[ RadSafe ] Regarding Greenpeace calculation of doses fromFukushima

[Lantzelot]

Unfortunately (or luckily, depending on how you see it) as I expected, 
thank you Victor!

/Mattias


On 03/15/2013 05:15 AM, Victor Anderson wrote:
> Good Evening,
>
> I have reviewed the calculation.  It is poorly done and not accurate.
> HOTSPOT is code designed to give quick approximations to several different
> situations.  Fires, explosions, and general releases are among them.  The
> code will also provide estimations on nuclear weapons effects.  HOTSPOT does
> have the ability to "adjust" output to match measurements by changing source
> term values, stability classes, wind, particle deposition and so forth.
> Like all Gaussian model codes, HOTSPOT cannot truly predict airborne
> radioactive materials concentrations, inhalation doses, deposition, and so
> forth.
>
> For starters, the author of the Greenpeace calculation does not truly state
> the inputs to the HOTSPOT code.  What model was used? What about factors
> such as damage ratio, airborne fraction, plume rise and so forth?  In the
> setup page for HOTSPOT there are number of factors that must be selected
> such complex or simple geometry, terrain, Dose Conversion Library, etc.  The
> results of the Greenpeace calculation are given in effective dose.  HOTSPOT
> provides dose results in TEDE using either FGR-11 or FGR-13 guidance.  For
> deterministic effects, HOTSPOT provides results in units of either
> rad-equivalent or Grey-equivalent.  HOTSPOT does not provide doses for
> children.
>
> I ran the problem using what little information is in the paper.  The
> results do not match the Greenpeace results.  HOTSPOT yields a maximum TEDE
> dose of about 2.5E-7 SV at about 3 km downwind for the 40 PBq release.  I
> can run the other case, but frankly it is just not worth the time.
>
> It appears the calculation is a politically motivated work designed to cast
> doubt on the WHO calculation and give the reader a strong impression that
> things were worse than reported.  The usual anti-nuclear propaganda.
>
> Victor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of John Ahlquist
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:16 AM
> To: Radsafe
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Regarding Greenpeace calculation of doses
> fromFukushima
>
> In my day I found HotSpot to be very useful for an emergency situation.  You
> got
> a quick estimate to guide your actions which is useful in case of a small
> accident, an explosion involving rad materials, etc.  It can provide a
> useful
> and quick [several minutes] preliminary answer while NARAC is getting into
> action.  However the HotSpot link itself says
>
> "The HotSpot atmospheric dispersion models are designed for near-surface
> releases, short-range (less than 10 km) dispersion, and short-term (less
> than 24
> hours) release durations in unobstructed terrain and simple meteorological
> conditions. These models provide a fast and usually conservative means for
> estimation of the radiation effects associated with the atmospheric release
> of
> radioactive materials."
> It is not designed for long term releases from multiple sources over complex
>
> terrain with complex meteorology.  It is not appropriate for what GreenPeace
> was
> trying to do.  One would have to check their assumptions, too, because the
> results can be significantly influenced by input assumptions.
>
> John Ahlquist
>
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:35:17 +0000
> From: "Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)" <gyf7 at cdc.gov>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Regarding Greenpeace calculation of doses
>      from    Fukushima
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>      List'"    <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID:
>      <443B252CFD74854783FFA866594EA93E24384AFF at EMBX-CHAM4.cdc.gov>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> The use of the HOTSPOT code would not be appropriate for estimation of doses
>
> (aka, health effects) from the releases that occurred from the Fukushima
> reactors. The dispersion patterns were far to complex. For example, the wind
>
> patterns were not in just one direction, but all directions (360 degrees)
> because Japan is an island.
>
> I would also not give Greenpeace much credence on this subject.
>
> I would consult NARAC directly and find out which models (LaGrange based)
> they
> were asked to run for the kind of information which you seek.
>
> Regards,
> John E. Dixon, CHP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu]
>   On Behalf Of Victor Anderson
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:57 PM
> To: Mattias.Lantz at physics.uu.se; 'The International Radiation Protection
> (Health
> Physics) MailingList'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Regarding Greenpeace calculation of doses from
> Fukushima
>
> Yes,
>
> I have used it a lot.  What do you need to know?
>
> Victor
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Lantzelot
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:22 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Regarding Greenpeace calculation of doses from
> Fukushima
>
> Is there anybody on the RADSAFE list that has experience with the use of the
>
> Hotspot code? ( https://narac.llnl.gov/HotSpot/HotSpot.html)
>
> As probably known to most of you Greenpeace grabs whatever media attention
> they
> can get (succeeding remarkably well in some countries), claiming that the
> recent
> WHO health effects study on Fukushima is covering up the true dose rates.
> Once
> again they refer to "independent nuclear expert" Oda Becker, her report
> after
> using Hotspot is here:
> http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/briefings/nucle
> ar/2013/2012_OdaBecker.pdf
>
>  From her previous reports there is no reason to trust anything she says, but
> it
> would be nice if anybody fluent with the code (and who knows it capabilities
> and
> limitations) can check the numbers and point out any flaws in Becker's
> calculations.
>
> Best wishes,
> Mattias Lantz
>
>