RT: Fukushima amounts to four Chernobyls of cesium-137 contamination

Published: May 24th, 2012 at 3:07 pm ET


Cesium-137 contamination: Fukushima amounts to four Chernobyls
Russia Today
May 24, 2012

TEPCO’s new estimates suggest that its Fukushima reactor has released more than quadruple the amount of radioactive cesium-137 leaked during the Chernobyl disaster. But the method used to measure the damage may undervalue the hazard even further.

­[…] it still seems to be just an effort to downplay the real scale of the event.

The report goes on to compare Fukushima with the Chernobyl accident of 1986, where it says 5,200,000 TBq of “radioactive substances” were leaked into the atmosphere.

The problem is that TEPCO only counts the amount of iodine-131 and cesium-137 leaked from the Fukushima reactor, and compares them to the whole range of isotopes that were discharged at Chernobyl.

And if compared properly, the numbers tell a different story.


Regarding the emission of cesium-137, Fukushima is far ahead its rival. Post-Fukushima estimations suggest that Chernobyl put out a total of 85,000 TBq of caesium-137 over the course of the disaster. The Fukushima reactor, however, has so far released 360,000 TBq of cesium-137, according to TEPCO.


Published: May 24th, 2012 at 3:07 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Update: Fukushima is NOT 4½ Chernobyls of Cs-137… “but it is worse” — “Doubly ironic that it is all thanks to Yomiuri Shinbun, pro-nuke establishment newspaper” May 26, 2012
  2. ABC Radio: “Who’s to blame for radioactive fish? Tepco denies cesium contamination is from Fukushima” November 19, 2012
  3. Japan Gov’t-funded Study: Fukushima has released up to 120 Quadrillion becquerels of radioactive cesium into North Pacific Ocean — Does not include amounts that fell on land — Exceeds Chernobyl total, which accounts for releases deposited on land AND ocean (MAP) June 30, 2014
  4. Radioactive dust reported in Tokyo after recent fog — Over 4,000 Bq/kg of cesium — “Contamination never disappear, be careful” March 21, 2013
  5. Japan TV: Alarming new discovery — Analysis reveals seriousness of contamination from Fukushima for first time — “Enormous amounts” of radioactive material released on day one of crisis, well before officials said — Plant Worker: “Readings were off the scale” (VIDEO) October 2, 2014

26 comments to RT: Fukushima amounts to four Chernobyls of cesium-137 contamination

  • Holland Holland

    Talking about downplaying; there's hardly any news on Fukushima in the Dutch media but yesterday and today there was some. Headlines: 'Radiation Fukushima under international permitted standard' and 'No deaths or sick by Fukushima disaster'.

    The mother of all nuclear accidents unfolds in Japan and this is the 'news'. Unbelievable.

  • Replacant Replacant

    The same in California, everyone thinks I'm a nut for obsessing on Fukushima, as when i talk about it the common reaction is "oh is that still going on?" I cant seem to find any independent info on the contamination in the Pacific Ocean, there has been a ship and motorcycle that made it to the west coast already and those got a ton of press, but the massive oil/chemical/radioactive tsunami backwash gets almost no press. I guess we all can act surprised when the worst environmental disaster in the history of the world hits California.

    • Several current debris tracking links, plus Fukushima vs. Chernobyl fallout
      Also some sea water and aerosolized radiation links

      Radiation Exposure and Protection Guides

    • The spell is being re-cast. I can feel it. It's horribly evil. People are going "under" all around me. The propaganda mill is operating on "high." We are being programmed to believe that Fukushima was "no big deal" so we can get on with war on Iran or whatever the next stage of this nightmare reality show is going to be. All for the love of money. Remember that. Power for the purpose of control. That's what money represents. We need a better purpose. We need to love each other and care for each other. We aren't here to control each other. Look what we have become.

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    Total Fukushima Radiation Released Into Ocean, Air, Groundwater, Storage Tanks; via A Green Road Blog http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/02/total-fukushima-radiation-released-into.html

  • blackbeer blackbeer

    This event started back in 1943 and it's forever. Even if every NP were shut down today we would still be looking at 3 million years worth of deadly toxins on our once life friendly planet. Evan those of us that think we have a handle on the scope of this thing have know way of rapping our heads around the truth of the matter. A couple of days ago Whoopie linked a book in one of the threads, I forget which one, called Devils' Tango. I downloaded it as an ebook. It is a keeper and I would urge you all to read it. We are at war, a war between the old world control freaks and the new world enlightened humans. We gave the bad guys all the weapons they need to do us in so we are at a bit of a disadvantage which will require us to get pretty creative as to how we wage this war, but it is one we must win or parish in the attempt. It's that simple, life or death. It is that desperate……………….


  • OT…

    Explosive eruption seen at Japan’s Sakurajima Volcano
    Posted on May 24, 2012

    4.6 130km E Of Yamada, Japan 2012-05-24 12:35:43 39.378°N 143.457°E 32.2

  • Worthw8n4

    Two thoughts, first, what would happen if the waste products were actually deposited into the molten lava of an active volcano? Secondly, on the issue of Tepco/et al, can we be witnessing an deliberate act of Kamakazi? (They seem to be making war on everything but the problem.)

    • faithhopelove

      Dumping in a volcano:

      How do you safely get there?
      There would be a lot of unknowns, but it might be worthy of investigation.

      • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar anne

        Should We Throw Hazardous Waste Into Volcanoes?

        "It's an even worse idea to toss nuclear waste into a volcano. Combustion won't have any effect on spent nuclear fuel, nor will it reduce the radioactivity of low-level waste like contaminated clothing and equipment. The only reason to incinerate miscellaneous radioactive garbage would be to reduce its overall volume, so it's easier to sequester. As with the incineration of medical waste, this produces dangerous emissions that would pop right out of a volcano.

        "Even without medical or radioactive waste, volcanoes already release dangerous gases into the environment. In Cameroon, carbon-dioxide pollution from a volcanic crater lake asphyxiated several thousand valley-dwelling people when it displaced the available oxygen. Active volcanoes in Hawaii have caused problems with acid rain and "vog," a combination of volcanic gases and fog…."

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar anne

      It wouldn't get rid of the radiation. There is no way to reduce the amount of radiation. And the daughter products are man-made and extremely dangerous.

      • Worthw8n4

        We can no more "get rid" of radiation than we can "uninvent" nuclear power. The goal is to mitigate human contact with the radioactive elements. I did read the link and found it interesting, but I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions drawn. Since items encased in molten lava are "inacessable" to most life forms, the salient question is how to get the waste to this location, and perhaps develope an encasement system to allow for deep submergence before dis-integration.

        • Worthw8n4

          A coated capsule so to speak. My belief is that nothing is man made, merely man manipulated, as the elements were here when we arrived on the scene. Without respect to that, even the "daughter" products you mentioned must be mitigated. Even if the transportation factor limits response, perhaps some of the more egregious waste could be handled in this manner.

  • PoorDaddy PoorDaddy

    If I could wave a magic wand, the headline in every Newspaper in the world tomorrow morning would read:


  • many moons

    It's funny but there is very little reporting by local newspapers except on a local level….everything outside the region is cookie cutter news/disinformation lilo fillered stuff coming throught the wire…prefab articles written before the event and terrorist to the left, Obama was born on another planet…we found the birth certificate….continued on 5f.

  • Longjohn119

    I think it should be noted that this ONLY includes the airborne releases. It doesn't count what was released into the soil below Fukushima from the leaking reactor cores nor the amounts dumped into the Pacific Ocean for the last 14 months straight

  • Spectrometising

    Why the relentlessly endless obsession with Cs137 instead of Cs137/134.
    Just saying..

    And it seems to be forgotten by respondents that Cs134 is 16 times more radioactive than an equivalent quantity of Cs137 due to its shorter and more active half life.

    Cs137 half life = 30 years
    Cs134 half life = 2 years

    Some academic rigor people please !!

  • Spectrometising

    I would say those who fail to add the Cs134 notation for fresh fallout are being sloppy.

    The Cs134 is much worse.

    16 times worse.

  • Spectrometising

    Admin should/could add reminders that Cs134 is 16 times more radioactive per unit quantity than Cs137, otherwise, in view of this ultra faulty reporting, the urgency of those first few years of 16X more radioactive Cs134 goes amiss.

    It is reasonable well known by now and there is no excuse for reporting anything relating to Fukushima Cesium fallout without including both of the isotopes Cs137 and its Cs134 counterpart..

    In view of any low grade unqualified news aggregation to instill the ability to be more discerning amongst those new to this, and learning the ropes so they have at least some data for being able to sort good articles from the bollocks articles.

    I realise EneNews does not make the new and is only a news aggregation service.

    • ENENews

      I could also write about the many other radionuclides released from Fukushima every time I link to an article that mentions cs-137.

      Unfortunately my time to work on these matters is not infinite. And perhaps you are not aware that the information that this RT report is based on was published first here: http://enenews.com/just-in-tepco-estimates-total-cesium-137-release-from-fukushima-at-360000-terabecquerels-4-times-higher-than-chernobyls-85000-terabecquerels

      Q: "Why the relentlessly endless obsession with Cs137 instead of Cs137/134. Just saying.."

      A: The cs-137 is used for comparison because it stays around a while, is easier to detect than sr-90, and is extremely dangerous.

      Also, the RT article didn't discuss the health implications. It is simply comparing Fukushima to Chernobyl.

      Feel free to post this supplemental relevant information in the comments, or start your own website and post whatever you'd like.


      [Edit at 12:10a]

      You should clear up what this means: "In view of any low grade unqualified news aggregation to instill the ability to be more discerning amongst those new to this, and learning the ropes so they have at least some data for being able to sort good articles from the bollocks articles."

      • Spectrometising

        Thanks for the guiding response, admin, and realise Enenews does not make the news and so use the opportunity to mention it again.

        It is a fair comment that the burden of opinion is not in the scope of this site, and a good reminder. Thanks !!

        My main contention is the Fukushima comparisons with Chernobyl Cs137 are in effect not taking into consideration the much higher activity of its sister radioisotope Cs134 in the present.

        I am an amateur speaking out into the wide open spaces and hope to see more accurate representations of comparisons by the professionals. My view is we are not speaking of Fukushima 20 years from now, the Cs134 is being swept under a rug, and is presently much more active/toxic than its sister Cs137

        Perhaps headlines can reflect Cs137 in a few years, while the most active isotope is presently is the Cs134 Fukushima signature radionuclide.

  • arclight arclight

    how can we get around censorship and manipulation of data?? 😉

    london radiation sizewell alert 25 may 2012 03.00hrs gmt
    and some other stuff! 😮


    cheeky arc

  • markww markww

    Ok anyone know how to file charges on TEPCO for the coverup. Seems we re the only ones and a few others that have the guts to speak

  • MVB Michael Van Broekhoven

    Sorry to break it to y'all, but…

    RT's reporting took TEPCO's "Iodine-131 equivalence" estimates (for Cs-137 + I-131) and then erroneously compared it to Chernobyl's raw data.

    As far as I know there's no cover-up there. (There are plenty others, but I find it important to sort truths from deceptions. In this case, ENENEWS parrotted nonesense.

    If you REALLY want a conspiracy, perhaps ponder the possibility that Russia Today may like to make Chernobyl seem less severe. After spending too much time writing about how bad is really was, and while doing so discovering the confused reporting all over, I lay out the mistake they made clearly in my (May 25, 2012) blogpost:

    Fukushima’s Cs-137 is NOT “Four Chernobyls” ! (Russia Today spreading misinformation)


    As far as the TOTAL release, I'm not buying the lowered numbers, though. See July 2011 data I also mention. Hope this is helpful.

    Bottom line: nuclear energy must phased out quickly. Everywhere. Immediately. Peace. – mvb

    • Michael

      You are aware that Fukushima is continuing to release large amounts of radiation?

      So, how can we evaluate a total release given releases into the atmosphere and sea are ongoing?

      I think all of the official calculations are a bunch of baloney.

      The best estimates are from scientists examining deposition in their areas. Studies have been done on Ca kelp, pacific northwest xenon immediately after accident, and Lithuania plutonium.

      Still, even these studies are simply snapshots that don't begin to address ongoing deposition.

    • I think all of the number crunching is moot and a general distraction, to a certain degree, at this time. I'm not saying it's not important. But, as far as accuracy, that relies on data and honest people interpreting it, unfortunately, I haven't seen much of that so far. It should not be that way, but it is.

      It's like seeing a tsunami coming directly at you and then taking the TIME to calculate it's height, distance, overall kinetic energy and approaching speed while you're standing on the beach and then debating about it with others standing next to you.

      By the time they realize there really IS an immediate concern it will be too late. Those who ran when the ground moved and the water sucked out to sea may survive.