tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post1363602337002909938..comments2023-11-05T02:15:15.513-08:00Comments on Majia's Blog: Comparing Fukushima and ChernobylMajia's Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04941091700194936591noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post-33765828244064271512014-10-22T21:54:24.689-07:002014-10-22T21:54:24.689-07:00I will check out the article
Beta charts for Phoe...I will check out the article<br /><br />Beta charts for Phoenix in nov 2011 through Jan 2012 were MUCH higher than during march 2011.<br /><br />Same for nearly all cities under jet stream in US during that time. I have sample charts.<br /><br />Webcam data suggested gas or fire in units 3 and perhaps 4.Majia's Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04941091700194936591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post-18419264446897710812014-10-22T14:48:49.269-07:002014-10-22T14:48:49.269-07:00Amano study was for Chiba, much higher deposition ...Amano study was for Chiba, much higher deposition rates and activities in areas near to Fukushima-Daiichi.Jay T. Cullenhttp://fukushimainform.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post-27606932526705636802014-10-22T14:46:05.682-07:002014-10-22T14:46:05.682-07:00It will be important to characterize how large wer...It will be important to characterize how large were the spikes later in 2011. Deposition rates of 137-Cs to land in March were on the order of 3000 Bq/m2/day (Amano et al. 2012) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X11002657<br /><br />What kind of spikes in count rates or deposition were measured later in 2011, 2012?Jay T. Cullenhttp://fukushimainform.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post-8912825391952243442014-10-22T13:59:22.571-07:002014-10-22T13:59:22.571-07:00I would suggest that read the Steinhauser paper wh...I would suggest that read the Steinhauser paper which documents CTBT data tracking the global dispersion of the atmospheric plume. The great bulk of releases occurred in the week following the disaster. Similar to ocean releases the rates are now are very small compared to the March-April 2011 period.<br /><br />Please note that the release estimate you list above was corrected by the authors of the original study. Consensus is on the order of 20 PBq of 137-Cs released to the atmosphere. Suggest that you read here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/08/1328170/-How-Much-Radioactive-Material-Was-Released-by-Fukushima<br /><br />Comprehensive review of atmospheric and ocean releases.Jay T. Cullenhttp://fukushimainform.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post-44355612127685517752014-10-22T13:51:30.015-07:002014-10-22T13:51:30.015-07:00Jay can you provide any figures for the ongoing at...Jay can you provide any figures for the ongoing atmospheric emissions I've documented here in my blog and the ongoing ocean contamination reported by TEPCO.<br /><br />We've had 3 years of leaks.<br /><br />Additionally, there were reports by Japanese scientists of radiation spikes from Fukushima in the fall of 2011 (I'll have to dig up source but they monitored air levels for over a year after the disaster). <br /><br />Additional evidence of fall 2011 emissions can be found in the EPA Radnet charts for west coast cities under the jet stream. Beta data indicate off the chart spikes during periods from Oct 2011 to Jan 2012. <br /><br />Webcam watchers saw what looked like fires during this period.<br />Majia's Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04941091700194936591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8850795848027608997.post-84675582823958129272014-10-22T12:22:11.138-07:002014-10-22T12:22:11.138-07:00The most recent work by Schoppner and colleagues w...The most recent work by Schoppner and colleagues was published in November 2013:<br /><br />Estimation of the radioactive source dispersion from Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. Applied Radiation and Isotopes<br />Volume 81, November 2013, Pages 358–361<br />DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2013.03.070<br /><br />Their 2011 paper that you quote above was a real outlier to the high end of release estimates when it was first published. They have lowered their Fukushima release estimates from the study that you post above which were in error. From their new paper, based on more observations in the environment, they report:<br /><br />"The time-dependent source terms of 131I and 137Cs following the Fukushima accident have been established previously with a similar method (Schoeppner et al., 2011). Thus, it is possible to compare how the Fukushima source term is seen by different stations and isotopes. From the previous results the 137Cs and 131I source terms have been overestimated, and therefore down-scaled to fit more recent estimations of 3.5–27 PBq for 137Cs and 152–160 PBq for 131I (Hirose et al., 2012).”<br /><br />These source term estimates are much more in line with what other international investigators have been reporting and are consistent with a Fukushima source term for 131-I and 137-Cs that is about 10-fold lower than Chernobyl. This is what is summarized in the two most recent, up to date, review articles that I sent to you before you authored this post (e.g. Steinhauser and others Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: A review of the environmental impacts, Science of the Total Environment Volumes 470–471, 1 February 2014, Pages 800–817 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.029. Jay T. Cullenhttp://fukushimainform.canoreply@blogger.com