Image: Abode of Chaos/Flickr
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in March released far more radiation than the Japanese government has claimed. So concludes a study1 that combines radioactivity data from across the globe to estimate the scale and fate of emissions from the shattered plant.
The study also suggests that, contrary to government claims, pools used to store spent nuclear fuel played a significant part in the release of the long-lived environmental contaminant caesium-137, which could have been prevented by prompt action. The analysis has been posted online for open peer review by the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Andreas Stohl, an atmospheric scientist with the Norwegian Institute for Air Research in Kjeller, who led the research, believes that the analysis is the most comprehensive effort yet to understand how much radiation was released from Fukushima Daiichi. "It's a very valuable contribution," says Lars-Erik De Geer, an atmospheric modeler with the Swedish Defense Research Agency in Stockholm, who was not involved with the study.
The reconstruction relies on data from dozens of radiation monitoring stations in Japan and around the world. Many are part of a global network to watch for tests of nuclear weapons that is run by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization in Vienna. The scientists added data from independent stations in Canada, Japan and Europe, and then combined those with large European and American caches of global meteorological data.
Stohl cautions that the resulting model is far from perfect. Measurements were scarce in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima accident, and some monitoring posts were too contaminated by radioactivity to provide reliable data. More importantly, exactly what happened inside the reactors — a crucial part of understanding what they emitted — remains a mystery that may never be solved. "If you look at the estimates for Chernobyl, you still have a large uncertainty 25 years later," says Stohl.
Nevertheless, the study provides a sweeping view of the accident. "They really took a global view and used all the data available," says De Geer.
Challenging numbers
Japanese investigators had already developed a detailed timeline of events following the 11 March earthquake that precipitated the disaster. Hours after the quake rocked the six reactors at Fukushima Daiichi, the tsunami arrived, knocking out crucial diesel back-up generators designed to cool the reactors in an emergency. Within days, the three reactors operating at the time of the accident overheated and released hydrogen gas, leading to massive explosions. Radioactive fuel recently removed from a fourth reactor was being held in a storage pool at the time of the quake, and on 14 March the pool overheated, possibly sparking fires in the building over the next few days.
But accounting for the radiation that came from the plants has proved much harder than reconstructing this chain of events. The latest report from the Japanese government, published in June, says that the plant released 1.5 × 1016 bequerels of caesium-137, an isotope with a 30-year half-life that is responsible for most of the long-term contamination from the plant. A far larger amount of xenon-133, 1.1 × 1019 Bq, was released, according to official government estimates.
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentAnyone who has been following this closely knows that the Japanese govt was covering up the real numbers from the beginning, and even admitted doing so at one time. That's what governments do best, they cover up or downplay disasters so that no one panics, and so they can get re-elected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom what I've seen, the total release in terms of becquerels was at least comparable to the official numbers for Chernobyl, probably more - but then the official numbers for Chernobyl (and Three Mile Island) were probably much lower than the true amounts.
The Japanese government Lies, Lies lies and Lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting article, sort-of buries the lede. The key bit is this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<i>The latest analysis also presents evidence that xenon-133 began to vent from Fukushima Daiichi immediately after the quake, and before the tsunami swamped the area. This implies that even without the devastating flood, the earthquake alone was sufficient to cause damage at the plant.</i>
This isn't the official story at all - in fact it's been officially denied:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20811-did-quake-or-tsunami-cause-fukushima-meltdown.html
...but it matches what Jake Adelstein (who normally specializes in organized crime - there seem to more overlap than we might like) has been reporting:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-explosive-truth-behind-fukushimas-meltdown-2338819.html
They lied??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout that?
This constitutes a crime against humanity.
They lied??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout that?
This constitutes a crime against humanity.
The Japanese politicians lied about an event threatening the safety of the people of their own country as well as the safety others? D'oh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've all heard the joke, right?
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His (or her) mouth is open.
If there is anyone that finds this surprising, please type in your name, address, SSN, bank account & credit card numbers here. I have the most amazing money-making scheme to tell you about, but I need all that information first...
Geez...
How much have the American, Russian & Chinese governments known--and actively hidden -- about this? A domestic Japanese panic may be the smallest part of a far larger global problem. If you were the POTUS, you might get the 3 a.m phone call over this, hang up and go back to sleep. What else could you really do?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypical antinuclear horsepucky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...The fact that three reactors exploded in the Fukushima accident accounts for the huge xenon tally, says De Geer. "
This is a complete utter fabrication - no reactors exploded.
"..The analysis has been posted online for open peer review by the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics"
This is an effort to gain respectability for what is essentially junk science. The work will be completely thrashed by peer review but that fact will not be covered by Big Oil media like Sci American.
So the government says there was 1.5 × 10^16 Bq of Cs-137 and 1.1 × 10^19 Bq of Xe-133, and the new study says 3.5 × 10^16 Bq of Cs-137 and 1.7 × 10^19 Bq of Xe-133 ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat seems really good agreement to me.
If they found a factor of 1000 higher it would be different, but within a factor of 3 is very close considering all the uncertainties in estimating the amount of material released.
So Seth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes this mean you're volunteering to go into the plants and take photos to prove this massive "Big Oil" conspiracy?
Isn't a magazine like SciAm supposed to release peer-reviewed studies only ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case I can't believe paranoids are already accusing the Japanese authorities to hide information when even the source says that the discrepancies are not that big and quite plausible given the time scale and data source of the two models. Did they at least read the article ?
Also what matters is the radioactive materials susceptible to pollute the ground, and they are easy to measure, thus whatever the accuracy of this study, it has no impact on health & radio-protection plans.
This is tabloid 'reporting'! It is the kind of inaccurate sensationalizing thAT I NEVER thought I would see in Scientific American!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this”The fact that three reactors exploded"! WRONG! Three containment buildings were destroyed by explosions. The editor of SciAm should apologize for this, and retract the article.
I do not dispute that Fukushima was a nuclear disaster, and that it could have been handled better, but SciAm has contributed only misinformation through this poor reporting. I am embarrassed for you!
I agree with fastartcee. Scientific American is threatening to become an irrelevant source of information and analysis if it doesn't increase the readership. How else do you define tabloid? Not reviewed and not accurate by its own definition. Why read the junk? Inaccurate, but Chernobyl was inaccurate, too. So comparing two inaccurate examples means that yours is more accurate. The logic fails me. How did you get from the subtitle to the title? Oh I know, the title is what people click on to read. It has to have sex appeal or build on some other human fear to sell magazines. I'm surprised you didn't lead with a picture of a bikini clad model with lesions all over her face from radiation damage. You could use a computer image-morphing software to generate the lesions. It would give the "sweep" of the idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince folks in low cancer rate Ramsar, Iran receive far higher annual radiation doses than a person standing at the front gate of Fukushima would have received, I'd have no worries visiting outside the plant. Inside I'll wait for the robots to finish up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe values in Bq in this article are all incorrect. They should be in scientific notation, so, e.g., x1019 should be 10^(or exp or superscript) 19.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe link to the Nature article at the end of this story is also incorrect.
The link to Nature shows an article from 2007. It probably refers to another nuclear incient or accident in Japan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Isn't a magazine like SciAm supposed to release peer-reviewed studies only ?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, Sciam attempts to make scientific research results available to the general public.
As such it does not release peer-reviewed studies.
In general, Sciam does an adequate if not very good job of relating difficult scientific information to the public.
This article has some errors that are mostly due to printing and formatting problems. On the whole it is an adequate report.
Also, the link "first published" points to an article in Nature magazine entitled: "Published online 25 October 2011 | Nature 478, 440 (2011) | doi:10.1038/478440a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNews
Fetal gene screening comes to market"
Perhaps the Sciam editors should correct the erroneous pointers.
Finally, I may have to downgrade my opinion about this article further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI cannot find any reference to this study in the journal "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics".
How many people were killed by the earth and tsunami?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many were killed by radiation?
Notice nobody bothers checking for levels of chemical & biological toxins and carcinogens released by the earthquake & tsunami, including horrendous Oil & Gas fires. Just take one of many deadly substances released - asbestos. Virtually no monitoring of the thousands of tons of asbestos fibers released into the environment. And by-the-way large amounts of that asbestos is heading to the West Coast with large debris fields washed into the ocean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSafe Asbestos removal is required for all building and industrial site demolition. This involves an extremely tedious & difficult procedure involving a decontamination facility for the workers to enter the site, full body protection & breathing apparatus for workers, water spray, plastic sheeting & hazardous waste removal containers. Electric powered tools are not acceptable - hand tools must be used. These regulations are being totally ignored for the Japan earthquake/tsunami damaged area - which extends as far as Tokyo. Unlike for radioisotope decontamination which is being done according to regulations & standards, the asbestos fibers are NOT being monitoring and tons of asbestos containing debris is being burnt in piles releasing the asbestos fibers into the atmosphere.
Know any Hollywood personality who died of radiation? No you can't. Actor Steve McQueen died of an asbestos related cancer - caused by handling asbestos pipe insulation when he was in the Navy.
Notice NOT ONE A ARTICLE in Scientific American on the Asbestos danger after the Tsunami/Earthquake vs over 90 on the Radiation danger. Another example of the double standard against Nuclear - those taxpayer funded Oil dollars at work.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42783963/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/japan-disasters-other-hidden-danger-asbestos/
The title of the article is misleading. What the study actually claims is double the total amount of the highly volatile isotope Cs-137 was released as previously determined. Most of it released into the sea. Although, that may or may not be true, far more radioisotopes were released in the Chernobyl explosion, since the entire core exploded, releasing a portion into the environment, mostly isotopes of Uranium. This DID NOT happen at Fukushima. The Cs-137 will dissipate into the environment gradually over a few years, and simple procedures greatly reduce its emissions, like simple-minded pressure washing of surfaces reduces radioactivity by 70%:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110829003977.htm
So even in the most contaminated areas, simple pressure washing reduces radioactivity to a low 26 mSv/yr vs some areas which receive ~130 mSv/yr with natural background radiation (with no detrimental bad health effects). Two whole body CT scans will add 24 mSv dose.
The elephant in the room is WHERE DID THE SPENT FUEL POOL AT UNIT 3 GO? The containment (o.k. seth, not the reactor) at Units 1 and 3 exploded (we saw it on TV) due to hydrogen gas. Unit 3, the plutonium MOX reactor, detonated with a mushroom cloud thousands of feet into the air, and when the dust settled, the top 3 floors of the containment building were gone. The reactor's spent fuel pool, (same design as at VT Yankee, Pilgrim, Oyster Creek and others) was on the top floor of the reactor building that blew up. How many fuel assemblies were in it? Where did they go? Spent fuel pieces were found up to a mile away from the reactor site. Fuel pools generally hold many thousands of times more radioactivity than the reactor itself. Even without knowing whether the reactors themselves were emptied of their contents, it is easy to figure out how much radiation was released by knowing how much was in the fuel pools that were totally destroyed in the explosions. That will be the major source of the contamination. Fuel pool 4 partially melted down. But fuel pools 1 and 3 were utterly destroyed. TePCO knows this. NRC knows this. The Japanese government knows this. All are covering up the biggest industrial disaster known to man. They all know as well, that this could and is likely to happen again, given any long term power disruption that prevents cooling the spent fuel. Solar storms, anyone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know what you're smoking dude but you better cut back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe radiation levels throughout the region as reported in the latest IRSN analysis are very low compared to natural radiation levels that exist in many places in the World, like Ramsar, Iran - where there is no elevated cancer or health risk. So you are talking nonsense. It is easy to measure and document radiation unlike your deadly Oil & Gas emissions that settled all over Japan, which the Japanese gov't is just ignoring because it would be just too much work to gather up hundreds of millions of samples - send them to a lab for analysis and then evacuate 20 or more million citizens because a half dozen carcinogens are well above acceptable limits.
hps.org/documents/IRSN_Fukushima_Report.pdf
Maybe you might take the trouble to read an authentic account of the incident - latest confirmed evidence - instead of reading Greenpeace's fable that they made up while wallowing in a cesspool of Big Oil payola:
world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html