The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Japan's damaged nuclear plant in Fukushima has been emitting radioactive iodine and caesium at levels approaching those seen in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Austrian researchers have used a worldwide network of radiation detectors - designed to spot clandestine nuclear bomb tests - to show that 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. 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 level of radionuclides leaking from Fukushima Daiichi has been unclear, but the CTBT air samplers can shed some light, says Gerhard Wotawa of Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna. For the first two days after the accident, the wind blew east from Fukushima towards monitoring stations on the US west coast; on the third day it blew south-west over the Japanese monitoring station at Takasaki, then swung east again. Each day, readings for iodine-131 at Sacramento in California, or at Takasaki, both suggested the same amount of iodine was coming out of Fukushima, says Wotawa: 1.2 to 1.3 × 1017 becquerels per day. The agreement between the two "makes us confident that this is accurate", he says. So do similar readings at CTBT stations in Alaska, Hawaii and Montreal, Canada - readings at the latter, at least, show that the emissions have continued.
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 level of radionuclides leaking from Fukushima Daiichi has been unclear, but the CTBT air samplers can shed some light, says Gerhard Wotawa of Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna.
For the first two days after the accident, the wind blew east from Fukushima towards monitoring stations on the US west coast; on the third day it blew south-west over the Japanese monitoring station at Takasaki, then swung east again. Each day, readings for iodine-131 at Sacramento in California, or at Takasaki, both suggested the same amount of iodine was coming out of Fukushima, says Wotawa: 1.2 to 1.3 × 1017 becquerels per day.
The agreement between the two "makes us confident that this is accurate", he says. So do similar readings at CTBT stations in Alaska, Hawaii and Montreal, Canada - readings at the latter, at least, show that the emissions have continued.
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.
Now, rate of emission is one thing; duration is another: but how long did Chernobyl emit radioactive smoke? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
rate of emission is one thing; duration is another: but how long did Chernobyl emit radioactive smoke?
Because of the Soviet lack of transparency it was possible for them to send in firefighters without telling them what they were working on. It was also possible for the authorities to start evacuating Pripyat within 48 hours, before Forsmark in Sweden raised the alert due to the radiation levels. It was also possible for the Soviets to deploy thousands of "liquidators" to do the cleanup after the fire was out.
Here we have a situation where safety of emergency workers is taken seriously and information flows relatively openly, which probably results in slower crisis response and contamination over longer times.
Compare the incident of the Japanese workers wading ankle-deep in radioactive water with the Chernobyl firefighters. So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
No, only the secondary fires, the graphite moderator fire in the reactor "continued to burn for many days". I found this: Chernobyl - A breakdown of communication between scientists and the public
After ten hours of trying to put the fire out with water it was apparent that this would not work. For over a week helicopters dumped lead and sand onto the smoldering reactor in an attempt to extinguish the fire. This to did not work. Nitrogen was next used to cool the fire and deprive it of oxygen. Finally on May the sixth the fire was brought under control.
That's ten days then.
And, fortunately, also the timely evacuation of poulations from the areas affected by the fallout. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The fires were extinguished by 05:00, but many firefighters received high doses of radiation. The fire inside Reactor No. 4 continued to burn until 10 May 1986
Chapter II The release, dispersion and deposition of radionuclides - Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact
The release pattern over time is well illustrated in Figure 3 (Bu93). The initial large release was principally due to the mechanical fragmentation of the fuel during the explosion. It contained mainly the more volatile radionuclides such as noble gases, iodines and some caesium. The second large release between day 7 and day 10 was associated with the high temperatures reached in the core melt. The sharp drop in releases after ten days may have been due to a rapid cooling of the fuel as the core debris melted through the lower shield and interacted with other material in the reactor. Although further releases probably occurred after 6 May, these are not thought to have been large....Although the releases were considerably reduced on 5 and 6 May (days 9 and 10) after the accident), continuing low-level releases occurred in the following week and for up to 40 days after the accident, particularly on 15 and 16 may, attributable to continuing outbreaks of fires or to hot areas in the reactor. These later releases can be correlated with increased concentrations of radionuclides in air measured at Kiev and Vilnius.
...Although the releases were considerably reduced on 5 and 6 May (days 9 and 10) after the accident), continuing low-level releases occurred in the following week and for up to 40 days after the accident, particularly on 15 and 16 may, attributable to continuing outbreaks of fires or to hot areas in the reactor. These later releases can be correlated with increased concentrations of radionuclides in air measured at Kiev and Vilnius.
The daily amount of caesium-137 released from Fukushima Daiichi is around 60 per cent of the amount released from Chernobyl.
There goes the "Chernobyl was a special case because it didn't have containment like western reactors do"... So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
by gmoke - Oct 1
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 3 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 36 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Oui - Sep 3023 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 283 comments
by Oui - Sep 2713 comments
by Oui - Sep 2620 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 243 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1336 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 1210 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Oui - Sep 1216 comments