It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Fukushima by the Numbers

page: 1
6
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 12:24 AM
Hi, I'm starting this thread because there have been quite a few threads lately regarding Fukushima that have been sensational. I thought it might be a good Idea to look at some of the figures, and also compare them to Chernobyl. Now I have used the largest estimates for Fukushima that I could find that come from legitimate sources as a worst case scenario. I am only providing the numbers for people and they can discuss what the consequences of those numbers are. For right now I am only providing figures for two Isotopes Cesium-137 (137Cs) and Plutonium-241 (241Pu). These Isotopes where the first ones I could find figures for both accidents, but I will be adding more isotopes later as I find reliable figures. So lets get into the numbers.

First the releases in Bq (1 disintegration per sec.)

137Cs:
Chernobyl- 85 PBq (85x10^15 Bq) or 85,000,000,000,000,000 Bq

Fukushima- 20.5 PBq (20.5x10^15 Bq) or 20,500,000,000,000,000 Bq

241Pu
Chernobyl- 7.2 PBq (7.2x10^15 Bq) or 7,200,000,000,000,000 Bq

Fukushima- .26 TBq (2.6x10^11 Bq) or 260,000,000,000 Bq

Now to put those number into something a person not familiar with figures dealing with nuclear material can comprehend. Fist I will show the conversions that I use. I am from the US so I will convert all the way to pounds. If you are science minded or live out side of the US, Liberia, or Myanmar, ignore the last step of each conversion. All conversions along with release figures can be found in the in the links at the end of the post.

1 Bq = 37x10^-10 Curie (Ci)
1 Curie of 137Cs = .0114 grams (g) of 137Cs
1 Curie of 241Pu = .0083 grams (g) of 241Pu
1000 Gram = 1 kilogram (kg)
1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds (lbs)

So lets see how much weight of each isotope was released from each accident.

137Cs:
Chernobyl- (85x10^15) x (37x10^-10) = 31,450,000 Ci
31,450,000 x .0114 = 358,530 g
358,530 / 1,000 = 358.5 kg
358.5 x 2.2 = 788.8 lbs

Fukushima- (20.5x10^15) x (37x10^-10) = 7,585,000 Ci
7,585,000 x .0114 = 86,469 g
86,469 / 1000 = 86.5 kg
86.5 x 2.2 = 190.2 lbs

241Pu:
Chernobyl- (7.2x10^15) x (37x10^-10) = 2,664,000 Ci
2,664,000 x .0083 = 22,111.2 g
22,111.2 / 1000 = 22.1 kg
22.1 x 2.2 = 48.6 lbs

Fukushima- (2.6x10^11) x (37x10^-10) = 9.6 Ci
9.6 x .0083 = .08 g
.08 / 1000 = .00008 kg
.00008 x 2.2 = .00018 lbs

Hopefully these figures give you a better understanding of the releases from both accidents. As I said before Im hoping to add more Isotopes as I find the figures from both accidents on them. The links below are for the conversions and release amounts. If any one finds errors in the math or find a reputable source with higher figures on either accidents I'll be happy to redo them.

ieer.org...

atomicinsights.com...

www.japantimes.co.jp...

study/#.U-7qvVZPYTu

www-pub.iaea.org...

www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp...
edit on 16-8-2014 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 12:37 AM
Thank you that's a great way to show perspective.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 01:11 AM
As you say, those may very well be the correct numbers from the 'initial atmospheric' release of the two isotopes mentioned.

There is ongoing problems at both sites. Chernobyl is moderately contained but that containment is is serious need of containment of it's own which is now in danger of not being completed because of the unrest in the area.

Then there is Fukushima where there is no containment whatsoever.... and no hope of any meaningful contrainment at anytime in the near future if ever. Now that the Diet has made it illegal to report on the situation at fukushima we don't have much information to go on.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 01:12 AM

I think you would be better off adding all of your findings together for this is the real truth of the problem we are left with, it makes more sense than playing down fukushima, and while you are at it find out which one is still a greater threat to mankind and the enviroment...

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 01:31 AM

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

I think you would be better off adding all of your findings together for this is the real truth of the problem we are left with, it makes more sense than playing down fukushima, and while you are at it find out which one is still a greater threat to mankind and the enviroment...

How am I playing down Fukushima? I used the Largest release figure I could find. I also said if any one can find any higher release figures I would redo it. I don't think I'm playing it down at all. I was just trying to provide numbers that people can discuss. instead of the usual "Fukushima is killing the entire Pacific Ocean" type conversation that seem to run rampant here. Also I made an error in one of the conversions so the figures have changed

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 01:43 AM

Sorry never meant to ruffle your feathers, I just dont find any comfort in your numbers, and that i find fukushima as the greater threat, unless chernobyl makes it to the water table that is...

Then you can kiss Russia and Europe goodbye...

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 02:45 AM

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

Sorry never meant to ruffle your feathers, I just dont find any comfort in your numbers, and that i find fukushima as the greater threat, unless chernobyl makes it to the water table that is...

Then you can kiss Russia and Europe goodbye...

Those figures were not meant to comfort you they were meant to be discussed in a non sensational manor and with data and facts. You thinking Fukushima is a greater threat than chernobyl is perfectly fine. My motive to post these figures was not to prove Chernobyl was a worse accident. I made this post to put some hard numbers and calculations into a topic that has been blamed for everything from killing all life in the Pacific to causing peoples tap water to be warmer. I thought maybe if I posted some numbers we could have a meaningful conversation.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 03:09 AM
but dude it is killing the ocean ,these figures i would say are wrong ,this is appaling you come here and down play fukushima this effects the plannet,if you think that this is not effecting sea life then maybe you think black is white .
i am not gonna sit here quietly why you make out chernobyl was worse,i have to ask myself when seeing a post like this WHAT IS YOUR AGENDA...........

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 03:22 AM
Here are the figures for Iodine-131 (131I). Now 131I only has a half-life of 8 days so its all gone from both accidents but these are the numbers.

We only need one new conversion.

1 Ci of 131I = .000008 g of 131I

So here are the figures again I have used the Largest figure I could find for Fukushima from a reliable source.

131I:

Chernobyl- 1760 PBq (1760x10^15) or 1,760,000,000,000,000,000 Bq
(1760x10^15) x (37x10^-10) = 651,200,000 Ci
651,200,000 x .000008 = 5,209.6 g
5,209.6 / 1000 = 5.2 kg
5.2 x 2.2 = 11.44 lbs

Fukushima- 511 PBq (511x10^15) or 511,000,000,000,000,000 Bq
(511x10^15) x (3.7x10^-10) = 189,070,000 Ci
189,070,000 x .000008 = 1,512.6 g
1,512.6 / 1000 = 1.5 kg
1.5 x 2.2 = 3.3 lbs

Again if any one wants to check my math that would be great. The link for the release amount is below.

www.world-nuclear-news.org...

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 03:29 AM
science fact radiation mutates d.n.a so it is effecting sea life no ifs or buts

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 03:31 AM

originally posted by: stuthealien
these figures i would say are wrong ,

Can you provide me figures you think are right?

this is appaling you come here and down play fukushima this effects the plannet

I am not down playing anything, All I have done is post figures on the releases. I have not mentioned any effects what so ever. I'm sorry you are appalled by the figures I did't come up with them. As I said before if you can provide other figures I will gladly work them out.

if you think that this is not effecting sea life.

I never said that.

i am not gonna sit here quietly why you make out chernobyl was worse

I am not making either out to be worse all I did was post figures.

My agenda is to have a meaningful discussion based on numbers, facts, and science. Excuses me for thinking that was possible.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 03:43 AM
what about the bit you edited out about being fed up with people saying the seas dying

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 03:47 AM

I didn't edit anything out the only thing I edited was the numbers as I had made a mistake in one of the conversion as I had noted in a pervious post. Maybe you are referring to this:

I made this post to put some hard numbers and calculations into a topic that has been blamed for everything from killing all life in the Pacific to causing peoples tap water to be warmer.

Which is still there by the way. And I still stand by that statement.
edit on 16-8-2014 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 03:54 AM

I saw that after his op was first up as well...
edit on 16-8-2014 by 5StarOracle because: spell

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 03:59 AM

I was just trying to provide numbers that people can discuss. instead of the usual "Fukushima is killing the entire Pacific Ocean" type conversation that seem to run rampant here.

I made this post to put some hard numbers and calculations into a topic that has been blamed for everything from killing all life in the Pacific to causing peoples tap water to be warmer.

Those were the only times I have mentioned the ocean. They are still on the thread. They were never part of my OP. You sir are wrong. And I still stand by those statements.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:07 AM
im still confused as to why you think these figures are acurate first of the link atomic insights is a pro nuclear website who think nuclear power is great infact scroll down to the bottom there even being abused on that page haha great link
also one of the pdf files are all japaneese so could be dis info,the only doc you have linked to that has any salt to it is the study after chernobyl and thats because they allowed it,unlike japan who seem to cover up as much as possible,and so why are you advocating PRO NUCLEAR POWER WEB LINKS ,and nice move on the rewording but you dont fool me.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:11 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:13 AM

originally posted by: stuthealien
im still confused as to why you think these figures are acurate first of the link atomic insights is a pro nuclear website who think nuclear power is great infact scroll down to the bottom there even being abused on that page haha great link
also one of the pdf files are all japaneese so could be dis info,the only doc you have linked to that has any salt to it is the study after chernobyl and thats because they allowed it,unlike japan who seem to cover up as much as possible,and so why are you advocating PRO NUCLEAR POWER WEB LINKS ,and nice move on the rewording but you dont fool me.

I'm Not trying to fool any one, I have stated many of time I used the largest figures for release at Fukushima and if any one can provide larger numbers I would gladly work them out all you have to do is post a link yet you have failed to do so.

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:17 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 04:17 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

new topics

top topics

6