Category Archives: Xenon

The Impact of the Fukushima on Canada: Health Canada Reports

By Jay T. Cullen

The purpose of this post is to bring to the attention of interested readers a recently released report that provides comprehensive account of the environmental radiation surveillance activities conducted by Health Canada in the months immediately following the Fukushima accident.  This report includes an assessment of the overall levels of contamination and resulting impacts to the health of Canadians.  Contrary to irresponsible and inaccurate rumors that Health Canada suspended monitoring in the wake of the triple meltdowns, monitoring activities were, in fact, enhanced and expanded to increase the flow of information and improve understanding of the implications of the contamination for environmental and public health.  While there was no discernible change in total background radiation a distributed system of monitoring stations and the rapid collection and measurement of environmental samples tracked the trace levels of atmospheric contamination across the country. The report concludes:

  1. conservative estimates of the maximum individual dose from Fukushima was less than 0.0003 (1/ 3,000) of the typical annual dose for a Canadian owing to natural background sources
  2. the additional dose resulting from Fukushima derived contamination is far less than the normal variation in dose from place to place in Canada
  3. there are likely to be no health impacts related to this small, incremental dose

Continue reading The Impact of the Fukushima on Canada: Health Canada Reports

Comparing the Environmental Impacts of the Chernobyl and Fukushima Disasters

Estimated total atmospheric source term for Fukushima compared to Chernobyl in PBq (PBq = 10^15 Bq). From Steinhauser et al. (2014) SciToTEnviron

By Jay T. Cullen

This post reports on a recently published peer reviewed study by Steinhauser and colleagues in the journal Science of the Total Environment (behind pay wall) comparing the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents. The post is part of an ongoing effort to communicate the results of scientific studies into the impact of the Fukushima disaster on the environment. A majority of the radioactivity released from both Chernobyl and Fukushima can be attributed to volatile radionuclides (noble gases, iodine, cesium, tellurium). In contrast, the amounts of more refractory elements (including actinides like plutonium), released by Chernobyl was ~four orders of magnitude (10,000 fold) higher than releases from Fukushima. The most cited source term for Chernobyl is 5300 PBq (excluding noble gases) while a review of published studies of Fukushima carried out by the authors above allow an estimate for the total atmospheric source term of 520 (a range of 340–800) PBq. Monitoring of air, soil and water for radionuclides after the respective accidents indicate that the environmental impact of Chernobyl is likely to be much greater than the Fukushima accident. The post is relatively information dense as I have provided data tables for those who are interested in the estimates and the peer-reviewed studies from which they come. Apologies up front to those who find such information tedious. Continue reading Comparing the Environmental Impacts of the Chernobyl and Fukushima Disasters

Error in Study Suggests Fukushima Releases Greater Than Chernobyl

By Jay T. Cullen

Distribution of soil activity concentration due to 134Cs and 137Cs within 80 km of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Considering radioactive decay, the activity concentrations in the graph were corrected to July 2, 2011 From Koo et al. (2014)

The purpose of this post is to address an error in a recently published review of current release estimates from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster that began in March 2011. The post is part of an ongoing effort to communicate results of scientific studies aimed at understanding the impact of Fukushima on the health of the North Pacific and residents of the west coast of North America. In a recent review paper published in Progress in Nuclear Energy by Koo and colleagues this July, compiled estimates of atmospheric and ocean releases from Fukushima were presented. Due to an error in interpretation they suggest that direct ocean releases were a factor of 4 greater than atmospheric releases of radiologically significant isotopes like 131-I (~8 day half life) and 137-Cs (~30 year half life). This error inflates release estimates and has been reported on to suggest Fukushima releases exceed Chernobyl’s. Accurate estimates of releases from Fukushima suggest that they are about an order of magnitude less than those from Chernobyl in 1986.

The study of Koo and others (link to a ResearchGate upload) estimated atmospheric releases of 131-I, 137-Cs and the noble gas 133-Xe (half life ~ 5 days) from the Fukushima Dai-ichii nuclear power plant. Their estimates compared with previously published estimates are reported in the following table (Table 2 from paper):

Summary of source terms released into the atmosphere from units 1–3. Koo et al. (2014)

Similar to previous work, for example, they estimate the atmospheric release of 137-Cs from the plant to be 10-50 PBq or somewhere between 3 and 17 kg of the isotope. Given the core inventories of reactors 1-3 this release represents about 4% of the inventory at the time of the meltdowns in March 2011.

The authors make a significant error when they begin their estimate of direct releases from Fukushima to the ocean when they state the following in section 2.2.2. Release from the primary system into the sea:

It is reported that, of the total radioactivity released from the units 1–3 into the environment, more than 80% of it flowed into the sea (Hoeve and Jacobson, 2012 and Christoudias and Lelieveld, 2013), implying that 4 times more radioactivity was released to the sea than to the atmosphere.

Bolds are mine. In stating that 80% of the total radioisotope releases flowed into the sea they fundamentally misinterpret the studies they cite. What the study of Christoudias and Lelieveld (2013), and other studies not referenced here in the diary, actually show and establish is that (quoting from the Christoudias and Lelieveld work):

We calculated that about 80% of the radioactivity from Fukushima which was released to the atmosphere deposited into the Pacific Ocean.

This is a fundamentally different than the interpretation Koo and colleagues use in their study. By wrongly interpreting that atmospheric releases represent 20% of the total release they assume that direct ocean releases are 4 fold greater than the 4% of core inventories (10-50 PBq) or 16% of core inventories of 137-Cs in March 2011. This error greatly increases the estimated total releases from the plant (atmosphere + direct ocean).

It is very likely that this incorrect approach will lead others to conclude that total releases from Fukushima are greater than those from Chernobyl. For example a back of the envelope calculation assuming the 4% of the total core inventory of 137-Cs (760-820 PBq according to the table above) was released to the atmosphere and 16% to the ocean would lead to a total release of ~152-164 PBq. Such a calculation was done by a popular news aggregator and editorial site that has a history of misinterpreting and misinformation the public about Fukushima. This estimate, not surprisingly, is at great odds with existing estimates based on measurements and modeling.

Best estimates to date suggest that:

1. atmospheric releases of 137-Cs were 19.4 +- 3.0 PBq through the end of March 2011
2. direct ocean discharge of 137-Cs to the Pacific in addition to atmospheric deposition are in the range 2.3 to 26.9 PBq
3. About 19.5 +- 5% of releases were deposited to land while about 80% ended up in the Pacific Ocean

A report reviewing the most recent peer reviewed studies which reaches these conclusions was summarized in a post here.

Releases of isotopes that represent potential radiological health threats given their respective total activities and/or their significant half lives (e.g. 131-I and 137-Cs) were about an order of magnitude (factor of 10 times) lower than the releases from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 (see reports here and here for example). More and more observations are being made globally by the international scientific community which will help to improve source term and release estimates. I will report on these studies as the data becomes available.

I have contacted the authors to bring their attention to this problem with their study.