Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Plutonium from Fukushima is a global catastrophe. [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)103. Here's a report on plutonium from Fukushima: only detectable very close to the reactor
and sometimes not detectable even very close (less than 2km for the reactor). They took 20 samples in Japan, and did tests to distinguish the isotopes of plutonium from weapons explosions, and from a reactor.
Of 20 samples investigated in this study, 17 did not exceed the detection limit for plutonium. One soil sample was contaminated only by global fallout plutonium with its characteristic isotopic ratio of 240Pu/239Pu < 0.2. However, at least one (A-V) or two (G-V; higher uncertainty) of the vegetation samples showed detectable amounts of reactor derived plutonium (isotopic ratio 240Pu/239Pu > 0.2). One can assume that the ubiquitous fallout plutonium background masked the minute contribution of Fukushima-derived plutonium in soil, as illustrated by Zheng et al.11 However, given the low mobility and bioavailability of plutonium, one can expect that plant uptake of fallout plutonium will be negligible. Consequently, dry or wet deposition of airborne plutonium on the surface of the plants will be highly visible for sensitive analytical techniques such as AMS. This probably explains why plants proved to be such suitable bioindicators for airborne plutonium from Fukushima in the present study.
It is remarkable to note that distance alone is no sufficient factor to estimate the findings of refractory elements such as plutonium. Although the vegetation sample taken closest to the reactors (~0.9 km away) exhibited detectable amounts of reactor-plutonium, no other sample in close vicinity of the reactors (1.5, 1.9, km away) did so. However, a plant sample as far as 16 km away in north-northwestern direction (G-V) is suspected to contain plutonium from Fukushima. If this observation was confirmed, it would indicate a very nonuniform distribution of plutonium, most probably in particulate form. This may also have health physical implications because the inhalation of such plutonium-rich particles may result in high local dose delivery to the lung tissue.
...
The results of this study confirm the very low release of refractory elements from the Fukushima reactors. The plutonium concentrations found herein and reported by Zheng et al.11 are partly more than three orders of magnitude lower than the values obtained in environmental samples around the Chernobyl site after 198624. This is also true for the semi-volatile radionuclide 90Sr that has been monitored only occasionally after the Fukushima accident and revealed relatively low activity concentrations in environmental samples in Japan. As described in a previous study6, a vegetation sample from spot G (a spot that is also suspected to be contaminated with reactor plutonium according to Table 2) also carried a comparatively high 90Sr contamination, but a rather low radiocesium activity concentration (activity ratio 90Sr/137Cs approximately 0.1). This 90Sr over 137Cs activity ratio was found to be much smaller with all the other samples investigated in the previous study6. Spot G is located outside the main contamination strip that goes from the reactor in northwestern direction, which makes the presence of reactor plutonium even more unexpected. If the findings of reactor plutonium at spot G are confirmed, one may speculate what the reason for this unusual radionuclide pattern is (high concentrations of refractory radionuclides, but relatively low in volatile radionuclides). One possible explanation could be that this spot was contaminated with fuel particles that have experienced temperatures high enough to volatilize most of their radiocesium content, before or while they were emitted from the reactors. However, this hypothesis needs further investigations. In any case, it seems that there is not necessarily a correlation between the levels of radiocesium (and other volatile radionuclides) and the presence of reactor plutonium in the environment. This observation makes it likely that the release of plutonium was a more singular event, whereas the volatile radionuclides were released from the pressure vessels over several days in the course of the early venting operations.
...
In summary, our study evidenced the release of plutonium from the damaged FDNPP via its isotopic fingerprint. Two vegetation samples exhibited 240Pu/239Pu isotopic ratios of 0.381 ± 0.046 and 0.64 ± 0.37, respectively, both of which are higher than the global fallout background. The 239+240Pu activity concentrations, however, were relatively low (0.49 and 0.17 Bq·kg?1, respectively), confirming early predictions of a low plutonium release from Fukushima. The fact that reactor plutonium has not been found in more than two samples (one of which remains more in question) indicates that plutonium releases and fallout from FDNPP occurred in the form of particulates causing nonuniform plutonium contaminations. Future investigations will aim at a comprehensive screening for plutonium containing fuel particles in larger samples and if applicable detailed investigation of particles by single particle analytical techniques. Detection limits and decision thresholds will be lowered by use of high purity spikes. Furthermore, a 244Pu spike can be used if no alpha measurements are performed on the same sample. This can further improve the performance of AMS on such environmental samples.
If confirmed, a release of plutonium-rich hot particles is of potential health concern upon inhalation or incorporation. Our findings demonstrate the need for more detailed investigations on plutonium distribution and speciation in order to assess potential radiological consequences for the public. In any case, our study supports previous findings that indicated that the environmental plutonium inventory in Japan has not significantly increased after the Fukushima nuclear accident.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/131018/srep02988/full/srep02988.html
It is remarkable to note that distance alone is no sufficient factor to estimate the findings of refractory elements such as plutonium. Although the vegetation sample taken closest to the reactors (~0.9 km away) exhibited detectable amounts of reactor-plutonium, no other sample in close vicinity of the reactors (1.5, 1.9, km away) did so. However, a plant sample as far as 16 km away in north-northwestern direction (G-V) is suspected to contain plutonium from Fukushima. If this observation was confirmed, it would indicate a very nonuniform distribution of plutonium, most probably in particulate form. This may also have health physical implications because the inhalation of such plutonium-rich particles may result in high local dose delivery to the lung tissue.
...
The results of this study confirm the very low release of refractory elements from the Fukushima reactors. The plutonium concentrations found herein and reported by Zheng et al.11 are partly more than three orders of magnitude lower than the values obtained in environmental samples around the Chernobyl site after 198624. This is also true for the semi-volatile radionuclide 90Sr that has been monitored only occasionally after the Fukushima accident and revealed relatively low activity concentrations in environmental samples in Japan. As described in a previous study6, a vegetation sample from spot G (a spot that is also suspected to be contaminated with reactor plutonium according to Table 2) also carried a comparatively high 90Sr contamination, but a rather low radiocesium activity concentration (activity ratio 90Sr/137Cs approximately 0.1). This 90Sr over 137Cs activity ratio was found to be much smaller with all the other samples investigated in the previous study6. Spot G is located outside the main contamination strip that goes from the reactor in northwestern direction, which makes the presence of reactor plutonium even more unexpected. If the findings of reactor plutonium at spot G are confirmed, one may speculate what the reason for this unusual radionuclide pattern is (high concentrations of refractory radionuclides, but relatively low in volatile radionuclides). One possible explanation could be that this spot was contaminated with fuel particles that have experienced temperatures high enough to volatilize most of their radiocesium content, before or while they were emitted from the reactors. However, this hypothesis needs further investigations. In any case, it seems that there is not necessarily a correlation between the levels of radiocesium (and other volatile radionuclides) and the presence of reactor plutonium in the environment. This observation makes it likely that the release of plutonium was a more singular event, whereas the volatile radionuclides were released from the pressure vessels over several days in the course of the early venting operations.
...
In summary, our study evidenced the release of plutonium from the damaged FDNPP via its isotopic fingerprint. Two vegetation samples exhibited 240Pu/239Pu isotopic ratios of 0.381 ± 0.046 and 0.64 ± 0.37, respectively, both of which are higher than the global fallout background. The 239+240Pu activity concentrations, however, were relatively low (0.49 and 0.17 Bq·kg?1, respectively), confirming early predictions of a low plutonium release from Fukushima. The fact that reactor plutonium has not been found in more than two samples (one of which remains more in question) indicates that plutonium releases and fallout from FDNPP occurred in the form of particulates causing nonuniform plutonium contaminations. Future investigations will aim at a comprehensive screening for plutonium containing fuel particles in larger samples and if applicable detailed investigation of particles by single particle analytical techniques. Detection limits and decision thresholds will be lowered by use of high purity spikes. Furthermore, a 244Pu spike can be used if no alpha measurements are performed on the same sample. This can further improve the performance of AMS on such environmental samples.
If confirmed, a release of plutonium-rich hot particles is of potential health concern upon inhalation or incorporation. Our findings demonstrate the need for more detailed investigations on plutonium distribution and speciation in order to assess potential radiological consequences for the public. In any case, our study supports previous findings that indicated that the environmental plutonium inventory in Japan has not significantly increased after the Fukushima nuclear accident.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/131018/srep02988/full/srep02988.html
So, no, it is not a 'global catastrophe'. It's not even a catastrophe for Japan. Plutonium from Chernobyl was a far greater problem, and from nuclear weapons tests.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
226 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Thanks, Cleita. That's why I posted. Few who know are talking about Fukushima in public.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#3
Maybe when people start discovering they have polluted a whole food supply chain, they will
Cleita
Jan 2014
#6
Stephanie Miller isn't all that smart. She means well, but she's not one to go to for info.
cui bono
Jan 2014
#97
1 Millionth of One Gram of Inhaled Plutonium Will Give You Cancer -- Helen Caldicott, MD
Octafish
Jan 2014
#9
our granddaughter wanted to spend this summer in Japan... that was nixed in a heartbeat
secondwind
Jan 2014
#11
You first, (in the hug your plutonium for real department with no shielding)
nadinbrzezinski
Jan 2014
#35
Something like 80% of the mass of the core of the reactor at Chernobyl
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2014
#131
They must not like the smell of plutonium and stapelia gigantea. Sucks the breath right out of them
lonestarnot
Jan 2014
#147
EDIT: Original line here contained statistics I pulled out of my ass. It was wrong, and I apologize.
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#33
That is the stupidest thing I've read all day! Just how the fuck can you say that? You have
ChisolmTrailDem
Jan 2014
#44
"Octafish, is there anyone who disagrees with you that isn't a COINTELPRO operative? "...
SidDithers
Jan 2014
#61
If you want honest discussion, don't attribute to me what I didn't write then.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#62
For the record, I enjoyed the DU Mail back and forth just a few minutes ago.
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#76
Again, at levels far, far below levels that would cause even minor health risks.
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#91
Except that study indicated the plutonium, americium, and uranium levels corroborated with pre-2000
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#144
As a child in the 1950s, I got lots of propaganda about the "promise of the peaceful atom."
LongTomH
Jan 2014
#78
It's a disaster on a planetary scale and yet Corporate Media pretend it isn't.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#94
I try not to dwell on this because, frankly, there's Jack Shit that I can do about it.
Electric Monk
Jan 2014
#99
I feel that way too, Electric Monk. Problem is, TEPCO also feels that way, too.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#107
Here's a report on plutonium from Fukushima: only detectable very close to the reactor
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2014
#103
How Dangerous Is 400-6000 Pounds Of Plutonium Nano Particle Dust Liberated By Fukushima?
Octafish
Jan 2014
#148
What does Helen Caldicott's position on transparency have to do with the validity of her claims?
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#151
No. Caldicott made a mistake, based on what was then known. A lot different than what you call her.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#159
No, she took a study that fit her preconceptions despite its numerous known flaws
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#161
Release of plutonium isotopes from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident
SidDithers
Jan 2014
#163
It may have to do with clouding the central issue: Fukushima is a global catastrophe.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#171
You continually claim the plutonium from Fukushima is a 'global catastrophe' without any evidence
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2014
#173
I gave you science from sources independent of TEPCO, or governments, in #103
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2014
#176
Great. And I gave you sources in #105 that showed where it was found 25 miles away from FNPP.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#177
Right. But it's plutonium and found 25 times further from the plant than you reported in #103.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#181
I'd rather people get the facts and use them to set policy. The phrase is democracy.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#184
For the cost of Iraq War, we could've built National 100% Renewable Clean Energy Grid.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#224
Don't worry. The situation may even be worse than what's posted on this thread.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#188
Unfortunately, the facts say otherwise: Plutonium from Fukushima is a global catastrophe.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#185
I read the article where the scientist from NMSU said they detected plutonium on March 14, 2011.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#207
There's a big difference between depleted uranium and the nearly-undetectable cesium in tuna.
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#216
An Admirable Ability. Here's what Physicians for Social Responsibility said back in March, 2011...
Octafish
Jan 2014
#223
Did they ask: 'What if the Fukushima nuclear fallout crisis had happened here?'
Octafish
Jan 2014
#221