[ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima

Mon Jun 20 15:47:16 CDT 2011

The Biggest Industrial Disaster...

I think that Bhopal is probably the largest accident killing thousands
and injuring 10s of  thousands more with the release of methyl
isocyanate.  The numbers are around 3,787 dead from gas-related death
(short & long-term) and  558,125 injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
Los Alamos, New Mexico

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
<Mike.Brennan at doh.wa.gov> wrote:
> While I don't choose to guess at the amount of activity released at
> either Chernobyl or Fukushima beyond "a whole hell of a lot", I don't
> think I agree that Fukushima has or will result in "higher collective
> exposure".  Firstly, there was some hours between the end of criticality
> and the beginning of release at Fukushima.  This means that many of the
> isotopes with the shortest half-lives had enough time to decay away
> before release began, unlike Chernobyl.  Second, at Fukushima the first
> portion of the release, which is potentially the hottest, was blown out
> to sea, as opposed to at Chernobyl, where there was inhabited land in
> every direction (some, obviously, more densely inhabited than others).
> Third, a significant portion of the released activity is in water, going
> to the ocean, where the impact on human health will be limited.
>
> I am not for a moment saying that Fukushima isn't a disaster.  I am not
> even saying that it is unreasonable to compare it to Chernobyl.  Heck, I
> am not even saying that something can't happen and make Fukushima worse
> than it is.  However, I don't believe that it is useful to engage in
> hyperbole.
>
> This morning a concerned citizen sent me an article from Al Jezeera in
> which an activist claimed, "Fukushima is the biggest industrial
> catastrophe in the history of mankind".  It certainly is not, and
> probably isn't in the top ten.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 11:15 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
> MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>
>
> 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
>

-- 
Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com