http://tinyurl.com/hbpz79k

In the Pocket of the Nuclear Industry      September 24, 2013

How Obama Made Fukushima Worse

by DOUGLAS A. YATES

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/24/how-obama-made-fukushima-worse/

...TEPCO, admitted that it had low-balled previous data and that actual releases were 20-30 percent greater than earlier claims. Numbers are being revised upward almost daily. Currently, while the totals remain in flux, independent observers suggest that Fukushima has surpassed Chernobyl in the amount of radiation released to the environment. Chernobyl spilled 85 quadrillion becquerels across Europe while Fukushima’s totals climb to 276 quadrillion in some estimates. Outliers put it as high as 690 quadrillion. Approximately half of the initial aerosol releases fell into the ocean."

I decided to work with the value 276 quadrillion Becquerels.  The qualifiers "initial aerosol" suggest that the amount of stuff falling in the ocean could be greater than half of 276 because the statement relates only to the initial release, and only to aerosols (tiny solid & liquid particles), not gases.  Gases too dissolve in the ocean over time as they come in contact with the waves.  So in the spirit of compromise I used the entire 276 and avoided having to worry about the number 690 quadrillion.

My reply:

It is easy to make an impressive-sounding statement like "...independent observers suggest that Fukushima has surpassed Chernobyl in the amount of radiation released to the environment. Chernobyl spilled 85 quadrillion becquerels across Europe while Fukushima’s totals climb to 276 quadrillion in some estimates."  

This makes a big impression because very few people have a feel for the word Becquerel, and even fewer (actually none of us) have a feel for the word quadrillion  But it sounds really, really large.

In situations like this where the words and numbers are unfamiliar or disconcerting, it behooves us to speak in terms of "percent change".  Or, for situations in which the percentage is greater than 100%, in terms of "factor of change" or "multiple of".  Or, for situations in which the factor is rather large, say, greater than 10, we should speak in terms of "order of magnitude" (the exponent of 10 - its logarithm).

By speaking in these proper ways we can put numeric information into context.  This is necessary so people have at least some chance to wrap their minds around the issue.

When people do not speak in these correct ways, there are three possible causes:

a) They really don't understand the issue; 

b) They are too lazy to express themselves clearly; or

c) They actually intend to deceive.

Of course it can be some combination of those three reasons.  The corporate media, I believe, represent such a combination of all three failures.

I'm getting back to quadrillions of Becquerels in a moment.  Bear with me.

Why failure (c)?  Because the profit-making media must attract audience to maintain their ratings and advertising revenue.  One thing they understand for sure is that an alarming or shocking story succeeds at audience attraction.

It's probably not conscious deceit on their part.  Sowing drama for effect is just their default tendency.  At some level they probably sense that they're being irresponsible, so they just don't think about it, I imagine.

Anyway, 276 quadrillion Becquerels, eh?  A lot of cesium, strontium, iodine, etc?  Which specific elements are identifiable in seawater by spectroscopy and are traceable to Fukushima because they don't occur naturally in seawater in such concentration.  Is that what's troubling you?

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER RADIATION COMES FROM NON-NATURAL ELEMENTS (CESIUM, ETC) OR FROM NATURALLY OCCURRING SEAWATER ELEMENTS (POTASSIUM AND RUBIDIUM).

It's all the same stuff.  It's all alpha-type, or beta-type, or gamma- type - those are the only things it can be.  Which specific radioactive isotope produces it is not relevant - it makes no difference.*

That being so, let's run some numbers on the Fukushima isotopes compared to sea-water's natural isotopes - the ones that mother nature has been loading into earth's seawater for the last billion years.

It's mostly potassium, atomic number 19, with 21 neutrons - making potassium-40; and rubidium, atomic number 37, with 50 neutrons - making rubidium-87.  Whatever.

Between those two, seawater has a natural radioactivity of 12,100 Becquerels per cubic meter. Those 12,100 Bq are ALWAYS  there, they always have been and always will be.

The Pacific Ocean is really really big, with a really really large number of cubic meters of water volume.  How many?  About 655 exponent 15 cubic meters, or

655 quadrillion m3 - there's that strange number-word again.

At 12,100 Bq per m3, those 655 e15 m3 of water have total radioactivity of 7.9 e21 Bq.   Have had it since ichthyosaurs swam in it. [12,100 X 655 e15 = 7.9 e21]

Accepting this reported cumulative Fukushima leak as valid, it represents this percentage increase in Pacific Ocean radioactivity:  276 quadrillion Bq / 7.9 e21 Bq =  0.000 035

which is 0.0035 per cent.  That is, less than one one-hundredth of one per cent.

Wait.  You say we shouldn't count the whole Pacific Ocean.  Because the Fukushima radioisotopes won't distribute themselves evenly? 

Fair enough.  Then suppose they concentrate themselves in a small portion of the Pacific Ocean, say 1.6 % of its area and volume. 

That 1.6 % would be 1000 miles by 1000 miles by 1/4-mile deep.  It has volume = 1.04 e15 m3, with potassium-40 and rubidium-87 radioactivity of 12.6 e18 Bq.

Fukushima's cesium etc radioactivity thus increases it by :

276 e15 Bq / 12.6 e18 Bq = 0.022

which is about 2.2 %. 

That's 2.2 % in water that represents 1.6%  of the whole ocean.  Leaving the other 98.4 % as it always has been.

Now THERE'S  context.  Please talk that way.

*Set aside for a while that business about alpha being unable to penetrate skin, but being more destructive to living cells if it does manage to get inside; and beta being more able to penetrate, but not so disruptive to cells when it does so, etc.