Antinuclear

Official reports underestimate the extent and harm of Fukushima marine radiation

It’s my conclusion that the official monitoring regime being carried out by TEPCO and other Japanese agencies is inadequate to the task of identifying the potential radiobiological threats to the public.

Nuclear-news.net, Tim Deere-Jones: Marine Radioactivity Consultant  July 2013  “……I am deeply concerned to note that a number of highly relevant issues and phenomena relating to the behaviour and fate of the Fukushima sea discharged radioactivity and its potential for delivering doses to human populations remain un-recorded, under researched and/or completely ignored.
Thus it is evident that the true impacts of the radioactive contamination of the Japanese east coast are not being documented or acted upon.

Issue 1: The number of radio-nuclides entering the marine environment of the east coast of Japan.
The currently operating marine environmental monitoring regimes in the relevant sea area are focussing on a very small number of radio-nuclides, principally Caesium, Iodine and Strontium which represent less than 10% of the total inventory of nuclides likely to be found in the reactor and cooling ponds of BWR nuclear power station (between 40 and 50)

I’m pretty sure that this is happening because of the relatively high costs of radiological analysis of samples. Having been involved in a number of field work campaigns which have involved raising funds in order to pay for radiological analysis I can confirm that the cost of analysis for caesium (for instance) are much lower than those of analysis for plutonium or tritium. ….

Issue 2: The nature of the radio-nuclides derived from reactor and cooling pond outputs:…… there can be little doubt that a range of other isotopes including actinides/ alpha emitters (probably 4 or 5 isotopes of Pu, 3 of Uranium, also Americium and Curium) will also have been released and entered the marine environment.

In the case of independent and self funding green groups and NGOs with limited resources this is both understandable and acceptable practice. However, in the case of national governments, government funded environmental protection agencies and nuclear industries, under whose watch a disaster of this magnitude has occurred, I can see no justification for refusing to investigate the concentrations of approximately 90% of the radioactive material (all of which are capable of contaminating environmental media and delivering doses of radioactivity to wildlife and human populations) that may have entered the marine environment

Issue 2: The nature of the radio-nuclides derived from reactor and cooling pond outputs:

Iodine is formed in fuel elements and would only be present in (coolant) discharges as a result of fuel cladding defects and or fuel pin failure.

Caesium is a fission product and is also present in coolant as a result of fuel pin cladding defect or failure.

The presence of both Iodine 131 and the two isotopes of Cs, demonstrates that fuel pin cladding defect and/or fuel pin failure has occurred.

If this is the case then there can be little doubt that a range of other isotopes including actinides/ alpha emitters (probably 4 or 5 isotopes of Pu, 3 of Uranium, also Americium and Curium) will also have been released and entered the marine environment…..

It’s my conclusion that the official monitoring regime being carried out by TEPCO and other Japanese agencies is inadequate to the task of identifying the potential radiobiological threats to the public.

They are under-measuring both in terms of nuclides and the number and type of samples they are investigating because they have failed to pursue the issue of Iodine and Caesium production to it’s logical conclusion, which is that fuel failure also leads to the production of alpha emitting actinides which must also be present in the environment (note the Pu found in “pools” adjacent to the NP station)

As nuclear industries , pro nuclear governments and their nuclear regulators always have done, they over represent the issue of dilution and dispersion

As nuclear industries, pro nuclear governments and their nuclear regulators always have done, they under represent the issues of re-concentration, transport, transfer from one environmental media to another and pathways of delivery to human populations…..http://nuclear-news.net/2013/07/17/fukishima-radioactivity-in-seawater/#more-54133

July 17, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized