Just-Published Study: Plutonium being found away from Fukushima is from nuclear fuel fragments blown out after explosions

Published: March 9th, 2012 at 12:01 am ET


Title: Isotopic evidence of plutonium release into the environment from the Fukushima DNPP accident
Author: Jian Zheng, Keiko Tagami, Yoshito Watanabe, Shigeo Uchida, Tatsuo Aono, Nobuyoshi Ishii, Satoshi Yoshida, Yoshihisa Kubota, Shoichi Fuma & Sadao Ihara
Date: 08 March 2012
Emphasis Added

[…] It was found that although the inventories of Pu isotopes in the reactors in the Fukushima DNPP were ca. 3.5 times those in the Chernobyl No. 4 reactor23, the percentages of core inventory released for both 239+240Pu and 241Pu were about 5 orders of magnitude lower than those of the Chernobyl accident. These results suggested that for the Fukushima DNPP accident, the plutonium emitted into the environment was mainly due to the release of Pu associated with fuel fragments as a consequence of the hydrogen explosions, as suggested by Kirchner et al […]

Read the report here

Note the authors use the word ‘explosions’ — not ‘explosion’ — indicating the plutonium was released from multiple reactors and or spent fuel pools.

Regarding the other study to make a similar suggestion, Kirchner et al, this is what’s available online:

Jan 9, 2012 – This deviation from the mean core burn-up indicates that plutonium may be associated with fuel fragments that hypothetically could have been …

If anyone is able to find that excerpt please post below.

Published: March 9th, 2012 at 12:01 am ET


Related Posts

  1. Scientists: Plutonium released from Fukushima “is of radiological concern”; Reactor must be source, not spent fuel pool — Study: Plutonium found 120 km from plant; “Pu and non-natural uranium certainly increased in environment” April 21, 2014
  2. Study: Fukushima plutonium in playground 60 km from nuclear plant — “Proves that indeed Plutonium has been emitted by the accident” — Some “in the form of fuel fragments”? — Up to 14 Billion Bq of Pu-239 and-240 released (MAP) June 29, 2014
  3. L.A. Times: Speculation that “supercritical fission event” occurred at Fukushima reactor irradiating plutonium, says nuclear expert — Explosion so massive investigators found fuel rod fragments a mile away March 9, 2012
  4. Nature Study: Long-term plutonium dose assessment needed after Fukushima — Concerns about Americium-241 also — Deposition south of plant, not only northwest March 8, 2012
  5. Report: Nuclear fuel fragments found over a mile away were “ejected from the reactor cores in those explosions” not spent fuel pools, according to NRC (VIDEO) August 18, 2011

14 comments to Just-Published Study: Plutonium being found away from Fukushima is from nuclear fuel fragments blown out after explosions

  • Anthony Anthony

    Almost year after tsunami, Fukushima nuclear plant in shambles, running on makeshift equipment
    By Mari Yamaguchi, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – 4 hours ago


  • I read the scientific study. It was impressive.
    All I need to know is this video though.


    And this calc off EPA RADNET

  • Kevin Kevin

    5 orders of magnitude less than chernobyl.

    This just does not sit right with me.

    multiple reactors multiple fuel pools.

    The pools being more of a source of plutonium than the cores.

    All the relevant data suggests that is impossible, however if you believe the fairy tale of hydrogen explosions that left the cores and pools in place, its believable.

    Which troubles me even more.

    I dont know….. maybe its me.

    • Clearly Fukushima was / is worse than Chernobyl

      So many of these scientific studies resemble the proverbial blind men trying to make sense of the elephant

      The method section of this article is not clearly written. It appears from the map that the study relied on samples taken from 4 locations only.

      3 samples were taken at each location.

      This is a very partial sampling and may not be indicative of much given the documented uneven dispersion of radiation fallout.

      Look at the maps of Chernobyl fallout. Local weather conditions and topographical features meant that some areas were relatively clean adjacent to dangerous hot spots.

      I don't trust any study that extrapolates (less than Chernobyl) using such a small sample of locations.

      The only way we can realistically begin to understand how much radiation was released, is by accurate disclosure of what really happened to the reactors at Fukushima I and II and what happened to the various spent fuel pools…

      • Kevin Kevin

        Completely agree Majia,

        Which is why I said it was disturbing if in fact we are seeing studies bent to uphold the fairy tale. Printed in prestigous journals yet.

        I mean as I understand it, and I could be wrong here, cuz I am going by memory, Chernobyl had no spent fuel pool equation.

        So a core, with no mox, therefor less plutonium and again by memory I think it was a fresh core, which means even less plutonium, yet its release was 5 orders of magitude larger.

        I am getting more and more convinced that this thing is real real real bad, just judging by the magnitude of the cover up, which is definately 5 orders of magnitude larger than Chernobyl.

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        Majia, I didn't read this report closely. Is there anything in the discussion of methodology that would suggest the researchers could have arrived at any statistically significant conclusions?

        That is, was only random sampling done, and was there any consideration given to sample size? Without that, am not sure this report is meaningful at all, aside from validating Plutonium was found outside the reactors!

      • Bobby1

        They are estimating plutonium deposition by the ratio of plutonium to cesium. But most of the plutonium came from the #3 explosion and most of that went out to sea or into the jet stream. They found plutonium in Lithuania.

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    They're playing Russian roulette with our lives.

  • SnorkY2K

    Could this just be semantics? Does this mean that they are only considering plutonium released in explosions (ejecting less than the speed of sound) and not detonations (ejecting greater than the speed of sound) since previous articles discussed that one of the "explosions" was not an explosion but a detonation? Although a detonation is more severe than an explosion, maybe it is necessary to see if overspecification is being used to hide data like an answer that depends on what the meaning of is is.

  • aigeezer aigeezer

    Apparently someone has to pay about $30 to unlock the Kirchner article Admin refers to. We can see the abstract and some tantalizing illustrations for free.

    Sample caption on a map of Europe: "Spatial variability of estimated thyroid doses of children due to inhalation of 131I."