Study: Contamination in Tokyo suburb 3 times higher than area 1 mile from Fukushima Daiichi — Nuclear Scientist: Significant contamination in Tokyo, a serious problem (AUDIO)

Published: September 23rd, 2013 at 2:13 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
44 comments


Title: Concentration of Strontium-90 at Selected Hot Spots in Japan
Source: PLoS ONE
Authors: Steinhauser G, Schauer V, Shozugawa K
Date Published: March 7, 2013

Southern wind directions and rainfall explain the relatively high activity levels in the remote hot spot in Kashiwa and Yokohama, which are located close to Tokyo. Accordingly, also local environmental conditions seem to be responsible for the surprisingly low contamination levels at spots [...] quite close to the damaged reactors of Fukushima NPP [...] Our results once again evidence that distance from the source alone is no sufficient factor for the prediction of a contamination level at a certain spot after a nuclear accident.

  • Soil sample from Kashiwa, a Tokyo suburb: 827,000 Bq/kg of cesium (827 Bq/g)
  • Soil sample taken 1.9 kilometers (1.19 miles) from Fukushima Daiichi: 249,000 Bq/kg of cesium

Taylor Wilson, nuclear scientist on Third Eye Weekly, Sept. 12, 2013 (at 51:15 in): In Japan there is […] a serious problem — What especially got washed out in the rain in Japan and then concentrated in low-lying areas. There are significant contamination problems throughout Japan, even in Tokyo for example, major metropolitan area.

Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds’ chief engineer on KZYX’s Renewable Energy Hour, Sept. 9, 2013 (at 58:30 in):  Tokyo is contaminated. […]  We were working with an embassy […] in Tokyo during the accident […] They sent us the filters for a period of months and I’ve got the numbers. Tokyo was heavily contaminated in April, May and June of 2011.

See also: Japan Prime Minister's Fiction vs. Fact: Fukushima contamination has never done any damage to Tokyo; Radioactive water at plant was "blocked" -- Study: Tokyo was contaminated -- Experts: Radioactive water is constantly flowing out to sea and almost impossible to stop

Published: September 23rd, 2013 at 2:13 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
44 comments

Related Posts

  1. Japan Study: “Contamination levels are possibly higher than Chernobyl” from Fukushima disaster — Human health must be carefully and continuously monitored — Highly contaminated river soil in Tokyo metropolitan area October 22, 2013
  2. Officials: Tons of Fukushima radioactive waste in area beyond Tokyo, 150 miles from reactors — Higher strontium levels there than spot 1 mile from Daiichi plant — “Southern wind directions and rainfall explain relatively high activity levels” February 1, 2014
  3. Japan Times: Radiation level in Fukushima town 400 times higher than in Tokyo — 10 kilometers from Daiichi May 18, 2013
  4. Researcher: Tokyo sample had radioactivity levels higher than in Chernobyl exclusion zone — “There’s a very, very high level of contamination even as far south as Tokyo” (VIDEO) August 17, 2011
  5. Radio: Fukushima Daiichi has “contaminated the biggest body of water on the planet” — Radioactive leaks to harm marine and human life — Whole Pacific Ocean likely to have cesium levels 5-10 times higher than at peak of nuclear bomb tests (AUDIO) July 29, 2013

44 comments to Study: Contamination in Tokyo suburb 3 times higher than area 1 mile from Fukushima Daiichi — Nuclear Scientist: Significant contamination in Tokyo, a serious problem (AUDIO)

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    No accident.

    Only a matter of time that a nuclear disaster like this would happen.

    And now we have radiation in Tokyo.

    Stay, or leave. Your choice.


    Report comment

  • Radioactive dispersal does not conform to neat circles around the source. I doubt it disperses evenly in the air or water. Pity the random individual who gets high exposure.


    Report comment

  • MichaelV MichaelV

    Stoicism will only go so far when you're getting zapped with rads.

    http://www.habri.co.uk/japanperspective

    It is my belief that Japan’s rulers of whatever political colour – hamstrung as they are by factional politics, cosy relationships between politicians, businessmen and the bureaucracy, and the long shadow of outdated notions of social hierarchy – will not prove to be the engine of necessary attitudinal and systemic reform. Change of that kind will only come slowly and be brought about by the still unfocused energies of that disaffected younger generation longing for a freer, more open society.


    Report comment

  • weeman

    That typhoon Japan went through, drop all lot of rain, as the rain fell on country side and made its way to the sea, it picked up contamination and it accumulates in low lying areas and will for the unforeseen future in this manner and you will get areas of higher radiation than surrounding area.
    With radiation you can have a low reading and twenty feet or turn a corner and it skyrockets.


    Report comment

  • PhilipUpNorth PhilipUpNorth

    Tokyo should have been evacuated on 3/13/2011.
    (Fukushima WAS the worst case scenerio, Mr. PM.)
    100% of three reactor cores released, 600PBq.
    Plus who knows what additional releases from Units4-6.
    Arnie Gundersen's soil samples proved widespread Tokyo contamination.

    The only sound in Tokyo today, should be the sound of the wind blowing down empty streets. ;)


    Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      If the elite powers think Fukushima is small compared to nuke bomb testing, they have no motivation to change. Spin and coverup keeps the civilization matrix going for generations to come.

      Heres a possible figure for bomb testing, dont know if its right. 277.5 x10^18 becquerels. 5.5 exa becquerels for iodine and 277 exaBecquerels for total radionuclide fallout. Anybody know the actual figure? Note that it appears much larger than Fukushima

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/cancer-pandemic-reaping-the-seeds-of-nuke-tests/5328893

      most Americans still have bone concentrations of strontium-90 above 1, 2, and sometimes 3 or 4 strontium units. If you take the ashes of a cremated person who has 1.5 strontium units in their skeletal bone in a liter of water it would be considered radioactive waste. It would be over 180 times the limit allowable by the EPA for drinking water. http://www.nuclearcrimes.org/3-3.php


      Report comment

      • Time Is Short Time Is Short

        'According to calculations by Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the Fukushima No. 1 plant, a total of about 10 million becquerels per hour of radioactive cesium was being emitted from the No. 1 to No. 3 reactors as of June.'

        http://enenews.com/tepco-is-cesium-getting-stirred-up-fukushima-plant-still-emitting-10000000-becquerels-every-hour

        “The uranium bomb which the United States dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II released 89 tera becquerels. It killed 140,000 people – many instantly, others within weeks of the blast as they succumbed to severe radiation burns.”
        http://voices.yahoo.com/fukushimas-nuclear-disaster-radiation-released-was-9025493.html

        So, a rough estimate is that Fukushima is spewing the equivalent of 112 Hiroshima-type nuclear bombs worth of radiation every hour, of every day.

        That’s 981,120 atomic bombs a year going off worth of radiation into our biosphere.

        At 900 days, that's roughly the equivalent of 2,419,200 nuclear bombs that have gone off – and are still going to go off for billions of years.

        And new estimates of the ongoing radioactive releases are x1,000's higher, so add a good number of zeros to my calculations.


        Report comment

        • Time Is Short Time Is Short

          “A recent study was prepared for Greenpeace Germany by international nuclear safety expert Dr. Helmut Hirsch. Dr. Hirsch’s assessment, based on data published by the French government’s radiation protection agency (IRSN) and the Austrian government’s Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (ZAMG) found that the total amount of unstable radionuclides Iodine-131 and Caesium-137 released between March 11 and March 23 has been so high that the Fukushima crisis already equates to three INES 7 incidents.

          Release of radiation from the stricken reactors has reached 10,000 teraBequerels (10,000 trillion Bequerels) per hour, measured for radioactive Iodine-131.”

          http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24292


          Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            TIS, so here you have 10,000 teraBq, which would be 112 Hiroshima bombs. Thats 10 petaBq/hr and lets multiply by say one week, I get 1680 petaBq, which should be 1.68 exaBq, right? ….or wrong? But a week is arbitrary, we need the total release. Then find the total release from Nuke bomb testing, which was given as 277 exaBq. And the point was, that if some rich elites are looking at that, they could say, well hell, were all doing fine, people gotta die sometime, so lets stay the course


            Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          TIS, hold on, does that compute? If Hiroshima released 89 teraBecquerels, thats almost 9 million times the 10 million Bq/HR from Fuku, so how do you get 112 bombs every hour? Could you write it out in a longer version so I can follow?


          Report comment

          • byron byron

            Yes, calculation details, please TIS? Another few days ago re: St. Louis 108 times background. The 108 turns out to be the measurement CPM of Beta. NETC website reading.. That would require 1 CPM of Beta to be normal background.
            Let's take care in explaining any calculations we present. How does that 89 teraBecquerels compute into 112 bombs every hour? Give us the slow step by step version please. If you've obtained the calculation from another website give that info. Thanks.
            I want to present the info on ENENEWS.COM to a very few friends who might possibly listen. Please and thanks for helping keep the data clear.


            Report comment

        • byron byron

          TeraBecquerel bigger than a million Becquerels. How much bigger? Actually reverse what TIS is saying. How much bigger is it? If the proportion is just reversed it's 1/112 of a Hiroshima per hour. But then again, over what period is the Hiroshima 89 calculated. Yes, it is still an awful thing even at 1/112 per hour. How much bigger is a TeraBecquerel than a Million Becquerels?


          Report comment

          • Jebus

            1 terabecquerel = 1,000,000,000,000 becquerels
            Thats one quadrillion becquerels…
            0r
            1e+12 in short hand math…

            http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/units-converter/radiation-activity/1-2/


            Report comment

          • Time Is Short Time Is Short

            Take the Greenpeace numbers – 10,000 terabecquerels per hour. (That's 10,000 trillion becquerels, or 10 petabecquerels per hour)

            The Hiroshima bomb was 89 terabecquerels of radiation.

            10,000 divided by 89 is 112.36. That's equivalent to 112.36 Hiroshima nuclear bombs worth of radiation released per hour.

            The bomb took about .0001-5 minutes to release its' radiation, but it was a one time event. Fukushima is ongoing, with the radiation being divided between oceanic and atmospheric dispersion.

            If anyone has a better method of calculating this, please put it up. I pray I'm wrong.


            Report comment

            • Time Is Short Time Is Short

              I should add:

              "Note that the lethality of radioactive reactor cores goes up the first 250,000 years they are out of the reactor – not down."

              http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/28/fukushima-how-many-chernobyls-is-it/

              So my rough numbers of Hiroshima nuclear bomb equivalents are a minimum, and will be increasing exponentially for at least 250,000 years.


              Report comment

              • weeman

                Something is wrong with the calculation, I would suspect that the number 89 terabytes is wrong and was bigger but manipulated by government?.
                Our atmosphere is approx 12 miles in depth, could not obsorb 2.5 million Hiroshima bombs, impossible.
                I would love to know true figures, but nobody knows for certainety and always will be estimates, same as Chernobyl best guess from data available and since the governments want to down play effects, data is corrupt?


                Report comment

                • Time Is Short Time Is Short

                  There isn't a lot of information on how many becquerels a nuclear weapon releases, but from what I found the 89 terabecquerels is an average number reported for the older nuke bomb designs.

                  Our atmosphere will be absorbing it all, whether it works out mathematically or not.


                  Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          TIS, I think you should amend your first post above, because it starts with 10 million becquerels per hour and you end up with a million bombs per year. Doesnt compute and I just dont think anyone is going to buy a million bombs, or an exponential growth of radioactivity. We need some estimate of the total release and compare this to bomb testing. We have the recent claim of 10 to 36 petaBq. I also have a quote of 360,000 tera becquerels. Article says that represents a cesium leak equal to 4,023 Hiroshima bombs.

          The estimate is also more than 4 times Chernobyl which is estimated to have released 85,000 tera becquerels of cesium into atmosphere.

          What is it? 1/2 Chernobyl, 4x, or 7x or is it 1000x worse than Chernobyl,


          Report comment

          • Time Is Short Time Is Short

            I'm using the Greenpeace numbers. I have no idea if they're good or not, but they seem to be from reputable sources in Europe before the Global Fuku Clampdown.

            Feel free to use anyone else's numbers. But according to Greenpeace, my numbers are correct, and Greenpeace hasn't retracted their numbers that I know of.


            Report comment

          • byron byron

            Thanks CShutdown.TeraBecquerel is a Million times 1 Million Becquerels. That's 10 to the 12th power. 10,000 is not correct to convert between them. 1 Million times 1 Million would be 1 TeraBecquerel. Now, lets suppose event H released 89 TeraBecquerels. That would be 89 Million times more than 1 Million Becquerels. So, if the other figure to compare, item F, releases 10 Million, then taking one zero off for power of ten, we get event H is 8.9 Million times greater than event F. So, if the quantity was released in one Hour, event Hiroshima released 8.9 Million times more BecQuerels than Fukushima does in one Hour.
            Correct?


            Report comment

  • DisasterInterpretationDissorder DisasterInterpretationDissorder

    Meanwhile.. whatever passive Pro-nuker Japan puts in charge during this slow-mo ELE , he will be the face associated with a Evil-isch act that trumps all wars and their crimes truout the entire history combined ..
    Togheter with the usa and israel government..
    Darn figging armsraces !


    Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    What shocked Arnie Gundersen when he visited Tokyo, was that he took five TOTALLY RANDOM soil samples — one from a playground, one from a sidewalk, one from a rooftop garden, and the like. And each and every sample he said would be classified as nuclear waste in the U.S. Well, by the "moderately sane" standards at that time. The EPA has since torpedoed even that much in the U.S.


    Report comment

  • quoting a previous poster…

    "Go long on iron caskets and urns."


    Report comment

  • W8R W8R

    Hiroshima bomb: 89 TBQ….
    Fukushima: 10000 TBQ.. per hour…
    (From above.. I read 94 PBQ per hour, so about equal every 50 days)
    Do the math…
    Either way its bad..


    Report comment

  • razzz razzz

    "Becquerel (Bq)
    One of three units used to measure radioactivity, which refers to the amount of ionizing radiation released when an element (such as uranium) spontaneously emits energy as a result of the radioactive decay (or disintegration) of an unstable atom. Radioactivity is also the term used to describe the rate at which radioactive material emits radiation, or how many atoms in the material decay (or disintegrate) in a given time period. As such, 1 Bq represents a rate of radioactive decay equal to 1 disintegration per second, and 37 billion (3.7 x 1010) Bq equals 1 curie (Ci)." http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/becquerel-bq.html

    Numbers games being played by TEPCO.

    Becquerel measures all decays and doesn't breakdown the source of each decay (alpha, beta, gamma) and normally is measured per second and the only reason to use per minute or per hour is because it is not practical to use per second with such large outputs, like when your reactor blows up or a nuke bomb.

    With Daiichi, large readings would be because there is no shielding i.e. water, metal or concrete containment and areas have been irradiated when they are normally clean.

    Water protects and shields you from SFPs and open reactor core radiation under normal circumstances but here the melts are splashed all other the place and not all radioactivity is underwater or in secured containment. Plus water and air carries off fallout for lack of containment.


    Report comment

  • razzz razzz

    For what it is worth…

    "Measuring Radiation

    There are four different but interrelated units for measuring radioactivity, exposure, absorbed dose, and dose equivalent. These can be remembered by the mnemonic R-E-A-D, as follows, with both common (British, e.g., Ci) and international (metric, e.g., Bq) units in use:…

    …"For practical purposes, 1 R (exposure) = 1 rad (absorbed dose) = 1 rem or 1000 mrem (dose equivalent).

    Note that a measure given in Ci tells the radioactivity of a substance, while a measure in rem (or mrem) tells the amount of energy that a radioactive source deposits in living tissue. For example, a person would receive a dose equivalent of 1 mrem from any one of the following activities:

    3 days of living in Atlanta
    2 days of living in Denver
    1 year of watching television (on average)
    1 year of wearing a watch with a luminous dial
    1 coast-to-coast airline flight
    1 year living next door to a normally operating nuclear power plant." http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/measuring-radiation.html


    Report comment

  • HoTaters HoTaters

    http://sciradioactive.com/Taylors_Nuke_Site/Welcome.html

    " My name is Taylor Wilson and I am a teenage nuclear scientist. I am obsessed with all things nuclear and radioactive and conduct research in related fields.

    My research interests include Applied Nuclear Physics and Nuclear History.

    I collect all manner of radioactive items and artifacts, and visit historical nuclear sites. See my About Me page for more information. You can browse through the site with the navigation bar above. "


    Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      It appears young Taylor isn't afraid to think outside the box, which is a good thing. Or at least I think so ….


      Report comment

      • Time Is Short Time Is Short

        Re: Fukushima

        "…Chernobyl, which deposited more long lived Cs137 than the current accident, and Nuclear Weapons Testing."

        Now we know who he's looking for work with.

        Can't blame him. The nuke cartel pays well. I do hope he's not interested in having children, considering the future of US healthcare dealing with tens of millions of kids with cancer and radiological mutations.


        Report comment

  • vital1 vital1

    If you use Becquerels per Kilogram Bq/kg, which most of you are use to, you will get a better understanding of the detection amounts in this study.

    The data in this study is using Becquerels per gram Bq/g, so you need to multiply by 1000 to get Becquerels per Kilogram Bq/kg ! Note the charts are also using a Becquerels per gram scaling.

    —————————————————

    Get the message out there on how serious the Fukushima nuclear disaster is
    quickly, and efficiently. You don’t need to explain anything just distribute the lifesaver.pdf or create your own, hand it out, mailbox it,
    Facebook it, twitter it, or email it.

    http://technologypals.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/lifesaver.pdf


    Report comment

  • 300,000 Atomic Veterans Forcibly Exposed To Nuclear Radiation, Made Into Radioactive Lab Rats; via @AGreenRoad
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/02/300000-atomic-veterans-forcibly-exposed.html


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.