levels of radiation from Fukushima.

"The estimated source terms for iodine-131 are very constant, namely 1.3 x 10^17 becquerels per day for the first two days (US station) and 1.2 x 10^17 becquerels per day for the third day (Japan)," the institute said in a German-language statement posted on Wednesday on its website.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14938445,00.html


here is another (somewhat earlier) report on the same data set zamg drew from (ctbto monitoring).

Nature has also learned that initial CTBTO data suggest that a large meltdown at the Fukushima power plant has not yet occurred, although that assessment may change as more data flow in during the coming days. Lars-Erik De Geer, research director of the Swedish Defence Research Institute in Stockholm, which has access to the CTBTO data and uses it to provide the foreign ministry and other Swedish government departments with analyses, says that the data show high amounts of volatile radioactive isotopes, such as iodine and caesium, as well the noble gas xenon. But so far, the data show no high levels of the less volatile elements such as zirconium and barium that would signal that a large meltdown had taken place — elements that were released during the 1986 reactor explosion in Chernobyl in the Ukraine.

Rather, the data sit well, he says, with a scenario wherein the main release of radioactivity has come from the release of excess pressure in the containment vessels of affected reactors, and the subsequent explosion of the evacuated hydrogen-laden steam within the reactor buildings. The radioactive plume will spread around the hemisphere within weeks, he predicts, but the levels of radioactivity outside Japan will not be dangerous. The levels in Japan itself, outside the immediate vicinity of the Fukushima power plant, "wouldn't scare me", he adds.

De Geer and other scientists are keenly awaiting the fresh data that they will receive from CTBTO over the next few days. Initial data from a station near Tokyo were corrupted because the collection filters used in the sensors were contaminated earlier this week during handling when a plume of radioactivity fanned over the station building, according to Gerhard Wotawa, a researcher at Austria's weather service, the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna. That situation has now been resolved and better data are expected from tomorrow, he says.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110317/full/news.2011.168.html?s=news_rss


The Austrian institute's Dr Gerhard Wotawa stressed the two isotopes from Fukushima he had sought to estimate -- iodine-131 and caesium-137 -- normally make up only one tenth of total radiation.

Based on measurements made at monitoring stations in Japan and the United States, Wotawa said the iodine released from Fukushima in the first three-four days was about 20 percent of that released from Chernobyl during a ten-day period.

For Caesium-137, the figure could amount to some 50 percent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/23/us-japan-quake-radiation-chernobyl-idUSTRE72M6OV20110323

[reorg]

101. The New Scientist obviously talked to Dr Wotawa like any reporter would do

but this is apparently something you can't fathom and deny to accept even if someone points it out to you several times.

Instead, you insist that all the information by Dr Wotawa was drawn from one particular daily brief that happens to be linked in the New Scientist article - although it is clear that this daily brief does not contain all the information provided by Dr Wotawa. He is several times mentioned as "saying" and one sentence is even put in quotes, indicating that he said it literally. Now, I know that some journalists are cheating and only pretend to have spoken to a source, but let's just assume that the New Scientist has better standards and didn't do that. Anyway, you have no reason whatsoever to claim that this one daily brief linked in the article is the only source for Dr Wotawa's statements. The link is there to provide additional information on the institute, not to indicate the source for Dr Wotawa's claims. There are some 12 links in the entire article, all of them pointing to additional information on someone or something, not for the purpose of providing sources.

I have no idea what you are trying to say by quoting these three other articles. Nobody has ever denied that Dr Wotawa works for the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna. Nobody has ever denied that he publishes daily briefs. Yes, I have read all of them. He has pointed out from the start that his estimates only involve Cesium and Iodine, and that those elements are only a minor part of the total radiation released (although Cesium-137 is the most important in terms of long-term risks).

[Hannah Bell]

103. they didn't just "talk to" wotawa. the estimates are *from* wotawa & zamg.

so far as i see in the updates, there has been no new modeling incorporating any readings besides those at 3 stations in the first 3 days.

[reorg]

104. So?

[Hannah Bell]

100. did you even read the updated versions? from the 25th

Since the volatile gases and particles like Iodine-131 and Cesium-137 do only make up a certain proportion of the total effective dose rates, our estimate does not imply that the effective dose rates around the Fukushima plant are comparable with those measured around Chernobyl.

Using only the volatile substances Iodine-131 and Cesium-137 to calculate the effective dose rates, we end up with estimates that do not contradict the measurements provided by the Japanese Authorities and IAEA.

http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-03-25_1600_E_1.pdf

[reorg]

102. I already pointed this out in post #39

"Since the estimates only take into account readings of iodine-131 and cesium-137, they don't mean that local radiation levels in Japan are the same as in Chernobyl. They only explain the contamination found in foodstuffs. However, the observed contamination levels in foodstuffs are much higher than the rough estimates of the "source terms" would suggest."

[Hannah Bell]

105. there is nothing about foodstuffs in this link.

http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-03-25_1600_E_1.pdf

Update: 25 March 2011 16:00

which is the one given by you originally.

[reorg]

106. I provided the links in post #39

These daily briefs are somewhat repetitive, the fact that the measured elements are but a small part of the total has been stressed before. Here is the literal quote in German, from 23 March, including the remarks about foodstuffs (Lebensmittel):

"Nachdem Cäsium-137 und Jod-131 nur einen Bruchteil der Gesamtdosisleistung in der Umgebung des Reaktors ausmachen, heißt das nicht, dass lokale Strahlenbelastungen in Fukushima so hoch sind wie in Chernobyl. Die Quellterme erklären aber die Belastung der Lebensmittel und des Wassers. Die Dosisleistungen von Cäsium und Jod, die sich aus unserer Quellhypothese ergeben, sind viel geringer als die insgesamt in Japan beobachteten."

[Hannah Bell]

107. i'm not talking about the brief from the 23rd, i'm talking about the update from the 25th.

which says nothing about foodstuffs.

presumably if they were just repeating what they'd said on the 23rd, they would have just repeated it.

[reorg]

108. okay, let's keep this thread kicked

Could you please explain again what your point is?

I thought you found it significant that the elements ZAMG based its rough estimates on only form a small part of the total radiation, that the total radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuke emitted so far, measured in Sievert, could be quite different percentagewise to that released in Chernobyl, it could be much less for instance than the percentages of Cesium and Iodine estimated by ZAMG might suggest. ZAMG has no data on other elements, so they don't make any statements about other elements, and they have consistently pointed this out.

The additional remark about foodstuffs is insofar interesting as it points out that the observed level of contamination may indicate an even higher amount of Cesium and Iodine released than estimated by ZAMG.

The daily briefs are not literal repetitions plus some additional information, but I think they often repeat certain statements in these briefs so that readers get the picture without having to read all of them.

[DeSwiss]

41. K&R

Department of Atmospheric and Climate Research, The Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU)

I-131, Cs-137, and Xe-133 isotope "potential" dispersion maps.

The below maps show what is referred to as the "Lagrangian Particle Dispersion Model" (FLEXPART) for the dispersion of Xenon-133. The dispersion map models for showing Cesium-137 and Iodine-131 are also available, and they mainly show these isotopes as being concentrated at present mainly around the area of the Fukushima nuclear reactors -- but these map models are also available at this link.

http://transport.nilu.no/browser/fpv_fuku?fpp=conccol_Xe-133_;region=NH">
http://transport.nilu.no/browser/fpv_fuku?fpp=conccol_Xe-133_;region=NH">LINK

http://transport.nilu.no/browser/fpv_fuku?fpp=conccol_Xe-133_;region=DMANC1">
http://transport.nilu.no/browser/fpv_fuku?fpp=conccol_Xe-133_;region=DMANC1">LINK

http://transport.nilu.no/products/fukushima">Main Page Link

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Who's next?





DeSwiss

[Kablooie]

42. Tokyo is just 80 miles away. The world may be in for a huge shakeup before long.

Damn if the 2012 predictions are looking more accurate every day.

[Hannah Bell]

45. 80 miles, 170 miles, what does it matter?

[Kablooie]

72. Chernobyl affected 150,000k. That's a radius of about 240 miles.

[BrookBrew]

60. Wow.. If the USAF right now dropped a B-61 thermonuclear weapon on that plant

the radiological event would still be less in scale than the open air tests conducted in Nevada.

Under the assumption that the plant explodes its core into the air the events are known.

This is not new science, godzilla will not emerge from the sea.

If there is a curiosity you can read the NEJM data on testing. Which was done in nevada..

[Hissyspit]

47. Accumulated 24-Hour Radiation 30 Km Northwest of Fukushima Exeeds Annual Limit on Natural Dose

Source: Reuters

@Reuters
Reuters Top News
FLASH: Accumulated 24-hour radiation 30 km northwest of Fukushima plant exceeds annual limit on natural dose - kyodo

Read more: http://twitter.com/#!/Reuters/status/51123597728681984

[grahamhgreen]

48. What does that mean?

[sakabatou]

49. It means that getting cancer or getting radiation poison

may happen at a higher rate. I think.

[grahamhgreen]

50. I qonder how long before that exposure would lead to radiation sickness?

[reorg]

52. not radiation sickness, but increased rates of cancer, genetic defects, deformed babies etc. n/t

[BrookBrew]

59. Lifetimes..

http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/

[grahamhgreen]

75. I've seen that chart, but remember even one x-ray has a chance of giving you cancer.

[BrookBrew]

77. And one drink can kill your liver

one good wank can cause a heart attack. One X ray does not cause cancer in the VAST majority of people who get them.

That is fear based analysis and should be expected of people afraid to leave their homes, not rational thinkers.

[grahamhgreen]

81. The idea is to reduce one's exposure to radiation to a minimum.

[BrookBrew]

85. Yes of course. However there is a long way from this event to hiroshima

or Chernobyl.

[reorg]

51. more details

The annual radiation dose limit for the general public is 1 mSv, so it would take a level of 42 microsievert per hour to reach that dose within 24 hours.

As of March 22, the IAEA reported:

The IAEA took measurements at additional locations between 35 to 68 km from the Fukushima plant. The dose-rate results ranged from 0.8 to 9.1 microsieverts per hour. The beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.08 to 0.9 MBq per square metre. More precise interpretation of the results will be possible based on measurements to be made of the composition of the radioactive material that has been released.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima220311.html

According to Dr. Sebastian Pflugbeil, president of the (German) Society for Radiation Protection (http://www.gfstrahlenschutz.de/en/index.html), the Russian authorities designated local contaminations of more than 555,000 Bequerel per square meter as "hot spots". This is the same order of magnitude as the measurements found between 16 and 58 km northwest of the Fukushima nuclear plant. The extension of that area is comparable in size to the exclusion zone west of Chernobyl.

Zur Bewertung liegt ein Blick zurück auf die Situation nach Tschernobyl nahe. Hot spots wurden von den russischen Behörden damals als lokal begrenzte Kontaminationen von mehr als 555.000 Becquerel pro Quadratmeter definiert. Das ist die Größenordnung, die in Japan zwischen 16 und 58 km von der IAEA gemessen wurde. Die Ausdehnung dieser Zone in Japan ist vergleichbar mit der Sperrzone westlich von Tschernobyl.

http://www.gfstrahlenschutz.de/pm110323.htm

[caraher]

53. Very confused language

How can there be a limit on "natural dose?"

It should compare the actual dose to a typical annual background, or to a regulatory limit (which is another number, though they're generally comparable.

Or actually say what the dose was!

[reorg]

54. yes, "natural" is a bad choice of words

What they mean, obviously, is this:

"The dose limit to non-radiation workers and members of the public are two percent of the annual occupational dose limit. Therefore, a non-radiation worker can receive a whole body dose of no more that 0.1 rem/year from industrial ionizing radiation. This exposure would be in addition to the 0.3 rem/year from natural background radiation and the 0.05 rem/year from man-made sources such as medical x-rays."

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/safe_use/exposure.htm

[Hotler]

55. k&r Thanks Octafish n/t

[hayu_lol]

67. Thanks Hannah for the remarks about the poor quality of the...

translation from German to English. It is almost like two different articles.

Big differences between the Japanese plant and Chernobyl...one is that Chernobyl had NO containment vessel and two, Chernobyl was a graphite reactor(old tech and crude in comparison).

Failure here was not the fault of the reactors...initial problem was caused by an earthquake of such intensity that only 4 have been noted since recording of earthquakes began.

Serious--sure. End of life as we know it? No. Had the emergency powerplants been protected like the reactor buildings...there might have been NO incident to liven up our dreary lives.

[reorg]

69. the poor quality of Hannah's Google translation is obvious

to German native speakers (I happen to be one myself, so feel free to ask anything if you are confused about the translation).

However, the New Scientist did not rely on Google, they interviewed the source. The daily reports published by the Austrian institute are completely in line with what the New Scientist reported, the New Scientist is the source for, and cited accurately in USA Today.

[fascisthunter]

70. thank you...

that one is going on ignore... I'm done with the BS artists.

[BrookBrew]

78. Be sure to read "The Road" its a great tutorial

for fear based end of the world lifestyle... When is this going to be worse than Chernobyl and Hiroshima COMBINED!!