[ RadSafe ] Fukushima - "Spewing" 200 million Bq/hr vs. SoilRelease of natural Rn-222 from 2 km^2

Mon Aug 29 15:02:07 CDT 2011

Dear Franz,

I can only go by what I've read in his very short post, and
(disregarding any implied intentions) I thought that mentioning the
vast difference in half lives was a very sober comment on his part.

Regards,

W

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM,  <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at> wrote:
> Witold,
>
> Obviously you did not understand what this Raman Spectroscopist tried to say: He tried to put forward exactly the contrary. He wanted to say that Radon is short-lived, but that the radionuclides from Fukushima are much longer lived. This Raman Spectroscopist, who regards himself a radiation protection expert, without doubt tried to ridicule the comment of another RADSAFEr.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Franz
>
>
> ---- Witold Matysiak <matysiw at mcmaster.ca> schrieb:
>> I agree with Dr. Busby, half lives are key here.
>> Since 222-Rn is in equilibrium with its predecessors in the chain,
>> alpha radiation due to 222-Rn, 218-Po etc will stay several log decade
>> years after all 137-Cs from Fukushima decays away.
>>
>> W
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > Half lives
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Stewart Farber
>> > Sent: Fri 26/08/2011 01:19
>> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fukushima - "Spewing" 200 million Bq/hr vs. Soil Release of natural Rn-222 from 2 km^2
>> >
>> > Hello all,
>> > I read an article recently: "Fewer Contaminants Seen Escaping From Japan
>> > Nuclear Plant", Aug. 18, Global Security Newswire. See:
>> >           <http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110818_8989.php>
>> >
>> >
>> > This recent article  mentioned that the Fukushima complex was now
>> > releasing 200 million Bq per hour. Most members of the media and public
>> > don't know a Becquerel from a Pickerel, but 200 million of anything must
>> > be a very huge amount that poses a major risk. Right??  How do you make
>> > people understand that 200E6 Bq per se is not the end of the world? Of
>> > course the isotopes and exposure pathways are vital in assessing
>> > significance of any activity released, but let's not go there.
>> >
>> > 200E6 Bq got me thinking about natural background radiation, and what is
>> > released from soil to air.    Let me know how the following strikes you as
>> > a point of comparison.
>> >
>> > An average value for Rn-222 gas flux from the earth's surface [due to the
>> > average concentration of U-238 in soil leading to Rn-222 gas release] is
>> > roughly 30 milliBq/m^2/sec. Do the math and you'll see that give or take,
>> > any random 2  km^2 of the earth's surface will release 200 million Bq per
>> > hour of Rn-222, equal to the total amount of radioactivity being emitted
>> > recently by the nuclear reactors 1, 2, and 3 at Fukushima as it is brought
>> > to a cold shutdown. As the Global Security Newswire article noted the
>> > reactors were "previously hemorrhaging five times that amount" . As we all
>> > know radiation is not released from a facility -- it is either "spewed" or
>> > "hemorrhaged".
>> >
>> > Five times more than 200 million Bq would be equal to the routine Rn-222
>> > release by nature from about 10 km^2 - an area 3 km x 3 km - which will
>> > continue due to natural radioactivity for billions of years given the half
>> > life of U-238.
>> >
>> > Further, based on average wind farm capacity density  [ about 6.5 MWe per
>> > km^2 ], the 2 km^2 of land currently "spewing" 200 million Bq/hr will
>> > support the wind generation of only about 13 MW of electricity.
>> >
>> > An area of land necessary to site and generate 2,000 MW[e] of wind power
>> > [an area of 285 km^2  or 11 miles by 11 miles ] would be needed to equal
>> > the pre-accident combined output of Fukushima 1, 2, and 3. This 285 km^2
>> > of land to site 2,000 MW[e] of wind generation will release about 32
>> > billion Bq of  Rn-222 per hour.  32 billion Bq of Rn-222 per hour from
>> > nature being "spewed" from a windfarm generating 2,000 MWe vs. only about
>> > 200 million Bq from Fukushima 1, 2, 3. Do we need to evacuate the area
>> > around any large windfarm?
>> >
>> >
>> > Thoughts on the above comparisons?
>> >
>> >
>> > Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
>> > SAFarber at optonline.net
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>> >
>> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>> >
>> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>> >
>> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>> >
>> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> --
> Franz Schoenhofer, PhD, MinRat
> Habicherg. 31/7
> A-1160 Vienna
> Austria
> mobile: ++43 699 1706 1227
>
>