[ RadSafe ] Fukushima and the Pacific - some calculations

Mon Jan 6 12:55:23 CST 2014

It is, however, completely unreasonable to assume that the contents of
the spent fuel pools dissolved and leaked into the ocean, as the spent
fuel pools are intact (#4 is precarious, I grant you), the fuel can
assumed to be mostly or completely intact, and there is no realistic
scenario in which any, let alone all, of it reached the ocean.   

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of KARAM, PHILIP
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 9:33 AM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fukushima and the Pacific - some calculations

Good point - but even if we assume that the spent fuel pools contain ten
times the radionuclide inventory of the three operating reactors we're
still safe by many orders of magnitude.

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Davidson
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:24 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fukushima and the Pacific - some calculations

I don't think that the conclusion would change but the inventory went
beyond the cores in the reactors.  for completeness, we should consider
adding additional cores from the SFPs since they lost spent fuel cooling
and some of the content from those spent cores should be added.

Scott

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:18 PM, KARAM, PHILIP
<PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org>wrote:

> Correct. In reality the radioactivity will not mix instantly and 
> uniformly, but by the time it reaches the West Coast it will be fairly

> well-mixed with the seawater. With regards to concentration in the 
> food chain, the purpose was to look at the scenario trumpeted by 
> Caldicott and others that the West Coast will become uninhabitable, 
> not to perform a rigorous assessment of the food chain (Bruce Napier 
> is much better at that than I am).
>
> Assuming uniform mixing (and the 100-day fission product inventory, as

> opposed to the current 1000-day inventory) we have a dose that is a 
> fraction of a pSv annually. For this to become biologically 
> significant (say 1 mSv annually for the sake of argument) we'd have to

> concentrate the radioactivity by a factor of about ten billion. With 
> that sort of a safety factor I feel comfortable with making these
simplifying assumptions.
>
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of William Lipton
> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 12:08 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
> List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Fukushima and the Pacific - some calculations
>
> You seem to be making the dubious assumptions that:  (1) the 
> radionuclides mix instantly and uniformly with the Pacific Ocean, and 
> (2) there is no re-concentration mechanism, such as in fish.
>
> Bill Lipton
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> Curies forever
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:28 AM, KARAM, PHILIP <PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org
> >wrote:
>
> > OK - so let's do some math!
> >
> > According to a report put out by PNNL the total radionuclide 
> > inventory of Units 1 and 3 was about 2.30 x 10^17 Bq about three 
> > months (100 days) post-shutdown (I will have to post the URL for 
> > this report later - can't find it at the moment). If we assume that 
> > this is for each reactor then
> the
> > total fission product inventory of the three affected reactors is 
> > about
> > 7x10^17 Bq. This is based on the ORIGEN computer code, although I 
> > can't remember if it was based on the actual or the worst-case power

> > history
> for
> > these reactors.
> >
> > The volume of the Pacific Ocean is about 7x10^17 cubic meters ( 
> > http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html). This

> > means that if the entire fission product inventory of all three 
> > Fukushima reactors were to magically dissolve into the Pacific Ocean

> > the average activity concentration would be about 1 Bq/cubic meter 
> > or about 1
> mBq/liter
> > (there are 1000 liters per cubic meter).
> >
> > The concentration of natural radioactivity in seawater is about 12 
> > Bq/liter (http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm), primarily
> K-40.
> > This suggests that the worst-case event - complete dissolution of 
> > all
> three
> > reactor cores into the Pacific Ocean - would add insignificantly to 
> > the amount of radioactivity naturally present in the seawater.
> >
> > If we take this a little further and assume (to make things easy) 
> > that
> ALL
> > of the radioactivity is Cs-137 then we can calculate the radiation 
> > dose
> to
> > someone immersed in the water. According to Federal Guidance Report 
> > 12 (
> > http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/federal/402-r-93-081.pdf) the dose

> > conversion factor for immersion in water containing dissolved Cs-137

> > is about 1.5x10^-20 Sv/sec for every Bq/cubic meter. Doing the unit 
> > conversions (3.15x10^7 seconds per year) shows us that living
> continuously
> > in water with 1 Bq/cubic meter of Cs-137 would give a radiation dose

> > of about 5x10^-13 Sv annually. I'd suggest that this is a radiation 
> > dose not worth worrying about, and it certainly falls into the 
> > category of what
> the
> > ICRP calls a "trivial" dose of radiation. And even if the spent fuel
> pools
> > contain 100 times as much radioactivity as the operating reactors 
> > (which
> is
> > almost certainly not the case) the radiation dose is still 
> > incredibly
> low.
> >
> > This is a VERY quick and dirty calculation that is highly
conservative.
> > The conservative parts are:
> >
> > -Assumes the entire fission product inventory dissolves into the 
> > seawater -Does not account for decay since the 100 day point 
> > -Assumes continuous exposure to the radionuclide-containing seawater

> > -Assumes all of the dose comes from gamma-emitting Cs-137 (as 
> > opposed to alpha and beta emitters)
> >
> >
> > And, to keep everyone honest, here are the parts of this that are 
> > not subject to much conjecture:
> >
> > -Fission product inventory is based on the physics of nuclear 
> > fission and was calculated by a tried-and-true computer code -The 
> > Law of Radioactive Decay seems to operate consistently across the 
> > universe (we can see evidence of this in the spectra of supernovae 
> > at
> great
> > distance)
> > -The volume of the Pacific Ocean is fairly non-controversial -The 
> > dose conversion factor for various nuclides is based on energy 
> > deposition per unit mass and these are also fairly non-controversial
> >
> > Thus, barring a math mistake (always possible) there shouldn't be 
> > much argument about the calculated radiation dose. And I know I can 
> > count on
> all
> > of you to let me know if I had a keystroke error!
> >
> > So - barring some freak concentration of radionuclides by a factor 
> > of
> many
> > orders of magnitude - there seems to be no plausible mechanism for 
> > the reactor cores to cause death and destruction across the Pacific.

> > So residents of our Pacific Coast states (plus Hawaii) would seem to

> > be
> safe.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
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