Remember Fukushima: Presenting The Radioactive Seawater Impact Map

Tyler Durden's picture

A few days after the one year anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, nobody talks about it anymore. After all it's "fixed", and if it isn't, the Fed will fix it. Remember in the New Normal nothing bad is allowed the happen. So for those who have forgotten, here is a reminder.

From ASR, a global coastal and marine consulting firm, The Radioactive Seawater Impact Map

We use a Lagrangian particles dispersal method to track where free floating material (fish larvae, algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton...) present in the sea water near the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station plant could have gone since the earthquake on March 11th. THIS IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME CONCENTRATION. Since we do not know exactly how much contaminated water and at what concentration was released into the ocean, it is impossible to estimate the extent and dilution of the plume. However, field monitoring by TEPCO showed concentration of radioactive Iodine and Cesium higher than the legal limit during the next two months following the event (with a peak at more than 100 Bq/cm3 early April 2011 for I-131 as shown by the following picture).

Assuming that a part of the passive biomass could have been contaminated in the area, we are trying to track where the radionuclides are spreading as it will eventually climb up the food chain. The computer simulation presented here is obtained by continuously releasing particles at the site during the 2 months folllowing the earthquake and then by tracing the path of these particles. The dispersal model is ASR's Pol3DD. The model is forced by hydrodynamic data from the HYCOM/NCODA system which provides on a weekly basis, daily oceanic current in the world ocean. The resolution in this part of the Pacific Ocean is around 8km x 8km cells. We are treating only the sea surface currents. The dispersal model keeps a trace of their visits in the model cells. The results here are expressed in number of visit per surface area of material which has been in contact at least once with the highly concentrated radioactive water.

h/t Nolsgrad

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
palmereldritch's picture

I smell smoke....[stealth] Gaia theory and AGW is your smokescreen isn't it?

SoCalBusted's picture

The lefties know this too, the problem is that they oversimplify the equation down to a few variables,attempt to control those through policy and then are shocked that there are unintended consequences.  Then they add in just one more variable, rinse and repeat.

merizobeach's picture

'Global warming' has always been a misnomer. A more accurate observation would be 'global climatic destabilization'.

I wonder what will happen with that methane being released from thawing permafrost.

Taint Boil's picture



Dear Mr. Miilion Dollar Bonus,

Thank you for coming to Zero Hedge and teaching us about the weather.

Some day when I become supreme Ultra-Lord of the universe I will not make you a slave, you will live in my 200 story castle where unicorn servants will feed your doughnuts off their horns.
I will personally make you a throne that is half platnum and half solid gold and jewel ecnrested.
Thank you again for teaching us about climate change, you’re more awesome than a monkey wearing a tuxedo made out of bacon riding a cyborg unicorn with a lightsaber for the horn on the tip of a space shuttle closing in on Mars, while ingulfed in flames….And in case you didn’t know, that’s pretty dang sweet.

Sincerely, Taint Boil.


Credit belongs to this little guy --> Link

merizobeach's picture

Well, that space shuttle engulfed in flames ought to make the bacon tuxedo nice and crispy, just the way I like my bacon and, er, monkey. 

bmwm395's picture

MDB You are so funny. How much do you make per post.


Antifaschistische's picture

When i was a child, they took us on field trips to Yosemite. They explained that Yosemite Valley was carved entirely by glaciers. When we asked where all that ice went they told us the earth has been warming for hundreds of years. Do fossils get credit for that too!!! Damn fossils!!!

Flakmeister's picture

Do you practice contructing flawed arguments or does it come naturally?

ceilidh_trail's picture

"top scientists and environmental activists"- now that's an oxymoron written by a regular moron.

Au Shucks's picture

MDB is a "top" poster here on ZH, but sure doesn't make him right! 

ElvisDog's picture

Hah, you went over your skis on this one MDB. Even if every ice cap on Earth melted, I doubt it would raise sea levels by 25 feet (8 meters). Do you know how much water that would be?

Flakmeister's picture

You certainly don't.... I'll give you a hint, its a lot more than 25 feet....

Common_Cents22's picture

How much water do those frozen ice caps displace already?   How are they going to raise the sea level significantly? 

akak's picture

The large majority of those frozen icecaps lie ABOVE sea level, particularly the Antarctic one, so their melting WOULD raise sea level by several hundred feet.

Incidentally, glaciers worldwide (the vast majority of them, too), from Alaska to Greenland to Scandinavia to Tanzania to Ecuador to Chile to to Tibet to Antarctica, have been melting and receding for at least the last century, proving beyond any doubt that the world IS and has been warming.  One can debate the causes of that warming, but NOT its existence itself, which is beyond dispute.

DaveyJones's picture

undisputed that it's warming and undisputed that the rate is unprecedented. An important part of the puzzle

Element's picture

Glaciers advance and retreat, CONTINUOUSLY.

The Earth warms and cools, CONTINUOUSLY.

It's been much hotter, with much higher CO2 levels for most of the past 570 million years, in which plant and animal life has spread all over the land surface of the planet, and corals developed and created gigantic fossil reefs all over the world,

And contrary to what the Greenpeace and cohort idiots would have you believe, that the Great Barrier Reef would be devastated by global warming. Corals adapted to hot water absolutely love hot water.  And equatorial Indonesia, and a few other equatorial island chains, have by far the highest coral reef diversity on earth.

The Great Barrier reef has about 425 species of coral, but Indonesia has around 2,500.  But Greenpeace and their affiliates will tell you that coral bleaching will kill the reef stone dead.  Bullshit!  The reason why the Great Barrier Reef has less coral species is because the waters are colder.  As you go further south, into even colder waters, the reef gets emaciated with fewer and fewer coral species, until you get zero, and the Great Barrier Reef extends no further southward. Corals spawn and propagate via a planktonic larval state.  So if it gets hotter they will settle further south.  And species that like hotter waters will propagate from the equatorial zone around Papua and the Solomon Islands down onto the Great Barrier Reef.

That is what life does.  It moves, it adapts.  The 'greenies' eco-warrior morons don't know shit about it.

But according to the idiots at Green Peace the Reef would simply die due to global warming (and I'm sure they know it won't, but they use suck lies to obtain political leverage and funds so they can continue on their parasitic useless way, pretending to 'protect' the planet of somfing ... fuck-heads).

The fossil record shows very clearly that life LOVES more CO2 and higher temperatures and the higher humidity and rainfall it generates.

Have a look at Antarctica (land ice and water) to see how species diversity becomes precipitously lower as it gets colder.

I'm not interested in fun-facts from pseudo-science crack-head trivia merchants.  I look at the big picture.

Animals go extinct, others take over.

Great extinctions also happen, then massive explosions in the diversity of entirely new forms, of even more impressive varieties occurs.

That is in fact what the actual physical 'fossil record' in outcrops and the derived palaeoclimatology and sedimentology not only shows, but is screaming it out so loud at you, that only a blind fool could fail to notice it.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in this mere insignificant noise blip of supposed "global climate change", because compared to the variability the rocks show us to be the norm, it doesn't even rate a mention.

Humans and the Socratic method have not been around even a mere thousandth of the time necessary to see what 'normal' actually is from nature's perspective.

Anyone who tells you global warming will be a cataclysm doesn't know much about what the rocks show is 'normal' for the Earth.


That's all that's happening akak, the reality is we have much larger and more tangible issues to concern ourselves with--to me global warming is a foolish and irrelevent red-herring.

akak's picture


I'm not the slightest bit interested in this mere insignificant noise blip of supposed "global climate change", because compared to the variability the rocks show us to be the norm, it doesn't even rate a mention.

That is true, and yet totally irrelevant.

It is irrelevant due to the fact that mankind does NOT live in the geological record, but on the earth AS IT EXISTS TODAY.  What you fail to grasp is that this planet is grossly overpopulated, unsustainably so, and human civilization is living on a very narrow knife-edge --- ANY significant change to the environmental status-quo is going to radically alter things for the worst from our collective perspective, as agriculture and human development are all predicated on things remaining EXACTLY as they are today.  Throw the environment into a new balance, and hundreds of millions if not billions of humans are going to be consigned to death.  This is fact all too often overlooked and underappreciated by those who blithely claim that the earth's climate was warmer in the past.  Yes, it was --- and human civilization did not exist then, either.

StychoKiller's picture

"If they're going to die, they'd better do it and relieve us of the excess population." -- Ebeneezer Scrooge

Element's picture


Throw the environment into a new balance, and hundreds of millions if not billions of humans are going to be consigned to death.


Yes but that is also quite irrelevant akak.

Do you seriously think it's likely I don't know about the 7-billion other humans, and the implications of Earth chucking a wobbly on us?  Why throw that nonse in there?  Obviously that isn't the case.

What consigns you to death is being born, not climate change, the only question is how and when that happens.

I said I'm looking at the big picture here.

Fossils are evidence of life AND DEATH in equal measures being a natural and normal state and dynamic process.

It's nice to be alive, yes, but let's not get too attached to the notion that it's our long-term natural state of existence.

I'm ok with the Earth changing and wiping out humanity, as in due course, it certainly will, the fossils make that very clear.

We will adapt until then though.

Rolling with the punches and adapting, not digging our heels in and expecting the Earth to not change under us, is the way to survive and thrive.

That's always been the case, and it always will be.

My main point is we have much more important issues to face, and this demented 'environmental' apoplexy and hysterics, dressed-up as mainstream science and debate, ain't helping us with that, and it ain't helping science any, either.

Flakmeister's picture

So your logic is that since we are all dead in the long run, it doesn't matter what we do, even if it fries the planet...

I suppose in that in some existentialist sense what you say is logically correct...  

By the same token, It is pretty clear that you do not have children... or if you do, you really don't give a fuck about the planet they live on after you are gone....

BTW, the no-children hypothesis would explain a lot of your views....

DaveyJones's picture

Q: how many existentialists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: what's the point? 

fuu's picture

Meh, wine tastes better with candle light.

Element's picture

What the hell are you going on about?

Are you in denial of the fact that species develop, stay awhile, then go extinct?

That's what happens, and it will happen to humanity as well, we may last another 25 million years, in some form, perhaps much better off, perhaps much worse, but we will be going away.  Do some formal study of palaeontology and you'll quickly realise that's what happens to all life.

In the interim, species are wiped out regionally, numerous times before they get wiped out globally and finally.

It's observable millions of times within geological history.  It isn't subject to your denials.

And what does that have to do with some silly reference to existentialism (let alone some dickhead's reference to whether someone has children)?

Flakmeister's picture

You are saying that since we are doomed in the long run it does not matter what damage we inflict on the planet...

Sorry, but that is very existentialist.....Not that I think existentialism is wrong or a necessarily a bad thing.... But given that we are stewards of the planet by our acquired ability to change the planet, it is not a good basis for guiding our collective actions...

palmereldritch's picture

Whoaaaa..I saw [part of] the word 'sustainable'

-1 until proven innocent....

Don't buy the hype....SELL the reality (just do the research first!)

akak's picture

Why should the word "sustainable" bother you, palmereldritch?

Certainly it has been and is used by certainly statists with a political agenda in mind, but not EVERY use of the word necessarily implies a particular political agenda, as my use of it here does not.  Or do you deny that "sustainability" is even a valid concept?  I happen to believe that it is.

And if you were get to know any ecologists --- yes, it is a science of its own --- you would find that virtually EVERY one of them who deals with macroecology will tell you, regardless of political persuasion, that 7 billion humans (much less the several billion more that look likely to be added over the coming two or three decades) simply cannot be sustained on this planet indefinitely, or even for very much longer; simply the one issue of soil depletion (loss of  fertility, loss of topsoil and ever-growing salinization) by itself ensures that fact, although there are many others that point to the same conclusion.  I am neither drawing nor implying any political agenda from this fact --- it is simply a fact, one that the world ignores at its peril.  Or must we blindly continue on a path of self-destruction, with no greater awareness of our own long-term plight than a petri dish of bacteria or a vat of yeast?  Shouldn't humans be able to do BETTER than that?

palmereldritch's picture

'Sustainable' is a key buzz word of the Agenda 21 propaganda and accordingly it should appear in quotations or italics.

We are not bacteria and should be self-aware to our destructive consumption and waste but also should be aware to greater elite forces that wouild reduce us to such a disposable category.

Google Rosa Koire's interviews on Agenda 21 to understand the use of that word and its intended effect as resource scarcity programming.

DaveyJones's picture

"fun-facts from pseudo-science crack-head trivia merchants"....... so

when exactly have the "CO2 levels been much higher" than now? 

"This is what life does"..? One species peforms these effects on the environment? THought mankind was "special" Everything we do is "special." We talk about how special we are on this site everyday. How many of our acts are contrary to a "healthy" global economic environment? acts that can cause lots of destruction.   

"Great extinctions happen" - is this our don't worry be happy mantra?

 Need a new script girl  

Element's picture

No, it's a physical fact you fucking moron.

DaveyJones's picture

 is your ability to spot sarcasm going extinct?  or the knowledge to answer our 400 question? Are the cuss words what you meant when you described a "sophisticated" method of debate?

Element's picture

No, you were talking shit, so why treat you any differently.

bigerny's picture

I ask this in all seriousness.Since the '70's,when the earth was "cooling",and then apparently began "warming",how many feet have the oceans risen?With all the glaciers and Antarctic ice (and don't forget the poor polar bears)melting at such 'alarming' rates the number if feet should be impressive.How bout the number of inches?You should be able to show at least 6".If you lack 6",how about 3"?Or 2.Or are you a girl?

Flakmeister's picture

The apparent cooling in 70's was from the S02 aerosols, there was much debate and a lack of good data at the time to quantify what was going on....

Here is a discussion on a paper from 1975

By the way, the answer to your can be found by putting ice in a glass of water and watching the level of the water after the ice has melted....

PrinceDraxx's picture


Thanks for your new math example. It must be that "fuzzy" math.

Ocean Surface area of Earth = 362,132,000 Km2

Anarctica Surface Area         =  14,000,000 Km2

If it all melted at once         = Instantly

Total rise in Ocean Level      = 204.68969794978013579522169179139'

Now even troll morons should know that Antarctica melting instantly is never going to happen.

If it does, we won't be posting on Zero Hedge.

You should also note that after sea level goes up 1' there will not only be more surface area to cover but more evaporation will occur as well. More evaporation means more rain which means more water soaked into ground.

My evaluation is this: If you live 30+ feet above sea level you should be good to go for the rest of your life.

Caveat: If you get hit by a hurricane on the coast that's your fault. They predict them well in advance.

One additional item addressed in another thread is the amount of temperature elevation: 0.5K = 0.5C =0.9F

Which = Bullshit. Call me when you can't keep your beer cold.

Common_Cents22's picture

what % of ice is land based vs. floating?

DaveyJones's picture

have you looked at any of the models on the effects of just a few meters? Try Indonesia, Florida, Louisiana, The SF Bay area, and many other places.

natty light's picture

And frozen water is more volume than liquid water.

spastic_colon's picture

Your argument was almost lucid until you mentioned "global warming" in context of a human created problem. The earth itself spews more toxic fumes than does industry but no one ever acknowledges this. Especially Al Gore following dikheds.

Flakmeister's picture

MDB may be a comedic troll...but you are demonstrating that you are an idiot..

Provide a link for your claim... go ahead, make my day....

sablya's picture

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.


Flakmeister's picture

Classic red herrring argument and invalid....

Better yet, what fraction of the radiative imbalance is caused by C02??

You are aware that the global temperature changes under the influence of a radiative heating or cooling...

Doesn;t matter if C02 forcing is only 0.3% of the total GHE if it is not in equilibrium....


If your tub is leaking a 1 gallon an hour, the cold water tap is dripping at 1 gallons a hour, and the hot water is dripping at 0.03 gallons an hour, the tub overflows, capeche??'s picture

Climate Change advocate forced to admit that his own scientific data shows no warming for over a decade:


Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its  website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’,  although, he added, it was equally  possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.

Read more:
Flakmeister's picture

Too funny...

Cherry picking the 1998 El Nino year (also close to the the last peak for the 11 year solar cycle) classic denier stuff...  

Do you want to make a bet? You and I, one tube (25) Canadian Silver Leafs, on whether one of 2012, 2013 or 2014 will the warmest year on record...

Before you make your bet, I strongly recommend that you read this

I wouldn't want you to feel that you were suckered into a bad bet....'s picture

I didn't cherry pick anything. This is the BEST data assembled at Berkley by Climate Change proponents. Why do you deny science? Are you some kind of religious nut?

Flakmeister's picture

Ok... you make the bet?

You really might want to check what the effect of the ENSO and TSI on the temperatrehave been over the past 10 years before getting so cocky...

Note the massive upward effect of the El Nino in 1998....If that is not cherry picking, what is???'s picture

All I'm doing is looking at what the scientists at Berkley have said about what their data shows. If you want to suggest that the Climate Change advocates at Berkley are lying or falsifying data let's see the evidence.

If you don't believe that the Climate Change advocates at Berkley are lying then accept their pronouncement that there has been no warming in 13 years.

Simple as that.

Flakmeister's picture

Do you agree that we have warmed ~0.5 K since 1979? Yes or No?

Make the bet I proposed or shutup...

I will gladly put my physical silver  on the table, in full confidence that I will be proven right, will you?'s picture

The way I see it, I'm a winner either way. If there is no AGW then that's that. But if there is AGW then the climate in Western Pennsylvania will likely be much more tolerable.

But the data shows no warming in 13 years and the AGW models did not predicted that. Could it be that those models are wrong? Recent NASA data which shows that heat dissipates into space more rapidly than previously believed also casts doubts on those old, flawed models.

Flakmeister's picture

Chickenshit.... make the bet or shutup...

How about this, has there been significant warming since 1992? Yes or No?

Here's the BEST data again...

Do you know what the 11 year  solar cycle is? Do you know where we are in it?

Do you know the effect of the ENSO and what it is? Are we in a cool or warm phase now?