The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The entire northern hemisphere would begin seeing elevated health problems.
We would quit worrying about Japan. We would be worrying about ourselves.
It is really important that they avoid this. The Fates are kind.
If a steam explosion were to happen--but it may not happen--much more fallout would be spewed and scattered than has been already. The entire northern hemisphere would begin seeing elevated health problems.
Sanity check: A cubic meter of Uranium weighs 20 tons. 20 tons of Uranium scattered evenly across the Northern Hemisphere would amount to 0.3 g per square km, or 300 nanogram per square meter.
Conclusion: You need a lot of cubic meters of corium to get blown into the stratosphere to get beyond a rounding error in either the gamma background or total heavy metal exposure. (Any corium that remains in the troposphere will precipitate out within the first thousand km. Sucks to be downwind of that plume, but not something that will directly affect the entire Northern Hemisphere.)
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Multiply by ten or hundred or whatever, and our health concerns will extend to the east coast and even Europe.
Don't get me wrong: This is not how humans will go extinct.
But a cancer epidemic, yes. Also birth defects.
And, yes, I think it matters. The Fates are kind.
Potentially there's quite a bit more than one cubic meter of active corium and spent fuel at Fukushima. There are around 1000 rods at each reactor - either active or in the SF pool - and each rod holds around 200kg of uranium.
So that's around 200 tonnes. Per reactor.
If one goes, the chances of the others surviving without maintenance are not high.
And the corium includes active fission products that are both lighter and more immediately problematic than uranium.
If just one reactor goes boom, that's immensely bad news for the immediate area. But if the spike in infant mortality in the North West is confirmed, there are already obvious health effects from the current slow burn.
But I think an explosive encounter with the water table would immediately become more of a political and military problem than a scientific one.
Effectively you'd have a cloud of death, which would either rain on the US west coast or would drift east over China and Russia.
The US would shrug and let its people fry.
Russia and China, not so much.
After reading Crazy Horse's reference to the study I assumed the increase was two or three - or maybe five - percent increase. A thirty-five percent increase is shocking.
Granted it's a first study. Granted the findings need to be verified. It's still (barely) possible the increase is just one of those things that happens. However, the math is as straight-forward as it can be and the findings are consistent with previous episodes. I rather pride myself on my skepticism and I have a general unwillingness to theorize ahead of data but this is altogether too much like the early studies of the Navaho uranium mine tailings for me not to think the authors have got something.
Gawd, what a mess. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
So Potentially there's quite a bit more than one cubic meter of active corium and spent fuel at Fukushima. There are around 1000 rods at each reactor - either active or in the SF pool - and each rod holds around 200kg of uranium. So that's around 200 tonnes. Per reactor.
OK, that'd give you 3 microgram per square meter per reactor that goes boom, if spread evenly across the planet. The potassium background would still be a much bigger problem for anybody not immediately downwind of the plume.
For the people who are downwind of the plume... well, that's a different story, and one where I'm not qualified to come up with even ballpark figures.
Though personally I'd be a lot more worried about Japan having to filter its drinking water for radioactive heavy metals essentially forever.
It won't kill everyone, but how many birth defects do you need before an area becomes marginally habitable?
People could move back to Chernobyl tomorrow. Most of them wouldn't die for years or decades.
That doesn't mean the Hot Zone is safe, or an ignorable thing.
A major blow up now of the kind speculated above would be very bad news for those in the plume, but in a world where we are playing around with possible 5°C global warming, probably 2°C global warming, and genetically engineering crops so that we can pump fields with so much poison that it kills off honeybees ~ its seems like the stratospheric fallout would be in the "lets kill of thousands and make life miserable for thousands more" level of bad that we have permitted consistently over the past half century. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
...almost all the noble gases were vented out into the environment. The ratio of released radioactive iodine to the total iodine contained (hereinafter referred to as release ratio) was IV-44 approximately 1% from the analysis result, and the release of other nuclides was less than 1%.
Results of the re-run by NISA (which found that the pressure vessel was damaged 5 hours rather than 17 hours after the accident, though the timeline of the fuel rod meltdown was the same):
As for release ratio of radioactive nuclides, the analytical results show about 1% of tellurium, about 0.7% of iodine and about 0.3% of cesium.
So further away from Fukushima, I wouldn't worry about the heavy metals, but would worry about the lots of Iodine (even ater decay) and caesium still there. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 56 comments
by Oui - Aug 18 8 comments
by Oui - Sep 9
by Oui - Sep 8
by Oui - Sep 81 comment
by Oui - Sep 7
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 41 comment
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 319 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 186 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment
by gmoke - Aug 29
by Oui - Aug 2818 comments
by Oui - Aug 271 comment
by Oui - Aug 262 comments