Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Plant, March 14, 2011 DigitalGlobe via Getty Images

This spring’s nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant released almost double the amount of radiation the Japanese government has claimed, according to a new analysis. The authors say the boiling pools holding spent fuel rods played a role in the release of some of the contaminants, primarily cesium-137 – and that this could have been mitigated by an earlier response.

Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Air Research examined radiation monitoring stations throughout Japan and the rest of the globe, extrapolating their findings from initial radiation-release estimates. They say the amount of cesium-137, a long-lived isotope that persists in the atmosphere, was about twice as high as the Japanese government’s official estimate. That number (3.5 × 1016  bequerel, for those of you keeping track) is about half the emission from Chernobyl.

The researchers also say about 20 percent of the total fallout landed over Japan, but the vast majority fell over the Pacific Ocean. (The effects of this fallout on fisheries and aquatic wildlife are still being determined.)

The Fukushima Daiichi power plant, you’ll recall, shut down after the devastating earthquake and tsunami that wracked Japan March 11. The tsunami knocked out backup power needed to keep the plant’s six reactors cool, and the active reactors overheated, venting hydrogen gas in a series of explosions. These explosions started fires and also exposed a pool containing spent fuel rods from reactor No. 4. The rods started heating up, releasing a radioactive isotope called cesium-137, among other radionuclides.

Cesium-137 emissions peaked three or four days after the quake and tsunami, remaining high until March 19, according to this new study. That’s the day authorities started spraying water on the spent-fuel pool at reactor unit 4, the researchers note. “This indicates that emissions were not only coming from the damaged reactor cores, but also from the spent-fuel pool of unit 4 and confirms that the spraying was an effective countermeasure,” they say. This contradicts Japanese government reports claiming the pools released no radiation, as Nature News points out.

Nature News says the disparity between the Japanese government’s totals and this new study, led by atmospheric scientist Andreas Stohl, can be explained at least in part by the data set. Japanese researchers used monitoring stations in their country, whereas Stohl used monitoring stations throughout the world, which captured much of the radiation that blew over the Pacific and toward North America.

The paper was just posted online for peer review in the open-source journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Nature News

DISCLAIMER: Environmental, Health and Safety News is not affiliated with or maintained by ANY for profit or non-profit entity. It is a 100% volunteer effort free from advertising or sponsorship of any kind. This site is intended to be an educational and not-for-profit website providing useful information for security, environmental, health, sciences, transportation, and public safety professionals and the general public. It is not “for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services.”
In the Webmaster’s opinion, any incidental use of any pictures and graphics, or quoted words on this site is not a violation of any trademark for the any reasons stated above. The webmaster will fully cooperate with any and everyone that believes any section of the site are in violation of fair use.

The use of any and all copyrighted works in the creation of this site is, in the Webmaster’s opinion, protected by 17 USC 107 (see Creative Commons License below). If the owner of a copyrighted work used in the creation of this site believes that 17 USC 107 does not apply to the use of their work, the site’s creator will cooperate to the fullest extent possible.

FAIR USE NOTE: The site provides information of a general & public nature regarding national or other developments. None of the information contained herein is intended as legal advice or opinions relative to specific matters, facts, situations or issues. Additional facts, information or future developments may affect the subjects addressed in this site. You should consult with an expert about your particular circumstances before acting on any of this information because it may not be applicable to your situation. This site contains information and links to sites which are not owned or maintained by this site. This site is not responsible for the content, linked sites, and the views expressed on linked sites do not necessarily reflect our views or opinions. The information contained herein is provided for personal, non-commercial, educational, entertainment and informational purposes only and does not constitute a guarantee of information or facts. This site makes no claims, expressed, implied, or statutory regarding the accuracy, timeliness, completeness, or correctness of any material contained herein. Since the conditions of use are outside my control, the individual visitor is entirely responsible for determining the appropriateness and applicability of all information contained herein.

This website is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Back to Top