This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"Understanding The Radioactivity At Fukushima" - A Physics And Engineering Perspective
Recently, the world was subjected to the worst kind of manipulative propganda: that emanating from a so-called scientist who used his tenuous affiliation with MIT to lend his ideas credibility and spread outright disinformation and propagate a false sense of calm, which may have well cost people their lives as it came just days ahead of the biggest explosions seen at Fukushima last week. Today we present what an actual objective, scientific analysis of the risks and pitfalls at Fukushima should look like, courtesy of Ben Monreal of the USCB department of physics. Is this is a comprehensive overview of all that could go wrong (and right)? Of course not- after all the Japanese government still refuses to release actual actionable information (the world should be demanding thermal imagery from Fukushima, but oddly isn't). But under the existing conditions, this is probably one of the better reports we have read on the matter.
Understanding the radioactivity at Fukushima (pdf)
h/t Themos Mitsos
»
- 25505 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Thanks for the film, BD. Everyone and his brother, and may I say Particularly the Japanese People, should watch this film from beginning to end.
Perhaps the most important message of this film has to do with all the lies that were propagated by the authorities. This pattern is there already in the Fukashima disaster. That's really why people need to watch this film--to understand that all authorities around the world, including for example, western powers, lied about Chernobyl. Therefore it is wise to assume the same thing concerning Fukashima. The people who were lied to lost everything, their homes, their health, and their lives.
Here's the URL for this again http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5384001427276447319#
pulled it out of his ass...
Robots Bob. Robots. Japan makes them. Please keep up.
Nice piece. After something as detailed and clear as that, maybe even still some confusion on the micro/milli relationship.
1000 micros in a milli. The 5000 millis will kill you. So that's 5,000,000 micros.
Guaranteed, of course, that the media would screw up the units here and there, leading to either dramatic overstatement or understatement of risk. Can't count on anyone to get the shit right, it would seem.
The reference on slide 13 can be read online at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=R1
The curves on p270 are interesting. In short, if you're exposed to 1 Sv when you are 30, and you live to be 80, you have about a 0.5%, or 1 in 200, chance of contracting cancer as a result (excluding thyroid & nonmelanoma skin cancer), and about a 1 in 285 chance of dying from it. I'm assuming these graphs are cumulative cases/deaths - I think they must be. The models for these curves are based on Japanese A-bomb survivors (p274).
This is very interesting, because if you go to any of the online X-ray risk calculators (eg http://www.xrayrisk.com/calculator/calculator.php) and select a pelvic-abdominal CT scan on a 30 year old subject, you'll see the dose is about 14mSv and the resulting cancer risk is 0.123%, or about 1 in 800.
If the "linear no threshold" theory of radiation risk were correct, the risk at 1Sv ought to be 71 times higher than the risk at 14mSv, or about 8.7%, or 1 in 11.
Something, you might say, doesn't add up.
The report does discuss the difference between exposure via radioactive substances and X-rays on p276, and suggests that low energy X-rays may carry two or three times the risk (per dose) compared to high energy radiation.
Still doesn't add up!
I've posted this because I keep getting confused over relative risks at different dose levels, in part because I keep trying to apply what I know about X-ray risk to radioactive substances. It looks like this can't be done, or at least, has some serious issues.
The other thing about the OP that confused me is how the effects of 1SV can be so minor when the LD50 (lethal dose that kills 50% of subjects receiving it) for radiation used to be quoted as 450 rems, which is 4.5Sv. The answer to this, I think, is that 4.5Sv over a short space of time will induce accute radiation sickness at a level which is often fatal, whereas that induced by 1Sv usually wont be fatal, and that accute radiation sickness is a different beast from long term cancer risk.
It's not so much the external radiation exposure that's the problem. It's the contamination. When you absorb radioative particles into your body (via air, water, food), they come into close contact with bodily tissues creating much more damage until they decay or are elminated. For example, plutonium-239 that reaches body organs generally stays in the body for decades and continues to expose the surrounding tissue to radiation and thus may cause cancer. Even a single particle of Pu-239, lodged in the lung, can cause lung cancer.
No matter how you think of the dose/frequency curve, logically these things can't be plotted to a zero-point, because even if you never have an X-ray and live underground most of your life, there's a baseline cancer risk associated with being a human being.
Cancer is very signficantly predicted by genetic predisposition as well.
All the exposure/risk data should be remembered to be descriptive of past events, not as much predictive of future ones.
It sounds like the damage model is that acute full body exposure in a short time (less than 1 day) has overwhelming systemic effects. Low level exposure over a long time is like an increase in background radiation which biology already has evolved to handle, but only at or below a specific rate, so exceeding the rate of repair is the bad part.
There might also be specific damage that is not repairable, like slowly developing cancer that does not face evolutionary pressure. I think this is the component that means there is no minimum exposure threshold.
The UCSB presentation goes a long way to help clarify the exposure measurements (checking wikipedia also works, but you might have to do some math). However, everyone knows the fallout plume is a snaky thing whipped around by the wind, so it takes a lot of distance to be totally safe.
Zircaloy Fire Scenario
What I would like to see is an analysis of chances for zircaloy fire given current conditions. The scenario that concerns me is some burst of material makes the site too hot to have anyone near it for a day or so until remotely controlled fire hoses can be set up, then the water all boils off, the spent fuel rods collapse in a jumble, fuel melts, gets hot enough to ignite the zircaloy, fuel material becomes airborne in a corium bon fire.
The usual model of neatly melting from the top might not apply to rods that are brittle from repeated air exposure and quenching. There is an aspect of chaos here... the sand pile avalanche model applied to a jumble of spent fuel rods. Collapsing fuel rods end up deeper in water, but they are then closer together which boils the water faster.
Rate of steam production is probably a good measure of risk as long as there is water in the storage pools.
Someone commented that worst case is all reactors burning as if a zircaloy fire could jump from one reactor spent fuel pool to another. The ignition temperatures are very high, so there is no chance of this kind of fire spreading. (Nevertheless, one zircaloy fire will prevent the addition of water to other pools.)
As someone else wrote, this report was authored on 3/13.
As I pointed out, the good professor is a big cash recipient of The U.S. Department of Energy.
Now, I'm no nuclear physicist, but when I consider the above two facts, which alone seem benign enough, and couple with them the fact that much of the harm the professor claims won't happen has seemed to happen, I smell the distinct aroma of bullshit wafting from the orifices of academia, yet again.
Let me guess, in these matters we should consult the local shaman for a summary or perhaps some random ZH poster?
The report is not bullshit. Does it reflect the true situation at Fukashima? Probably not, as there have been a number of developements since then.
Is it trying to minimize the situation? No, it is only putting some perspective in place.
I remember the exact same thing being said of Josef Oehmen's planted 'article,' in the immediate days after it's 'release.'
I am not saying that I know that Monreal is on the same agenda that I believe is now nearly certain of Oehmen, but I am saying that when one takes all the facts and developments into consideration, and weighs them against Monreal's ties, claims and other interesting tidbits, that it is a distinct possibility that he is wrong on many counts, and for reasons that may or may not be attributable to plain vanilla misdiagnosis.
Part of the problem is that anytime big money is involved, the money can always trot out some expert with no moral integrity that will explain "black is white"....
I did not read the Oehman article....
I don't what your view of GW is, but the game is played in spades there.
Yes, the author of this piece makes the INCREDIBLE claim that the "worst public health effects from Chernobyl were stress/fair."
Sure.
Whatever.
What a crock of shit.
Anyone who has studied or casually reviewed the statistics on Chernobyl or watched any documentary films about the incident would not buy that line of bullshit, and that one claim right there is so incredibly disingenuous, I harken to think what could have motivated it from an apparently well educated nuclear physicist.
For shits and giggles, compare the number of coal mining deaths in the FSU with the number of Chernobyl fatalities, you might be surprised.
Don't misunderstand me, Chernobyl was criminal.
But Oehmen was correct. The media in the early days was saying stupid impossible things. I never bought in to the rest of his thesis.
Thanks for posting this. It jives with the story of another nuclear scientist I've chatted with who offered essentially the same story, namely that the pollution from coal burning energy production is significantly more dangerous than that of nuclear power energy production.
the pollution from coal burning energy production is significantly more dangerous than that of nuclear power energy production.
That is pretty much undisputed. OTOH an accident at a coal fired plant.....
And you must also consider that energy=civilization.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/03/bill-is-oil-slick.html
Tyler, A big THANK YOU! Thank you for helping get my youtube video out to people in the radiation zone in Japan. I owe all of you at Zero thanks in that effort. You inspire me.
When I first asked the question could this work? I work with science grade ccds and see gamma,beta, cosmics, neutrons etc. However I had no idea you could see gamma/beta with a cheap digital camera. I think young people in physics can help their neighborhoods understand their environments. If I had young children I know this would help me feel safer.
Again thank you all for helping get this out to schools and universities all over the world.
I will be creating another video using simple household lead glass crystal, Pyrex cookware (shot those with data today). This I think will help even more people:)
Here is the link again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Q7VfWdgEg
I can't tell you how much this means to me.
Andrew
More on the KI dosage.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/16/potassium_iodide_pills.php
MIT Nuclear Science website with updates on the situation. Radiation and temps seem to be dropping.
http://mitnse.com/
Hey AS this might be in response to your kumbaya.
Ok I got it now. It's all good.
Slow Death. Fast Death.
We like it so much we all go there.
This presentation was far better than anything put out so far by our vast, multi-billion dollar/year federal nuclear bureaucracy.
Pretty upbeat conclusions.
On the other hand, he does give us the key to the question:
With basic measurement units we all agree on, we can even calculate mothballing costs.
like Buffet said and I see every fucking day when my staff in IT come to ask me for a budget to build some stupid fucking alienware they dreamt of the night before.
"Befuckingware of geeks with an idea
Jesus, they actually believe the shit they say. The MIT dipshit is simply an example of the most common problem in academia these days.
The fucking morons have never worked in their lives, they have no fucking idea how anything REALLY Works and they have no life experience. They are fucking spawn of some IVY league deuche who never worked either. They are told to build shit with nop fucking idea what they are doing. I called bullshit when MIT dick was introduced here.
You could tell the guy was a plant. He was far too sure of himself which meant he was an IVY league wet dream special.
I fired m network guyt he other day cause he swore up and down the network was fully secure.
I told him I built the network and if a dipshit like me built it - you fucking know it been compromised. He should have told me I was a dick and knew shit. I woudl have promoted the fool.
He thought it was funny. You just can't get good help anymore they are IPAD knobs with needle dicks for brains.
ahem,,,, I'm Ok now
Hey MR maybe a little bumpy but nice run.
nice rant. glad it helped, MR! yes, indeed, although these clowns keep insisting the map is the territory, the territory is so "in yer face" right now, as to demand nothing but honest empiricism, the total lack of which is the most telling fact of the past week-plus, since the quake and tsunami.
we still do not know what quantities of fuels and waste were subjected to what levels of heat for what periods of time, and we probably never will. and what about the next time we need someone to serve on a Warren Commission or explain what happened on a 9/11 to the American People? well, high-level japanese "scientists" and their political "counterparts" will certainly be the benchmark for obscuration, for a good, long time. the academentoes "ain't got nothin" on these devious shitheaded fascist asswipes.
Hey you have the same job as me.
"A half competent person is a man with one eye in a world full of blind people".
"Entomb it in sand and concrete."
Because sandcastles on the sea shore are such a great idea in the long run.
Even if they can briefly work. http://everist.org/pics/sandcastle_shore/19980222_Sandcastle_in_surf.htm
Great summary, but his conclusions don't follow from the facts presented, especially the condition of those facilities and the amount of damage to the rods.
I have as much fun as anyone laughing at the tin hat crowd, but this is not over and all those living in or near Japan are right to be very worried.
Very tough situation still--even reactors 5 and 6, the least damaged, are still heating up when they are cooling the spent fuel pool instead....temperatures like these (over 100C) could lead to bad consequences pretty quickly if not dealt with.
The power company measured the water temperature of the spent fuel pool in the No.5 reactor and found it had decreased from 68.8 degrees Celsius at 5 AM Saturday to 43.1 degrees at 3 AM Sunday.
After the cooling pump at the No. 6 reactor was restored, the water temperature dropped more than 15 degrees, from 67.5 degrees Celsius at 11PM Saturday to 52 degrees at 3 AM Sunday.
On the other hand, the water temperature of the reactor vessels is rising.
The water temperature was 194.5 degrees Celsius in the No.5 reactor and 152.4 degrees in the No. 6 reactor at 6 PM Saturday.
Those temperatures are lower than when the reactors are in operation, but they are increasing.
The power company says it will begin cooling the reactor water as soon as the spent fuel rod pools are cooled down.
It hopes to restore connections to external power sources to cool down the reactors in a stable manner.
Yes - I would be allocating resources to 5 & 6, as those have best chance of any to stabilize with some effort. They have the least damage right now ... & lowest radiation levels.
The rest ... FUBAR.
Jberni with a frank, open opinion about Fukishima and Japanese leadership. Obviously related to observations about Chernobyl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_db_AeHvIU&feature=feedu
Funny how all of this muddling through and incompetent leadership is managing to bring stability and control to the damaged power plants. Best guess is a slow, continuing, lowering of risk over time.
Don't confuse the issues. Keeping 600,000 unprotected spent fuel rods on-site was stupid. But given that, and in light of the damage the crew was facing, success needs no excuse.
New venting is thought to be more radioactive than the previous venting. Workers being cleared.
Radioactive air to be released from No.3 reactor
Workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant will release air that contains radioactive substances to reduce pressure inside the Number 3 reactor.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency told a news conference on Sunday afternoon that air will be released directly from the container vessel later in the day.
Usually, air from the vessel is released through a suppression pool to reduce the amount of radioactive substances.
The agency says workers who are preparing to pour water into the reactor and installing power cables will first be evacuated.
It adds that more radioactive substances will be released, but that the agency and Tokyo Electric Power Company agreed that this has to be done.
Sunday, March 20, 2011 13:40 +0900 (JST)
"The agency said the workers will first try to vent gases through a suppression pool to reduce the amount of radioactive substances released into the environment.
If the pressure doesn't decline, the officials will release gases directly from the vessel. If that happens, the level of radioactive iodine in the air will increase by 100-fold."
Question: If venting via supression pool cannot be achieved, does that mean supression pool is thoroughly compromised?
It's not possible that the bad and increasingly worse things are happening.
Dr. Oehmen and Dr. Monreal said a) there's no reason to worry about Fukushima Daiichi and b) the biggest effect Fukushima Daiichi will have is stress/fear.
All is well.
Here's why Uranium coming in contact with water, especially highly enriched Uranium in the presence of plutonium would be a very dangerous thing:
U.S. Occupational Health And Safety website
http://tinyurl.com/4f4wd44
So it reacts with water to form a hydride, releasing hydrogen in large quantities, that in the case of Chernobyl may very well have caused a chain reaction to consume the rest of the nuclear fuel.
We're not talking just 5 megatons here. More like 50.
... and when things couldn't get worse here's another Japanese guy crying:
along with the Zimbabweans. Hell, even Zimbabwe is feeling the afterschocks.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1627135.php/Japanese-ambassador-cries-as-Zimbabwe-donation-ceremony-cancelled
The mainstream press has this relegated to anecdotal status.
This cannot be good as you can bet your bottom dollar that if it were good, it would be back on the front page in triumphal fashion.
If an earthquake or a tsunami were to compromise the integrity and mechanical operations of an electrical generator that used hemp fuels as a source of power then it goes without saying that there would be no release of dangerous radiation into the environment at all. If the generator experienced complete destruction and all of the fluids and fuel came spilling out of its guts we wouldn't have to worry about burying it in a sarcough-a-gus either. Take that.
With news reports and images of thick smoke billowing out of Fukushima Daiichi this morning, rapidly escalating temperatures, and recent reports of sping radiation well outside the 30km zone in Japan, it's comforting to know we had the expertise and clairvoyant abilities of Oehmen & Monreal to let us know that none of this would happen.