The Japanese government has raised the severity level of the nuclear crisis at its Fukushima nuclear plant to a level 7. The Diplomat asked nuclear researcher Alexander Sich for his take on the decision and what exactly it means.
I believe they were premature to do this: most of the month since the accident we have been starved of hard numbers, and speculation has run rampant because of this. Now, everyone is focused not on data but on one, single, solitary number (7 on the INES) and the press is employing phrases like ‘on a par with Chernobyl,’ or ‘equal to that of Chernobyl.’ It's like defining the entirety of a person based on a single number, like their weight or their age. I think people can see the absurdity of that.
My understanding is TEPCO has reported a number of 10,000 terabecquerels has been released over the course of the past month.
First, how many people understand that one Bequerel is one disintegration per second? What kind of a response would people have if they were told this is equivalent to 0.027 nanoCuries of activity? They'd probably -- and correctly -- yawn.
Look at the facts:
(1) The Japanese have called this latest assessment ‘provisional’ and further qualified that it focuses on the total released, not on health effects -- which they maintain, correctly, I believe, is minimal.
(2) 10,000 terabecquerels. How much is that? Well, that's 270,000 Curies. On par with Chernobyl? Really?! Let's see: Chernobyl, even if you accept the official Soviet total release estimate of 50 million Curies, that's 185 times less than Chernobyl. (Lennart Devell of Studsvik Eco in Sweden in 1994 confirmed what most experts in the West suspected: in a metastudy of release estimates, Devell came to a range of 1.5 to 2.5 times was released by Chernobyl than the Soviets reported.) What if I asserted I just ran an incredibly long road race of 42,000 tera nanometers? Would most people understand I ran a marathon? Would I be responsible in portraying a marathon in such a manner? Would you not conclude I'm trying to mislead and that I have a hyperfixation on numbers?
(3) The releases at Chernobyl occurred over a period of about 9.5 days. The releases at Fukushima were estimated from 30 days of releases and from four reactors and Unit-4's spent fuel pool. The releases from Chernobyl were completely out of control. At Fukushima, the Japanese are employing a number of means to contain contaminated water and reduce the potential for hydrogen detonation.
(4) The comparison is also spurious (and, in my estimation, irresponsible) because the two accidents are very different in their release mechanisms: at Chernobyl the releases resulted from the core being completely exposed to the environment during the entire period (remember I noted in my last interview that the helicopter dumping was a myth in the sense that the core itself wasn’t covered). This means that isotopes across the chemical and mechanical volatility range had a wide range of transport mechanisms for release -- from gaseous escape to mechanical ejection. At Fukushima, we just don't know exactly to what extent the reactor pressure vessels, containment structures, and lower pressure suppression pools are damaged. I've read various assessments, and they are all preliminary. I stress: if so many barriers are between the core and the environment, the release pathways and mechanisms will be very different and severely limited, which is borne out by the numbers provided. At Fukushima, some chemically and mechanically volatile isotopes have been released: I-131, some Cs-137, some Xe-133, and the rest I'm not sure about. I'm still waiting for hard numbers on the alleged detection of Cs-137 about 40 kilometres northwest of the plant: do we know how much (in Curies), how widespread, and why it hasn't apparently been detected in other areas? I would also make very sure I would be carefully distinguishing between potential releases from the spent fuel pool and the reactors.
I've seen some other numbers, but ones that only present a partial picture. According to a Reuters piece quoting the Japanese, perhaps about 500,000 terabecquerels of I-131 have been released ‘to the atmosphere.’ It also seems to me apples and oranges are being compared when the Japanese claim Chernobyl released such-and-such numbers: are these total releases being compared to one isotope at Fukushima? It's not clear from the reports I've seen.
Release estimates also depend on interpretations of isotope half-lives in the calculations. Many of the isotopes produced in an operating nuclear reactor are very short-lived and decay quite quickly. Therefore, one can provide release figures that incorporate these, but if they're decayed away in a short period of time, were the releases of any significant consequence? Even I-131 (half-life 8 days) is down to 1/1024th of it's release amount after 80 days. I'm not suggesting there's no impact, but I am urging sobre and cautious assessments as well as prudent and correct presentations of releases. More than three half-lives of I-131 have passed since the accident, which means roughly 1/10 remains. Is it correct and prudent to provide total release figures based on total amount of I-131 present at the time of the accident? I don't think so.
Now, let's ask: how much Pu-239 or U-235 was released? Because both of these are in the form of something called refractory oxides (ceramics), they melt at incredibly high temperatures (thousands of degrees), so they need mechanical transport mechanisms to escape, i.e., they don't escape as gases. How much was released? My guess? Very, very little...and certainly I could, if I followed the lead of the sensationalist headlines, express this in terabecquerels rather than Curies to make a bigger impact with ‘big’ numbers. The comparisons to Chernobyl are speculating on ignorance. I stand firm on this position. First, let's get all the verified numbers, structural assessments, and transport mechanisms understood, then let whoever wants to assign single numbers to a very complex situation do so.
This is grist for the sensationalist mill, and I'm not sure it was prudent of the Japanese to announce this reassessment -- qualifications of ‘provisional’ and limitations to releases rather than health effects notwithstanding. It seems it would have made more sense to wait until a correct assessment has been made of the structural damage to the main components of the reactor buildings, and to wait for a solid radiometric survey of releases. I expect Michio Kaku, Congressman Edward Markey, and other panic mongers will ride this to the maximum sensationalist extent possible.
I would counsel the Japanese to reconsider raising the scale of the accident until more is known. Please don't misunderstand me: this is a major accident, but the repeated comparisons to Chernobyl are sensationalist and self-serving.
Alexander Sich is an associate professor of physics at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio. Sich was the first American researcher to investigate the Chernobyl reactor meltdown on site. The views expressed are his own.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Jack72
I don’t think common people are scared about big numbers of terabecuels nanocurels or any such technical nonsense. If they are scared, then they are scared because it’s been reported that outside the evacuation zone, you can still get the annual dose of radiation in just a few days. It makes them ask that are the officals truly doing their best to keep people safe, or are they more interested in saving money. Makes me anyway.
Also, on this accident scale in which nuclear accidents have been “measured”, Chernobil and Fukushima are now on pair. I don’t see why that’s a problem. It doesn’t follow that the disasters were somehow equal, they are just at the same level on this particular scale. This isn’t a running contest where there is just one number one. This is a scale that gives a rough level of severity for the accidents. Or that’s how I have understood it.
Jackthesmilingblack
Technical nonsense? Only to a Liberal Arts Muppet. Get up to speed with technology. Your life may depend on it.
Devon
I actually believe the number was closer to 370,000 terabecquerels released so far?
“My understanding is TEPCO has reported a number of 10,000 terabecquerels has been released over the course of the past month.”
Level 7 is declared if over ‘tens of thousands of terabq’ have been released.
The plant is still emitting an estimated terabq/hr… although considering the numerous underestimates so far I wouldn’t be surprised if it was far higher.
Alexander Sich
Thank you for the comment. That’s actually part of my (perhaps understated) point: in one source I read 10,000, while in another I read 500,000… and now there’s 370,000…
Worse, and this is something else I think is understated (buried in the Pu-239 / U-235 question I posed): the number provided (whichever it is) is for only ONE isotope, i.e., for I-131.
Point 1: iodine is very, very volatile – it transports as a gas, and can combine with cesium to form CsI. You can well anticipate most of the inventory of such volatiles stand a good chance of being released into the environment…BECAUSE they’re gaseous.
(But, then again, maybe not: it depends on the barriers and environment. Something weird occurred at Chernobyl, for example: MORE cesium was retained in the fuel at Chernobyl than at Three Mile Island…and we don’t know why.)
Point 2: There are literally HUNDREDS of isotopes produced by an operating nuclear reactor — some of which will hardly transport at all (the transuranics, for example and thank goodness). And, remember (something I did mention in the piece), you’ve got not only a different chemistry for each individual element, but you’ve got lots of different isotopes that are decaying (all at their own rates!) to other isotopes…each with different chemistries and their own decay half lives. I’m not saying some good approximations can’t be made, but what’s going on now is an ignorant feeding frenzy — I don’t know how else to characterize it
Why aren’t the Japanese being asked about releases they’ve measured for ALL the isotopes – or at least the relevant ones? Why? If they were, they might be forced to reassess raising the level to INES-7, and (more far-reaching) it might (if experts were uninhibited by external agendas and other pressures) force a rethink of that whole INES scale… it’s not very useful in this case, and I suspect even for Chernobyl… or Windscale… or TMI… or….
That’s why (among other reasons) the comparison to Chernobyl releases (10 times less, i.e., “on par with” or “equal to”) are so ignorant, and why for the first time I’ll be a bit critical of the Japanese for (seemingly) being rushed into a highly abstract characterization that circles about ONE number.
Daniel
The problem isn’t that they’re on the same level on the scale, it’s the way it’s being portrayed. Fukushima has released a marginal fraction of the radiation of Chernobyl, but the media is rapidly making comparisons about how they’re at least equal, and how Fukushima could potentially be worse. That’s a large part of what the author is challenging.
The average person is rightfully scared that there’s radiation outside of the evacuation zone – but that’s not a surprise, as that’s been reported on by private sources for weeks now. But when the media flashes up large numbers of things incomprehensible to you, it increases that fear…is what the author appears to be challenging.
Dan
Which is it – 0.027 nanoCuries, or 270,000 Curies. You claim both in the article.
Rufus
Dan, he says that one Bequerel is 0.027 nanCuries and that 10,000 terabecquerels is 270,000 Curies.
Mike
“More than three half-lives of I-131 have passed since the accident, which means roughly 1/10 remains.”
That may be true inside the stopped/melted-down reactor cores, if the reactions producing I-131 have stopped (there have been reports of recriticality), but there’s a lot of material there and the releases continue. It’s certainly not true that in the outside environment 1/10 of what was there immediately after the tsunami remains. The hydrogen explosions continued to occur for days after that and the plant is still venting I-131 that is new to the environment.
I’m not sure that the whole INES scale is very useful. Trying to express complex events as a single number is going to be arbitrary in many ways. Clearly the accident is different from Chernobyl in almost every way. However, there have been some reports of soil being as contaminated in spots 30 km away from the Fukushima plant as in the hot spots of the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Japan is clearly going to suffer some major consequences from this nuclear disaster.
Mike McGrath
As initially reported by Kyodo News, the rate of emission was 10,000 terabequerels PER HOUR. That particular release in March lasted for at least 2 days.
Currently Kyodo News reports “The nuclear regulatory agency under the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry and the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan, a government panel, said that between 370,000 and 630,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials have been emitted into the air from the Nos. 1 to 3 reactors of the plant.”
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/85020.html
Chernobyl was 250,000 terabequerels total http://bit.ly/gjRl9c.
Sensationalistic or just the facts? I’m going with Joe Friday on this one. If you want to understand the science behind the disaster I suggest you find you way to http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200&page=235. You’ll find folks who know what they’re talking about. Their conclusions are generally weeks ahead of mainstream media. Educate yourself.
Anthony Holroyd
A good analysis. I am a nuclear engineering student, halfway through my degree. If anything, this event has reaffirmed my faith in nuclear technology and it establishes a worst-case credible benchmark for a light water reactor accident. An obsolete plant, built in the 1960s to insufficient design standards, was subjected to one of the worst earthquakes in recorded history and the most unlucky combination of events. None the less, consequences were limited and almost entirely localised to the plant.
The release was dominated by iodine isotopes. The short halflife of iodine-131 means that very small absolute quantities (grams) can produce very high activity rates expressed in Bequerels. This is good news from the point of view that contamination levels fall fast and the area can be reinhabited soon (weeks – months). Hence, Fukushima will not require a permanent exclusion zone, (Chernobyl does), but there will unfortunately be disruption to agriculture in the area for several years. The dynamics of the event are therefore similar to Windscale, although the absolute size of the release is perhaps 10 times greater.
It is bad news for anyone unlucky to be exposed to the plume at close range whilst the accident was occuring. Iodine is readily taken up by the human body. It concentrates in the thyroid gland leading to very high tissue doses and a high risk of thyroid cancer. Fortunately, the Japanese evacuated the high risk areas, so it is unlikely that there will be a detectable increase in cancer rates.
pete
Anthony, If you consider the events of Fukushima a testament to success then you are aiming your sights a little to low.
When three out of six reactor buildings are reduced to steaming piles of rubble and radioactive water is pouring out all over the place is what the next generation of nuclear engineers considers a success story then the world is in big trouble
Please consider another line of work.
joe
I love this statement:
(3) The releases at Chernobyl occurred over a period of about 9.5 days. The releases at Fukushima were estimated from 30 days of releases and from four reactors and Unit-4’s spent fuel pool. The releases from Chernobyl were completely out of control. At Fukushima, the Japanese are employing a number of means to contain contaminated water and reduce the potential for hydrogen detonation.
Good thing they have everything under control at Fukushima. Especially the reduced potential for hydrogen detonations!
So those smoking piles of junk where the reactor buildings used to be are actually under control. Glad to hear that I was a bit worried at first.
I guess the reason nobody is there with heavy equipment cleaning all that mess up is that they are just to busy with other things in japan. Like spinning yarns about how as soon as they get the power back on and plug back in their pumps all will be back to normal.
Joe
Here is a question for you.. If reactor 4 was unloaded and all its spent fuel was in the spent fuel pond. Why did the building fill with hydrogen and explode?
We are to believe that the plant survived the quake and that operators simply sat around and let the water boil off in the reactor 4’s spent fuel pond.
They didn’t think of getting a portable pump(Honda makes some great ones!) and a few thousand feet of hose to keep the water level full? Keeping the fuel pond full is not exactly a huge technical task to handle IF the pool is not leaking.
I would say the story that everything was working fine until the wave hit the plant is just that a big STORY… I would imagine that all these numbers people are throwing around about radioactivity levels amount to the same thing. Imaginary fairy tales.
Nothing true will come out that place for years to come. So in that way Chernobyl and Fukushima are playing out in the exact same manner. Level 7 political spin.
Frank
Hi Joe,
Kyodo news actually shows very detailed updates about everything that goes on at the plant almost by the hour. There are a lot of international independent researchers at the site too. I think TEPCO and the Japanese government are actually releasing MORE information then they would like to. If i were in their position i would not even release all this useless nonsense to the public. because exactly THAT is what gets the public confused.
If you check the Kyodo news website you can even find very detailed info on the what and why of those portable pumps you mention. Since i live in Japan i have been following the story on foot. I will not go into detail because you can read it there yourself. (if you are REALLY that interested).
I don’t want to burst your ‘hollywood cover up story’ bubble, but all the info is there for you to read.
The pump story is actually the reason why i posted this.. because there was actually A LOT being said about that particular issue. And now you and who knows who else are bringing this back as proof for a possible cover up story.. sorry but that is just insane.
I think this ‘cover up story’ TREND is getting out of control on the internet. and i’m not talking just the Fukushima incident. I think people in general are loosing their minds. To the point they even start questioning the integrity of individual scientists who have no political aspirations whatsoever.
joe
The only bubble my friend is the one you are living in.
I don’t need any release of information from Tepco to see that nothing is left in those three destroyed reactor buildings that is functioning.
I don’t think its a cover up I would just like to know why the reactor 4 building exploded there is no fuel in the reactor. Only spent fuel sitting
in the pond all that was required to keep it cool was keep water in the pond.
Where did the hydrogen come from that blew the building apart? You make a nice speech but leave that obvious question unanswered.
How much radiation is being released in comparison to Chernobyl does not interest me in the least. The promised release of radioactive contamination from the nuclear power industry was zero and not just during the life time of the plant but for 10,000 years to come.
Chernobyl was excused by the western world as “just crappy Russian technology from a bungling communist regime” Now a western world private sector company is in a similar position. I would like to know how things came to this point and how they intend to fix it.
In Chernobyl they sent in half a million soldiers with shovels and hand made lead shielding. All we see from Tepco are news releases of pathetic company executives breaking down into tears and saying sorry.
So once again if the plants survived the earthquake in working order why did a flood bring about the destruction of three nuclear reactor buildings. This is import question for those of us in the rest of the world who live in close proximity to a nuclear power plant.
jflys
The people who are in charge of containing this nightmare have proven that they are either the unluckiest people in the world or far to incompetent to trust with this responsibility. I’m afraid that the Japanese culture of protecting one’s superiors and putting assets above human life has contributed to their dismal results.
jflys
Joe, the hydrogen gas came from the zirconium fuel rod shielding overheating and separating the hydrogen from the water. This would not occur until near the melting point of zirconium, which is approximately 2500 degrees. At that time of the explosions, the meltdowns were well underway. When the fuel-rod shielding melted, the fuel pellets were released into the pool and began spewing radiation in earnest. The fuel was unattended for nearly a week–it only takes about 24 hours with the fuel uncovered to start meltdown.
This problem may be unsolvable. There are six pools and six reactors that contain enough nuclear fuel to equal 50 Chernobyls. These six masses of highly radioactive fuel could weigh well more than a million pounds each. Each would have a temperature of more than double the melting point of steel. Each would be so radioactive that if a person were to get within sight of it, they would die in 16 seconds. How does one solve such a problem? It must be buried or it will contaminate the northern hemisphere. Milk in Arkansas and Pennsylvania are now three times the EPA set MCL for Iodine-131, and it is expected to increase by 60 percent about every two weeks until it is shut off at the source. The Japanese are saying it could be years. These meltdowns may not be candidates for the Chernobyl style fix.
Another disturbing thing is the fact that we are not getting information on levels of other radioactive fission products such as Strontium 89 and 90 which is taken up by the body like calcium and is particularly a danger to milk consumers.
joe
Yes i know the hydrogen comes from fuel rods exposed to the air. That’s my point. The reactor in building four was empty the only possible source of hydrogen was the spend fuel pond. So either they didn’t want to put water into the ponds or the pond was damaged by the quake and leaked.
After the building exploded they started dumping water in the pond to put the rod fire out. Why did they let it get to that point? Even sea water would have been better then letting the rods get exposed.
Tepco is just not telling us what happend. There are only two possibilities the quake caused a leak or they simply neglected to add water to the ponds.
In the other buildings where the fuel is in the pressure vessels i can understand how they could loss control with out power. Letting the spent fuel pond in the number 4 build go dry is just inexcusable. Any portable pump could be flown in and set running in an hour or less. We are talking about an open pool of water!
Jflys
The problem developed because the reactors were unattended for a period of days after the tsunami. When the redundant cooling systems all failed, which occurred within hours of the tsunami, the engineers knew a meltdown was inevitable unless cooling was restored. I believe they panicked and fled the plant. Why Tepco was unable to acquire the necessary equipment to restore cooling to all of the fuel stocks is unknown. It seems like a simple enough task for a company with such resources.
I suspect the Japanese culture of protecting the ones they serve and their assets could have contributed to multiple levels of indecision, and the sequence of events that led to the complete meltdowns in at least three reactors and the fuel pools of number 4.
The disturbing thing now is the fact that the media is acting as though the crisis is over when in truth, there is uncontrolled fission continuing to spew a full spectrum of fission material into the environment. There are various maps available on the net that monitor the fission emissions from Fukushima. One of the emissions is xenon-133 gas. Xe-133 gas has a radioactive half life of less than 5 1/2 days. If it is in the environment, it hasn’t been there any longer than that. Moreover, if the emissions of radioisotopes with short half-lives are entering the environment, in commensurate amounts, so will the long lasting radioisotopes such as strontium 89 and 90, and Cesium 134,136 and 137. When these isotopes enter the environment they don’t decay out of it in days, they stay with us for 30 and 28 thousand years, accumulating as long as the source emits them.
Black cargo pants
Great written post. Keep up the good work and your visitors will be sky-rocket and I will keep coming back.
Concerned
If you ask me, this should fuel our motivation to use the “safe” alternative energy options we have, such as solar and wind power generation. We (the World) has Gigawatts of energy production by solar and wind powered systems already in place. They are working and effective. Their cost might be high, but not compared to nuclear, and in the case of solar, the cost is coming down all the time. With greater production levels, solar panels will come down in price even more. Already solar is at $1 per watt of installed power generation, and that is for 30 years or more of life! Yes, in the next few years efficiency will go up, but that is no good reason to wait. Install solar NOW! It’s safe, it’s cheap, and it’s available today, off-the-shelf. Power storage methods abound, from hill-side water reservoir pumping and heat storage (use large heat capturing systems to produce steam through the night), in large electricity production facilities, to compressed air (with vertical in-ground tanks, which are low-cost solutions) and batteries in small, local, even home-based power generation systems. Many people are already installing a few hundred square feet of solar panels on their roofs to cut their electric bills in half. At a cost that’s less than a few years of savings, this is a great way to make solar happen for yourself. The government should be giving low-cost loans for this type of installation. I suggest 1% for the first year, 2% for the second year, 3% for the third year, etc. This would motivate people to pay back the money, costing the government NOTHING, and it will give people the financial ability to make it happen for their homes NOW.
Jflys
This is another unsolvable problem. If society removed nuclear power from the world, it would be a tipping point that would collapse the socio-economic system. Unfortunately, the system sustains the lives of 7 billion people. An amazingly high, and artificially enabled level of population that, if any of the many major enabling factors are removed, the result will be a collapse of the whole system. If society removed such an important element, it would weaken or disable other elements of the economy, resulting in a domino style total collapse.
I believe some of the world’s governments have planned for this event (not specifically for ending nuclear power, but for myriad other scenarios), in which the collapse will be so sudden and complete that no store of value except the essentials of survival will have any inducement to drive economic activity — not even silver or gold.
The governments have stored enough food and supplies to sustain the elites, and enough of the military to protect them, during a mass die-down of the population.
Our leaders must make many difficult decisions to ensure the survival of humankind. If not, the inevitable collapse could reduce humanity to as few as 100 to 200 million hunter-gatherers, who have no written language, and fear and suspicion separates into small tribal groups. Aren’t you glad we have such capable people to make decisions during these times?
joe
LOL I am so glad… all those nice elites protecting humanity like that… what a heart warming idea!