[ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima

[Busby, Chris]

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Chris Steinmann
Sent: Mon 20/06/2011 20:15
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
 
Did your email get hacked or are these your real estimates?

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> My estimate is
> Chernobyl
> about 10^19 Bq
> Fukushima about 10^19Bq but more local so density greater and higher collective exposure due to Tokyo
> Hiroshima more difficult, maybe 10^14 including the Uranium
> But I agree, not easily comparable with Hiroshima since that involved high level prompt gamma and neutrons
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
> Sent: Mon 20/06/2011 17:41
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
> I am not sure if the question of how much radioactivity was released at
> Hiroshima is a meaningful question, at least when trying to put it in
> perspective with Chernobyl and Fukushima.
>
> There are several reasons for this.  The first is that the explosion at
> Hiroshima produced blast and heat that killed people (though not
> everyone) out to a range past where the radiation dose would cause acute
> problems.  At Chernobyl the blast killed a few people (I am not sure how
> many), and at Fukushima no one was killed by blast.
>
> Second, at Hiroshima much of the radiation was produced by fission, so
> "curies" isn't an appropriate unit, in much the same way it isn't for
> machine produced radiation.  There was a substantial amount of
> radioactive material produced, and there was some exposure to people
> from the fallout, but that wasn't the main source of dose.  At Chernobyl
> a reactor core that was (for a brief time) at more than 100% power was
> blasted into the air, then roasted in a graphite fire for days.  At
> Fukushima there was a release into the air some hours after criticality
> ceased, and a large amount of the radioactive material has been trapped
> in water that either went into the ocean or is still on site.
>
> Third, the isotope mix of what was released is very different between
> the three.  This come into play in that the release of, say, 1,000 Ci of
> I-131 has different consequences than the release of 1,000 Ci of I-129.
> Weapons tend to have a higher percentage of very short half life
> isotopes, reactor fuel that has been use a while has a higher percentage
> of longer half-life isotopes.  Also, with reactors the amount of time
> between the end of criticality and the release will impact both the
> amount of activity and the isotope mix.
>
> I bring all this up because it is a natural tendency to ask questions
> like this, then equate "more" with "worse".  In this case, I don't think
> that the intentional attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be
> meaningfully compared to Chernobyl and Fukushima.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Theo Richel
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 11:17 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList;
> The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
> Could anyone please give me some facts on how much radioactivity
> (curies) was released in: Fukushima, Hisoshima, Chernobyl
>
>
> Much appreciated
>
> Theo Richel
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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


No, thats me. 
Maybe less at Hiroshima ( I include Nagasaki)thinking about it but not much less. 
But I think the others are about right correct. In fact I think 10^19 is now official of Chernobyl; they have increased it from the initial estimates of 10^18.
And there was an awful lot of crap in the fuel ponds that went up at Fukushima, work it out.
Ansd last I heard from TEPCO report to the Prime Minister there are still 10^14 Bq a day coming out.
Chris