Title: Radioactive water found in work pits at Fukushima plant
Source: AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
Date: January 20, 2012
[...] About 500 tons of water was found in the pit of the No. 2 reactor, while about 600 tons was discovered at the No. 3 reactor pit.
Radioactive concentrations for cesium were 16,200 becquerels per cubic centimeter near the No. 2 reactor and 860 becquerels near the No. 3 reactor.
Read the report here
Water with cesium at 16,200 Bq/cm³ * 1,000 cm³/liter = 16,200,000 Bq/liter * 1,000 liters/metric ton = 16,200,000,000 Bq/metric ton * 500 tons = 8,100,000,000,000 Bq (8.1 trillion Bq or 8.1 terabecquerels) of cesium in 500 ton pit
“The Japanese government estimated that the March 11 Fukushima accident released 15,000 terabecquerels of cesium.” -AP
In this one newly discovered puddle there was over 8 terabecquerels of cesium, not including the strontium.
sending...
TEPCO keeps using smaller units of measurement to keep the public confused and the numbers in the tripe digits. Remember, MATH skills are not for everyone–centimeters, millimeters, bequerels, liters, tons, gallons, sieverts, millisieverts, microsieverts, greys, rads, etc–they kept switching around and around. Someone should invent an automated appliciation to review and report contamination levels at ONE standard measuring basis.
Sorry, mean triple, not tripe..well if the shoe fits…it might very well be tripe..
@jec: that’s an excellent suggestion. I’ve ‘programmed’ spreadsheets to do such calculations, but an online site that’s linked through – or available at – enenews would be invaluable…
Send me your spreadsheet, I will test it and post it as a downloadable tool, or an embedded tool if I can.
@stock: I should have clarified myself better.
I’ve generated spreadsheets that do conversions on measurements that are unrelated to energy. The principles are the same, but I’m not qualified to determine the relevant conversions…
Jec, I agree, the many different magnitudes (is that the word? sizes) of measurement, AND the varying types of measurement, very much muddy the water, confuse people, and generally make it hard to think about these things, even if you know how to go find conversions.
And I agree that part of the reason we get such a mess of different size results is to confuse and discourage people from trying to really understand. It’s intentional. Otherwise, media and the industry would simply agree to report info to the public in straightforward, standard units, and include quick explanations in every report. We’d hear the quick explanations of the units of measurement over and over in the news, til we all got it, if it were important to the industry and media that we understood.
We can help each other learn this stuff.
And thankyou, Admin, for converting the figures above!
The conversions are easy, although a definite nuisance. Most people won’t bother to do them. Enenews readers are more motivated than the general public though.
The good news is that there are plenty of free online conversion sites. Just Google a phrase like “convert radiation” or “becquerel conversion” and choose a site you find convenient. Here’s one example, chosen at random:
http://online.unitconverterpro.com/unit-conversion/radiation.html
Disclaimer: I have not tried their free download, but I sometimes find their online tables convenient. I’m not endorsing the site – it’s just one example you can find easily.
Anyway, I believe jec’s original post was musing about an automated converter – something to convert radiation references embedded in arbitrary text to canonical measurement forms. If so, that is a much more difficult, probably intractable challenge (NP-complete, if you know that jargon).
Plenty of middle ground for this community to do useful stuff though.
Interesting point, jec.
Early in the Fukushima crisis, MIT addressed this topic and said the confusion is not deliberate on the part of the industry.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/explained-radioactivity-0328.html
Having come to know Tepco’s habits better since then, I’m not so sure, but there are various factors in play.
As you probably know, there are lots of conversion sites online, but none offers the automated conversion that you suggest. I wouldn’t touch such a project though. Here’s why.
Think, for instance, of Google or Babelfish translations – your suggested app is much simpler on the surface, but I’m guessing you’d want to extract the math bits from a natural language text such as a Tepco press release. If so, the same kind of “sorry, my bad” translation would happen from time to time.
Here’s a simplistic illustration of this kind of problem. Suppose the incoming text is “Tepco reports there are still gray areas in measuring blah blah” – the output might become “Tepco reports there are still 100 rad areas in measuring blah blah” (1 gray = 100 rad).
A more serious, probably insurmountable problem is that the meanings of some of the measurement units are context-dependent, and the natural language text almost certainly would not provide enough context. From the MIT site:
—-
For x-rays and gamma rays, 1 rad = 1 rem = 10 mSv
For neutrons, 1 rad = 5 to 20 rem (depending on energy level) = 50-200 mSv
For alpha radiation (helium-4 nuclei), 1 rad = 20 rem = 200 mSv
—-
If our program chose the wrong context, its result would be out by a factor of twenty to one. Ouch!
That said, it would potentially be a great “reasonableness filter”, as long as people didn’t overly rely on it (which they would), and knew how to interpret it (which they wouldn’t). The techie in me loves the app though.
Creating confusion is ‘accidental’? Here is my take on this..
Minimizing data by putting radiation in water in cc form, rather than Bq per liter to me is creating confusion on purpose.
Minimizing data by completely avoiding all mention of total radiation releases of ALL isotopes, into groundwater, ocean, air and tanker ships is creating confusion on purpose.
Minimizing radiation measurements by saying meters are broken, missing, bad, or misread, is creating confusion on purpose.
It is too easy to have fail safe meters around every nuclear plant. After 70 years, they should have this figured out. It would be like having a black box in every jet.. Duh…this is REALLY simple to do, but no, we have to create confusion, and pretend we do not know anything about radiation amounts, total releases, because all of our machines are not working because of this or that excuse.. huh?
Minimizing radiation by reporting only very isolated parts; a pit full of radioactive water here, an accidental release on one day there, a teensy water leak from a hose, a couple of days worth of air releases, 10,000 times over normal in groundwater, etc. This is all designed to confuse everyone, but provide no meaningful information.
Minimize the information flow, by not allowing press in, avoiding press conferences, controlling all information flowing to the public via mass media owned by GE (which produces nuke stuff) using a marketing organization to double as a ‘safety/health’ agency… Nope, that is all ‘accidental confusion’.
In my mind, having the IAEA (a marketing company) in charge of nuclear safety is a like a car dealer being in charge of investigating traffic accidents and fatalities on the road. Or, to put it another way, the ABC advertising company handling aircraft marketing/sales is also in charge of jet safety, and investigates all jet crashes. Who would permit such a confusing insanity?
Kill them with overwhelming amounts of confusion, but…
Tepco’s measurements just follow the International Standard of Measurements. Its a very standard measurement for volume. By no means deliberate, just because some people don’t understand. Im certainly not confused. Certainly, I think they know more then they are releasing but thats rather expected from this industry, is it not? Is it right? No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit
Do you really believe they have the means to measure every single disintegration of a nucleus that has happened since march? I for one, do not. Hench the estimations. Remember they are still trying to mitigate a disaster.
If a person misreads something, they are at fault.
And how is a pit of water that has radiation and them telling us, creating confusion?
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/index3-e.html
Theres a link with radation surveys all around the plant, from dates ranging 3/23/11 to 1/10/12.
Sorry Tepco doesnt email you daily updates, and you actually have to look for it.
bullshit, most people couldn’t convert kG to lbs, or Rem to Sv.
Its a time waster, its a confusing factor, it adds clouds where clarity is more likely.
Dear Stock: Some truth to what you’re saying. Most of the public is intentionally kept in the dark by the nuclear establishment in academia, military, corporate and otherwise by an INTENTIONALLY complex (dozens) of variously applicable standard measurements of radiation (external, internal, in terms of electrical energy, blah de blah blah blah)
If you were taught math, and know the conversion factors. Most people cant because they have no need for it. Nothing confusing about it.
Dear Jdtog, Actually, the ability to extrapolate overall emissions is easily within the grasp of modern physicists, very very easily.
Pallas, Is it a definitive exact amount? No, always an estimate.
Agreenroad said this “Minimizing data by completely avoiding all mention of total radiation releases of ALL isotopes”
The total release of all isotopes would be very hard to give a definitive, agreed upon, exact, answer.
Their estimates would be very easily computed. But that’s an estimate, as I stated above. Not an exact measure.
Impossible to give an exact figure. There are too many factors to consider. Airborne,Groundwater, Whatever they dump/ed into the ocean, Bio-accumulation, Many different half-lifes, along with different radioactive fission products. You will never hear an exact amount from any significant radiological release, only estimates. Look it up. Exactly the reason, why the japanese doubled their emissions estimate for fukushima. If it was so easy they would have nailed it the first time. Explains also why you see words like, estimated or approximately.
So Yes, its easy to guess, but as Agreenroad wanted the exact information; this will be hard to come by.
Furthermore, we know its out there after watching explosions, and given any amount of radiation is bad. Id rather them stop the continual release, instead of counting it.
@jdotg: a well considered response on your part. I’d also add that the emission levels would be influenced by the reaction of the fissionable materials with adjacent materials. Also, variations in temperature (plasma) would yield differing radioactive byproducts.
We’re left with gross estimates of what’s coming out of those plants. Had they installed calibrated sensors throughout the area, prior to the meltdowns, then we might’ve had the means to produce more accurate data. The reality is, as things are now, there will never be any reliable data…
Dear Green: You’re very much correct. The whole radiation measurement and dosimetry (internal/external) terms problem could be absolutely easily standardized and thus clarified for all. Remember, of course, that NO one currently inside the system power clique wants that at all at any cost. But, without getting control over the liars at the top, it is unlikely we will hear any straight talk from the scumbags ensconced therein.
That is a great idea – I bet Taco knows a programmer and we can collect the funds to do it right here. Also a good idea to make a new heading each time we catch a news source allowing a change of measurement scale – call them on it, loudly, with lots of emails and if they are using public airwaves, complain to the FCC that their actions, in failing to standardize, are misleading the public about a safety issue.
How does anyone calculate or know how much of a melted core is vaporized as a percent of the total?
Yes, a nuclear bomb does vaporize just about all of itself, but a melt down is different.
I have not been able to find any information about this yet..
Does anyone know?
I am curious to know how much TOTAL radiation is on site in the storage tanks and basements, filters, concentrators, etc.(ALL ISOTOPES), rather than just a few bq per cc…. and drips and drabs of tons of water here and there…
Enough of the minutia… what is the TOTAL?
Admin thanks for doing those calcs, I was going to do so. Takes a little brainpower and time. short on both today. aloha friday ya know
So in that one pond, if that radiation were distributed euqally among the 6B world population each person could have 1350 Bq of Cesium, or 27 Bq per kilogram of body weight.
As we know, limits of 500 Bq per kG are quite high, and above that limit most countries wouldn’t allow meat to be sold.
So this one pond that they just found, is enough to give the entire human race a 5% kick (500 Bq/kg / 27 Bq/Kg) towards being “radioactive meat”
Nice, just this one pond that they just found. Real nice.
Dear Stock, and rising (the world human per capita radiation levels) …until first we, overall, all get immune system weakening and disorders, eventually there is worldwide 100% infertility and not just for humans, then depending on the amount of plutonium in the lungs and other alpha emitters, we increasingly can’t breath due to fibroid masses in the lungs, others increasingly get and die from thyroid, and other hormone and endocrine disruptions and disorders, and then all those that remain eventually succumb to cancers, blindness, and the fatigue of course will continue to increase and eventually no one will be able to overcome it through exercise because of the higher per capita on-board radionuclide load. There are too many diseases to mention worsened or caused by radiation contamination that will just become increasingly more prevalent with each day that the masses do nothing to overtake the status quo power cliques and unleash some serious creative solutions, not the current do nothing at all selfish stupid corporatist CYA of the status quo power elite. Your world human per capita figures are just from three uncontrolled reactor coriums. Wasn’t cancer becoming epidemic anyway before 311, perhaps partly from Chernobyl? I know that immune system problems unrelated to AIDS were on the rise worldwide after 1986. Despite “official” re-certifications, there are about 1000 other reactors and more than 40% of those are over 30 years of age, which is well beyond their actual even remotely safe operating lives. None of these 1000 reactors are built with SUFFICIENT safety back-ups as to have done so would have bit into PROFITEERING by the scum that really do make money off these forever death makers–only of course profiting in the short run.
That 5% figure IS JUST FROM the recently discovered pond of cesium at Reactor 2.
It does not count anything else, just from that one pond that they just discovered today. Not the turbine basement, not the other reactors, not all the crap they already dumped into the ocean not the 20 to 180 tons of uranium launched in reactor 3 blowup.
Only one pond, and we are 5% of the way to every human being contaminated meat!
scary that, I didn’t even see that part of it.
Thats assuming that we recieve 100% of the intial amount of radiation. Which is far from likely. People are not the only thing inhabiting the earth, also not the only thing capable of absorbing radiation. So your figure is wrong, sorry.
Its wrong in so many ways.
Remember this is only for cs-137 now.
Alright so, my problem, 50 kilos per person? 110 lbs? Okay whatever.
Ive had enough of your math already lol
If all 6 billion people came in contact with it, its safe to assume the whole world did. So why dont you divide your numbers by the mass of earth. That would be more representative of what your trying to get it.
Becquerel is a measure of radioactivity.
” Many people are searching for How do I convert activity to dose or dose-rate? We think that conversion is the wrong term. Conversion usually means, what number do I multiply Ci and Bq by to obtain R, rad, rem and Gy or Sv? What you should be asking is how do a I calculate dose-rate or dose for a given activity of an isotope? It is indeed a complicated calculation, not a simple conversion.”
http://www.radprocalculator.com/FAQ.aspx
The decay rate, the distance, the energy emitted are all factors, which you did not apply to your calculation.
8.1 Tbq = 219 Ci of Cs-137, at a distance of 1 km would be a equivalent dose of 0.01399 uSv/hr.
or
total estimate of 15,000 Tbq = 405405 Ci of Cs-137 at a distance of 1 km, would be a equivalent dose of 0.025902 mSv/hr or 25.9 uSv/hr
Obviously, the further aware, the less it is.
aware lol read away!
Must be friday
For comparison a chest x-ray is about .1 mSv
I’ve broken my leg, ribs several times, toes several times and never went for an x-ray because I can’t handle any more radiation. Some kid broke my skull and I sent to a workers’ comp doctor for months but I didn’t let them x-ray me or give me a cat scan. When the bones were dislocated in my wrist I didn’t get an x-ray. I haven’t had an x-ray of my teeth in 35 years. Radiation is accumulative and extremely harmful.
I haven’t flown in an airplane in 20 years, and I will never fly again.
I have also refused all bone density scans.
Dear Jd: It would be nothing to create a multi-dimensional (for whatever it is that is being measured in terms of radiation) graphic representation of all measurements in proportion or to have a site that did that with an accurate and directly to scale translation from one measurement term to the other whatever was being measured.
I can’t do it, not incredibly gifted in maths; but I know there are millions and millions out there that could create such a program in days.
One wouldn’t, of course, include the “mass of the earth” in the distribution assumptions because the contamination is at the surface.
Dear Jd: contamination doesn’t require 100% contact at all. I may not completely concur with any measurements by any one indiviudal; but the fact remains that we have an unprecedented daily release of aerosolized fallout from Fukushima Dai ichi, at the very least, and we KNOW what many of the effects are from studying Chernobyl. It’s not mysterious that we will have world wide effects from this 10 month old and ongoing radioactive fallout emission cataclysm. It must not be minimized.
There is safety backup for nuke that is safe enough.
Shut them ALL DOWN!
word NO in front of safety backup, wow long week
WOW @stock, knew it was bad but not able to *picture the damage. Thanks. You have given me a *tidbit to tell the glassy eyed people. I am learning not to give up on them completely…but to only give them a brief tidbit of information & to then quickly change the subject, or let them change it.
I understand that a person will likely not absorb 100% jdtog, stock isn’t using decimal points ect. so I took it as an estimate, just the way Tepco & government ect throw out figures.
@jdotg the exact calculations are definitely needed as well. For me for example it will help me learn. So there is definitely a need for both calculations.
Most people have no concept of what radiation is except what they hear on TV ect. Imagery is exactly what we need in order to inform them…not teach.
…@stock and @jdotg as I said we need those calculations & if you willing to do this whenever, it will be appreciated. But we will easily miss them in a post. Just a thought to ask admin to add it to the article post as from you. That ensures everyone will see it.
See above. I did some computing for ya, and As i stated earlier i doubt you will ever find an exact number. Only estimates exist.
Agreed, the public must immediately insist, and it will cause no hardship from a power or cost of power standpoint in reality no matter what the status quo power brokers bleet in complaint, that all nuclear reactors and nuclear programs be immediately shut down. All medical treatment using radiation must be reviewed by the public, as well. Where possible this should be replaced with directed proton based therapies against tumors.