

Fukushima Radiation Breaks the Scale — No Idea by How Much.. Can’t Measure It - megaman821
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/06/fukushima-radiation-breaks-the-scale-no-idea-by-how-much-cant-measure-it/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

======
ChuckMcM
Sigh. I'm a fairly pro-nuclear guy and the situation at Fukushima has,
apparently has actually been the worst possible disaster it can have. The
latest measurements from insider the reactors indicates that core material is
exposed outside the pressure vessel. The basis for that is several sieverts of
radiation they are measuring in those areas. And those levels would not be
produced by byproducts in water sadly.

So on the one hand we can be impressed that only the oldest two reactors in
Japan, sitting at the epicenter of the biggest natural disaster Japan has ever
experienced has had this failure. Other newer reactors on the same site were
successfully shut down and made safe. But the 1 & 2 reactors have it would
seem failed completely. Right out past the limits of their safety system. (if
the reactor vessel ruptured, and it seems like it has)

That makes cleanup that much harder, it makes the likely hood that the site of
those reactors being re-used is zero. And it means that TEPCO is going to
probably go bankrupt based on the costs.

What it _doesn't mean_ is that the folks in Fukushima are in any more danger
now then they were 5 months ago. It doesn't mean that the radiation will
'escape' and kill people, or even that anyone will die. It doesn't mean that
the surrounding area is in danger of more contamination.

I was more interested in the way folks were measuring radioactive fallout on a
much finer scale using 'home made' measurement devices. This crowd sourced
contamination map can help track down where contaminants have been
concentrated in the surrounding area and become a problem. That is, in my
opinion, the more impactful problem to address. Decontaminate the area around
the plants and let the engineers work on their plans for dismantling what is
left of reactors 1 & 2.

~~~
saulrh
Agreed. This whole mess has been nothing but a demonstration of how awesome
our technology is; homemade fallout counters are just one manifestation. For
me, the very most important statistic is simple: zero deaths from radiation.

~~~
ohyes
Zero deaths directly from radiation so far.

This isn't too surprising, given that everyone working at the plant knew that
it was melting down, and were taking precautions.

You can expect elevated cancer rates in the surrounding population, and from
the people who stayed at the plant trying to stop the disaster.

~~~
ChuckMcM
This is a concern but it has not been borne out by previous events. One of the
challenges (and its a 'good' challenge) is that we don't have a lot of data
about what happens when people are exposed to environmental contamination.
Primary sources are the post Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, testing data from
populations in Utah and Nevada who were down wind of the test site. And folks
who were exposed in the Bikini islands during testing there.

One of the effects of the low number of data points was that latent radiation
enhanced cancer deaths which were predicted for folks around Chernobyl didn't
actually materialize according to the UN report. Basically the theory is still
being developed and their predictions were off (by quite a bit as it turned
out).

The situation is compounded by the fact that humans have evolved in a
'radiation rich' environment (relatively speaking) with UV skin damage, Radon
gas sources, natural radioactivity in the earth, etc. So our bodies have a
number of mechanisms which automatically deal with being exposed to radiation.
If they did not, getting an x-ray would be a very dangerous thing indeed.

So we know you can be killed by an over exposure, and we know pretty
accurately what those exposure rates are and yes nobody at Fukushima has had
anywhere close to that level of exposure. (not to say someone couldn't walk
buck naked into one of the reactor buildings and off themselves, but that is a
different issue entirely)

And yes, there are radioisotopes in the environment around the plant that have
raised the level of radioactive exposure folks living in those zones get. But
it is entirely unclear whether or not that will lead to any significant
increase in cancer (which is to say distinguishable from other causes).

So folks will be watching for elevated cancer rates of course, but if
Chernobyl was any indication of what happens post accident they won't find
any. Understand that the quantity and distribution of material from the
Chernobyl accident still eclipses what non-TEPCO sources (notably the US DoE
and the IAEA) have documented from this one by a large amount.

Given the Chernobyl results and the relative amounts of radioactive material
released, I would be very surprised if there were was a _higher_ elevation in
cancer rates in Japan. Lots of economic impact, farmers can't sell food that
has become contaminated, but I think the health risks are much lower than the
more outspoken coverage would lead you to believe.

------
saulrh
Just to make this clear - there is no such thing as "too high for a geiger
counter to read". There is "too high for the geiger counter in my hand to
read", just as with any other instrument, but all they have to do to get a
better reading is find a less sensitive counter or one with a smaller
aperture. I suspect that TEPCO has already done so and that they're just
rounding things off for the press.

~~~
glimcat
But then they couldn't go fearmongering to get more ad impressions!

------
pbreit
It's now been 5 months of dire predictions and yet it apparently remains
somewhat under control? Are there any decent summaries of that the genuine
situation and implications? This article just sounds like more of the
questionable-source, hysterical variety.

~~~
Duff
Welcome to the HN reality distortion field...

"It is bizarre that people are upset about this. After all, nobody has ever
died as a result of a nuclear accident, right?"

~~~
burgerbrain
How many people have died of this one?

Downvotes, huh. I guess I'm not supposed to ask that question for some reason.

~~~
Duff
It's safe to say the many of the workers who tried to stabilize the reactors
will meet early ends due to cancer, etc. Beyond that, we'll learn that from
public health statistics.

------
sorbus
Here's what appears to be the original press release that this article (and
related ones) are getting this from: [http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-
com/release/11080201-e....](http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-
com/release/11080201-e.html)

"At 2:30 pm on August 1, as radiation level of surface of connection of
emergency gas treatment system piping arrangement at the bottom of main
exhaust stuck of unit 1 and 2 was detected over 10 Sv/h, keep the area out for
restricted area with signature. We will consider countermeasure such as
shilding."

~~~
serichsen
Note that it does not mention anything like "too high for measurement".

~~~
glimcat
It is almost always the case that "too high for measurement" means "the guy
with the meter is telling you a fish story" or "the guy with the meter doesn't
know which end to hold."

------
VMG
In comparison: the Chernobyl output was at 300 Sieverts near the reactor core
shortly after the explosion.

Edit: forgot the source <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster>

~~~
serichsen
Output _where_? The measurement reported is on the second floor inside the
reactor building.

------
techverde
Remember when the government telling us that radiation levels were safe and
nothing bad would happen?

