SOARCA and the Decreasing Risk of Death

How likely is it that a major accident at a nuclear energy facility would kill you? Japan just had such a major accident and no one died due to radiological exposure – there were industrial accidents at Fukushima that led to worker death but those were specific to occurring at a physical plant. The general public, while suffering displacement and its attendants stresses – not to mention those caused by the earthquake and tsunami that precipitated the accident – has been fatality free.

The NRC has been investigating the risk of death from a nuclear facility accident and has an answer: your risk is vanishingly small.

The study found there was "essentially zero risk" to the public of early fatalities due to radiation exposure following a severe accident. The long-term risk of dying from cancer due to radiation exposure after an accident was less than one in a billion and less than the U.S. average risk of dying from other causes of cancer, which is about two in one thousand.

Another conclusion: severe accidents at nuclear energy facilities would unfold more slowly and potential releases of radioactive material would be much smaller than earlier studies indicated.

The NRC looked at Surry and Peach Bottom for the study because they are different kinds of reactors.

If core cooling is not restored [following an accident], the NRC said containment failure and radiological release could begin at about 8 hours for Peach Bottom and at 25 hours for Surry.

That’s the worst case scenario, of course, with safety systems intended to prevent its occurrence at multiple points. (Remember, though, that this report assumes that all these systems fail and radiation is released – that eventuality is what it wants to model)

The story doesn’t go into evacuation, but the report does:

For the purposes of evaluating accident consequences in the SOARCA project, the most evident part of a plant's emergency response plan is the evacuation of the public in the 10-mile (16-km) plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ). Actions in this EPZ could be expanded if the plume projections suggest that the population in a wider area need to take protective actions. Thus, the project team assessed additional aspects of emergency response, including relocation from areas of relatively high potential for exposure, as well as variations of evacuation and sheltering of population groups outside the 10-mile EPZ to a distance of 20 miles from the plant.

The plume is what many think of as a cloud of radiation.

The report also says that existing safety measures—including those put in place after 9/11—would be highly effective in protecting the public. Moreover, even if mitigating measures fail or are not used, “the analyzed accidents would cause essentially zero immediate deaths and only a very, very small increase in the long-term cancer deaths.”

Any industry – from chemical and gas plants to paper mills to refineries – has to know the worst possible event that can happen and figure out how to keep people alive though it and get them out of the way should it occur. These are the risks of an industrialized society and not specific to the nuclear energy industry.

But it does suggest the responsibility industry and government regulators have to know the risks and how to mitigate them. This report, State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (or SOARCA, in Washington-acronym speak), provides a careful analysis and concludes that the risk is present, and must be acknowledged, but it is very, very small.

“Beliebing” in Japan

This happened earlier this month:

Justin Bieber’s stage crew is refusing to go to Japan for two concerts scheduled later this month over fears of radiation from the recent nuclear disaster.

That comes from Gossip Cop. Now, let’s let E! Online answer the important question:

What's this about Justin Bieber's crew refusing to tour Japan? Are their fears about radiation justified?
—Clara, Switzerland, via the inbox

The Answer B!tch answers thusly:

No, at least, not on the radiation front.

In Tokyo and other major cities, "the radiation exposure is no different from where it was a year ago," says Dr. David Brenner, professor of radiation biophysics at the Center for Radiological Research at the Columbia University Medical Center. "There was an increase in radiation in March, but now it's down to normal levels again."

And that goes for water and air. As for food, "the government every day is modifying their list of what can be sold and where it can be sold, and contaminated food is not being sold. It's being monitored pretty intensively."

She gets some even better information:

In fact, says Dr. Peter Caracappa, clinical assistant professor of nuclear engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute:

"They'd actually receive a lot more of a radiation dose on the flight to Japan because of exposure to cosmic rays. So if they decide to go to Amsterdam instead of Tokyo they have not saved themselves.

Dr. Caracappa is being a bit tongue in cheek, but he is talking to E! Online.

So what will Justin and crew do?

But Bieber's manager Scooter Braun told the hesitant travelers on his team to "Man the f--k up and do the right thing by these kids" during a recent staff meeting, according to TMZ.com.

Braun continued by saying Bieber would not disappoint his Japanese "Beliebers" by failing to show for his May 17 performance in Osaka and his Tokyo concert two days later -- adding that Maroon 5 is moving forward with its May tour in Japan.

Well, if Maroon 5 is going over! This bit suggests that Bieber is being led into something he may not want to do himself. But no. If I wasn’t before (hint: I wasn’t), I’m a Belieber now, that’s for sure. Especially because:

First he made the ballsy move of following through with his tour dates in Japan despite radiation concerns. Now Justin Bieber has taken it a step further. The tween pop star took time out of his hectic schedule to meet with children who had been affected by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

Good for him. This is fan service and good publicity for him, but nothing demand he do it and he did do it. So, excellent.

Justin Bieber and his Japanese fans. I have to say, trawling through entertainment sites that cover folks like Bieber is discouraging – rather hard edged and mean spirited, they give cynicism a bad name.

All Around Us, In Us, Emitted from Us

Last week, the House Committee on Science Space and Technology took a look at various issues related to nuclear risk management, obviously in the shadow of Fukushima.

The hearing was okay – we’ll see if any policy prescriptions come out of it - though that’ll probably be down the legislative road a bit – but I was especially impressed with the testimony of John Boice, Scientific Director at the International Epidemiology Institute (in Maryland – it’s associated with Vanderbilt University.) He has a good amount of knowledge on radiation issues and provided House members – and us - with a lot of useful information.

In his testimony, he covered the following bullet points:

• Fukushima is not Chernobyl.
• The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor.
• The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent.
• We live in a radioactive world.
• There is a pressing need to learn more about the health consequences of radiation in humans when exposures are spread over time at low levels and not received briefly at high doses such as in atomic bomb survivors.

Boice would like to see a long-term, direct study done of people who work around low-level radiation – that’s what his last point is about – instead of depending upon information derived indirectly. (He references a DOE pilot program about low-level radiation that looks pretty comprehensive if it progresses to a full study.)

In his view, using information about people who took a large but brief dose of high-level radiation to generalize about those who absorb a small but continuous dose  of low-level represents a big gap in our knowledge. As Boice puts it,

Although we know much about the health effects of high levels of radiation when received briefly, as was the case for atomic bomb survivors, the risk following exposures experienced gradually over time is uncertain and remains the major unanswered question in radiation epidemiology.

Boice’s third point is worth stressing – radiation is all around us, in us, emitted from us. Boice wants to understand that better, as it impacts his field, but there it is.

We breathe radioactive radon which contributes over the year to about 210 millirem of natural background radiation. Bricks and granite contain radioactive materials that result in radiation exposures to the public (20 millirem). The Capitol Building was constructed with granite and is frequently cited as having some of the highest radiation levels in all of the United States, about 85 millirem per year. Water contains small amounts of radioactive radium, thorium and uranium, all within allowable limits.

Not only do we live in a radioactive world, our bodies are radioactive (30 millirem per year). Each second over 7,000 radioactive atoms in our bodies decay and can irradiate those sitting next to us. The atoms are largely radioactive potassium in our muscles and carbon-14 in our tissues. The amount of radiation we receive each year from medical sources (300 millirem), such as CT and medical imaging, equals the amount received from natural sources (300 millirem).

Just because all this is true is no reason to get silly about it. There’s a lot that is understood.

These examples are not to minimize the health consequences of high-level exposures which are clearly demonstrable in human populations and include acute radiation sickness at very high doses in excess of 200 rem and an increase in cancer at moderate doses above about 10 rem (10,000 millirem). The examples do indicate, however, that we live in a world of low-level radiation for which the possible health consequences are of little concern. The exposures to the U.S. population from Fukushima are tiny and thousands of times below U.S. standards or guidelines where remedial action would be triggered.

Which, conversely, is why we also know “The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor” and for Americans, nonexistent.

This is precisely the information policymakers need to, well, make policy. Very clear eyed and complete in a compact presentation. The whole testimony is worth a read.

Dr. John Boice

NEI Top Industry Practice Awards for 2011

Every year, nuclear utilities and vendors submit to NEI new and innovative practices they’ve developed to achieve better operations. NEI and a few industry folks analyze the submissions and hand out awards for the best new practices. The awards recognize industry employees in 14 categories—four vendor awards, nine process awards for innovation to improve safety, efficiency and nuclear plant performance, and one award for vision and leadership. This year there are a number of excellent innovations highlighted below. The full list of awards and descriptions can be found here. 

Real-Time Method to Prevent Fuel Rod Defects

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) employees at the Browns Ferry nuclear energy facility in Alabama have been honored with the B. Ralph Sylvia “Best of the Best” Award for developing a state-of-the-art method to prevent reactor fuel rod defects. Using real-time stress monitoring of the sealed tubes that hold the uranium fuel pellets, a new methodology called XEDOR has proven highly effective.

Five years ago, the industry established a goal to eliminate by the end of 2010 fuel rod defects that could release radionuclides from fuel pellets. Some damage is caused by the interaction between fuel pellets and the metal tube material called cladding. The phenomenon can result in additional costs to utilities, affect plant operation and subject personnel performing repairs to additional radiation exposure.

Working with AREVA, the winning TVA team implemented a new methodology that performs real-time, on-line stress calculations for every six-inch fuel rod segment in all parts of the reactor core. It is the first method that can calculate how close fuel rods are to cladding damage, thus ensuring fuel integrity performance. The user-friendly methodology is incorporated into the core monitoring system, and provides the plant operating staff with fuel condition information that can be easily understood and applied. This method has reduced fuel leaks, increased reactor productivity, and avoided millions of dollars in additional costs.

Tungsten Radiation Shielding

Entergy employees at Arkansas Nuclear One won the Materials and Services Process Award for creating tungsten radiation shielding that effectively protects both equipment and personnel. The innovation has been used in Japan in response to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power station.

The new material shields piping and surfaces effectively and economically, and also has been fabricated into a radiation-shielding vest that workers wear—a breakthrough application. Made primarily from tungsten with iron metal powder immersed in a silicone polymer, the material is flexible, heat-resistant, nontoxic and nonhazardous.

The tungsten vest is a major advancement. Traditionally, the industry has only thought to “shield the source” of radiation. Now “shielding the person” can be done in a lightweight and effective way to reduce exposure on an individual level and provide industrial safety value. Tungsten shielding is twice as effective at lowering exposure rates as lead and saves more than $300,000 per maintenance outage.

Medical Isotopes

Employees at Exelon Nuclear’s Clinton power station in Illinois are recipients of the Vision & Leadership Award for their pioneering development of the Isotope Test Assembly project. By simultaneously generating power and creating a widely used medical isotope—cobalt-60—the Exelon Nuclear team is addressing an urgent international medical need.

Cobalt-60 is used in noninvasive cancer therapy, with more than 15 million treatments each year in 80 countries. Cobalt-60 also is used in medical instrument sterilization, food preservation, package decontamination and pharmaceutical purification. The United States imports 95 percent of the cobalt isotopes that it uses for such purposes. To maintain a steady supply of isotopes to satisfy demand for necessary nuclear medicine procedures, the Exelon Nuclear’s team is working to create cobalt-60 in a commercial reactor during normal power generation.

To produce the isotope, cobalt-59 “targets” are added to some fuel assemblies in the reactor. During reactor operations, cobalt-59 atoms absorb neutrons and are transformed into cobalt-60 isotopes. The isotope rods are removed and shipped to a processing facility after several operating cycles. Cobalt-60 then is available for medical and other health and safety applications. The first commercial supply of cobalt-60 from Clinton will be available in 2014. Be sure to check out the rest of the awards.

Update, 5/13:

A short video explaining the radiation shielding is below. As well, below is another short video explaining Exelon's medical isotopes project.

Video of Radiation Shield to go Over Chernobyl

In light of today’s quarter-century anniversary of the accident, below is a fascinating nine minute video by the French consortium Novarka showing how the “new safe confinement” will entomb Chernobyl unit 4 so it can “accommodate future dismantling of the object shelter.”

For further discussions of the accident this anniversary, stop by to check out a few of the pro-nuclear pieces below.

ANS Nuclear Cafe – Chernobyl: 25 Years Later by Joe Colvin (President of ANS and former president of NEI)

Atomic Insights - “Chernobyl” – 25 years as a profitable brand by Rod Adams

To add from NEI’s website, see our vintage 1997 source book on Soviet-designed nuclear plant operations. It’s a fat document but pretty interesting stuff.

ANS Nuclear Cafe - “Why is there irrational fear of radiation?”

A number of folks at the Cafe have contributed thoughts on why the public fears radiation and nuclear energy. Much of the fear, they discuss, could be caused by the confusing number of different radiation units that are communicated in the media. Dan Yurman started it off:

The crisis at the Fukushima nuclear reactor complex in Japan, caused by a record earthquake and equally record shattering tsunami, has created a maelstrom of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) when it comes to radiation measurements.

For instance, the importance of distinctions between fast and slow decaying isotopes of iodine and cesium are sometimes lost on media and the public.

Worse, the differences between accounting for the sheer amount of radiation and giving an assessment of the potential health effects of uncontrolled releases takes place using different sets of measurement units. Is it any wonder that mainstream news media editors get headaches when their reporters file stories about radiation?

It hasn’t helped that Japanese and American nuclear experts have called for different distances for evacuation zones around the plant site. Can we fault the public for concluding that any report about radiation at a nuclear reactor is bad news?

The rest of the discussion will keep your attention.

John Boice - Fukushima Radiation a Threat?

Epidemiologist John Boice did a superb job this morning on MSNBC tempering overreaction to radiation levels.
Key takeaways:
Dilution and dispersal of radioactive iodine moving away from the Japanese coastline keeps any impact minor.
Sensitive detection equipment in U.S. is picking up insignificant levels of iodine. For example,  iodine levels in milk in the U.S. is 5,000 times below FDA standards.
None of this means that concern should not be directed to the workers at Fukushima.

Lively Debate Between George Monbiot and Helen Caldicott

Democracy Now hosted a debate between pro-nuclear convert, George Monbiot, and anti-nuclear activist, Helen Caldicott. Text can be found here.

Here’s one of George’s notable quotes:

When it comes to low-level radiation, unfortunately, environmentalists have been responsible for quite a similar approach by making what appear to be unjustifiable and excessive claims for the impact of that radiation. That is not in any way to minimize what is—what could well happen as a result of the events in Fukushima, but what it does say is we have to use the best possible science to work out what the likely effects are to be and not engage in what could be far more devastating to the lives of people in Japan: a wild overreaction in terms of the response in which we ask the Japanese people to engage.

I’d say Mr. Monbiot did quite well holding his own, Dr. Caldicott, on the other hand, well, er, watch and decide…

Update, 4/1/11 9:50 AM EDT: Rod Adams has a great recap of his debunkings of Dr. Caldicott over the past year.

Monday Afternoon Report

From NEI's Japan Earthquake launch page:

UPDATE AS OF 1:30 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, MARCH 28

Tokyo Electric Power has detected isolated, low concentrations of plutonium in the soil at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. The density of plutonium is equivalent to the fallout that reached Japan from nuclear weapons testing during the Cold War, the company said.

TEPCO conducted analysis of plutonium contained in the soil collected on March 21 and 22 at five locations at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Plutonium 238, 239 and 240 were detected, however just two of the samples may be the direct result of the recent incident, considering the ratio of the plutonium isotopes.

“The density detected in the plutonium is equivalent to the density in the soil under normal environmental conditions and therefore poses no major impact on human health,” TEPCO said. The company said it plans to strengthen environmental monitoring inside the station and surrounding areas.

The International Atomic Energy Agency today said it plans to conduct a high-level conference on nuclear safety “before the summer.” IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said it is “vitally important that we learn the right lessons from what happened on March 11, and afterwards, in order to strengthen nuclear safety throughout the world.”

Amano said the conference should cover: an initial assessment of the Fukushima accident, its impact and consequences; lessons learned for the industry; strengthening nuclear safety; and strengthening the response to nuclear accidents and emergencies.

Monday Morning Report

From NEI's Japan Earthquake launch page:

UPDATE AS OF 11:30 A.M. EDT, MONDAY, MARCH 28:
Radiation levels in the seawater near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remained high on Monday, but dropped considerably from the levels reported on Sunday. Monday's sampling near the plant's south discharge outlet showed that radioactive iodine levels were 250 times normal, reduced significantly from 1,850 times normal.

Radiation dose rates also remained elevated in the turbine buildings of reactors 1, 2, 3 and 4. Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Monday said that workers had found similarly high radiation levels in water in drainage conduits outside reactors 1 and 2. The company said that rubble at reactor 3 prevented measures from being taken there on Monday.

TEPCO is pumping contaminated water from the basement of the turbine building at reactors 1 and 2 to the main condenser. The company also continued to pump fresh water into reactors 1, 2 and 3, using electrical-driven pumps rather than diesel-powered fire pumps.

Levels of radiation at the plant's main gate ranged from 12.5 millirems per hour to about 20 millirem per hour (125-200 microSieverts/hour). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's annual limit for occupational exposure is 5,000 millirem.

For more information about radiation, see NEI's Web page on health and radiation safety.

Oxford Physicist - “We should stop running away from radiation”

Over at the BBC, Wade Allison, nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford, helps put radiation in perspective:

More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to.

Nuclear radiation at very high levels is dangerous, but the scale of concern that it evokes is misplaced. Nuclear technology cures countless cancer patients every day - and a radiation dose given for radiotherapy in hospital is no different in principle to a similar dose received in the environment.

…

People worry about radiation because they cannot feel it. However, nature has a solution - in recent years it has been found that living cells replace and mend themselves in various ways to recover from a dose of radiation.

These clever mechanisms kick in within hours and rarely fail, except when they are overloaded - as at Chernobyl, where most of the emergency workers who received a dose greater than 4,000 mSv over a few hours died within weeks.

However, patients receiving a course of radiotherapy usually get a dose of more than 20,000 mSv to vital healthy tissue close to the treated tumour. This tissue survives only because the treatment is spread over many days giving healthy cells time for repair or replacement.

In this way, many patients get to enjoy further rewarding years of life, even after many vital organs have received the equivalent of more than 20,000 years' dose at the above internationally recommended annual limit …

There’s much more from the professor at the BBC. Be sure to stop by and see what he says about the radiation from Fukushima and if he would accept used fuel buried under his house.

Sunday Morning Update

From NEI’s Japan earthquake launch page:

UPDATE AS OF 9:30 A.M. EDT, MARCH 27:

Tokyo Electric Power Co. workers on Sunday were using pumps to remove highly contaminated water from the basement of the turbine building of reactors 1 and 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

TEPCO also was preparing to remove water from the turbine building of reactor 3. Removal of the contaminated water is necessary to continue power restoration to the plant.

By Sunday, water injection to the pressure vessels at reactors 1, 2 and 3 had been switched from seawater to freshwater.

Off-site power has been restored to all units and work to connect equipment is ongoing. Progress is being slowed by high radiation levels and wet equipment.

TEPCO said that earlier reports of extremely high radiation levels measured in the water in the basement of the reactor 2 turbine building were inaccurate, according to news reports.

Radiation: Scams, Anxiety, Truth

Buyer Beware. From AARP:

Japan's nuclear crisis has caused a different type of fallout on this side of the Pacific Ocean: Scammers eager to make money — or just create fear — by fueling unwarranted concerns that dangerous levels of radiation have spread in the winds to the United States.

Already, some Americans are rushing to drugstores to buy out supplies of over-the-counter potassium iodide (KI) supplements, which can protect against thyroid cancer. But health officials say there is no need for KI, because no significant radiation hazard has been detected.

---

Weighing in from Australia:

Professor Barry Brook, the director of Climate Science at Australian University of Adelaide's Environment Institute, said that the crisis will lead international governments to improved measures to protect nuclear plants against extreme natural events, but is unlikely to cut down the use of nuclear power.

"Obviously the problem in Fukushima, has caused a lot of anxiety amongst the public, not just in Japan but also in many western countries, like America, Australia, Britain and France," Professor Brook told Xinhua a reporter in an exclusive interview recently.

"But I think that is impossible (to cut down the use of nuclear power) because of the rapidly growing energy demand."

"It should be kept in mind that the explosions at the Japanese reactors were chemical, not nuclear," Brook said, adding that the radiation dose threat to the public has been small, and no one has been killed so far as a result of the explosion.

"I think people are naturally scared of radiation because they don't understand much about it,"he said, adding "they don't understand that their body are radio-activated, the food that they eat, and the rocks the air and the sunlight, all of that are natural radiation they experienced."

None of which is to downplay those anxieties, especially in Japan. I do hope, though, that people research radiation online to quell those fears, at least somewhat. Radiation Answers is a good place to start and NEI’s Understanding Radiation booklet is an honest and thorough introduction.

---

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette runs an op-ed by John Metzger, an associate professor and director of nuclear engineering at the University of Pittsburgh. He tells some hard truths:

Despite an outstanding history of safety and reliability, the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants in Japan are causing many to call into question the safety of the nuclear industry. It is important to put these events into perspective.

The incident was not due to any perceived design deficiency, inadequate procedures or inappropriate operator action. It was due to natural events of historic proportions.

It appears the Fukushima plants withstood the largest earthquake in Japan's recorded history and shut down as designed. It was the subsequent tsunami that exceeded any expectations, plus a substantial safety margin, that initiated the chain of events we have all anxiously followed.

This is true also for the area surrounding the plants. Japan is prepared for large earthquakes and tsunamis, but this tsunami caused extensive destruction and thousands of fatalities.

That last bit is rather chilling but worth keeping in mind. Fukushima Daiichi was blindsided by the earthquake and tsunami and so was Japan. This is a country that expects these kinds of disasters to happen and prepares for them, both industrially and as a matter of public safety, but the extraordinary magnitude of this disaster overwhelmed the country top to bottom.

But:

In contrast, due to the quick actions of the Japanese government, the heroic efforts by staff at the Fukushima plants and the plants' robust design, there appear to be no reported fatalities to date due to damage at the nuclear facility. There have been releases of radiation, but so far they have not reached levels dangerous to human health.

So:

Despite what's happened in Japan, the nuclear power industry will remain the gold standard of safety and reliability against which other industries will measure themselves -- even as it reassesses its designs and practices in light of what's happened at Fukushima. In fact, the industry already has begun the reexamination on its own initiative.

All true. Read the whole thing.

Putting Radiation Dose in Context – note that dose rates are not annualized, as the chart says. The pdf is being updated to reflect this. From NEI’s Understanding Radiation booklet. Really – a lot of good information in that book.

Saturday Morning Update

From NEI’s Japan earthquake launch page:

UPDATE AS OF 9:30 A.M., MARCH 26

Japanese scientists yesterday detected higher levels radioactive iodine in seawater at water outlets near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

“Iodine 131 was detected at a level 1,250 times the national safety limit,” Hidehiko Nishiyama of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said during a news conference. Officials said there is no immediate danger to residents near the plant from these levels.

Samples taken on Friday were significantly higher than those taken on Wednesday, which had 147 times the legal concentration of I-131. Authorities said the concentration of radioactive materials in the water will decrease as the water is diluted by ocean currents. Indeed, a sample taken at 8:50 a.m. on Friday had one-fifth the concentration of I-131 as the earlier measurement. Three subsequent measurements that morning showed fluctuation. All were below the highest level found at 8:30 a.m. on Friday.

“As of now, there is no report of adverse impact on the marine life, especially beyond kilometers [of the plant],” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano. “Experts say there is a very low possibility, but we must strengthen our monitoring.”

Efforts to cool the reactors and fuel pools continues at the Daiichi site. Fresh water is now being used to cool reactors 1, 2 and 3 in lieu of seawater. Workers began injecting fresh water at reactors 1 and 3 on March 25 and at reactor 2 on March 26. Meanwhile, two U.S. Navy barges carrying 500,000 gallons fresh water are en route to a port 37 miles south of the Fukushima plant.

Radiation Dose Rates Around the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Plant

OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency has a useful overview of the events at the plant. Of particular interest are slides 16 and 17 pasted below which provide the dose rates of the prefectures near the plant on March 23.

Here are some key quotes from slide 17 on public health risks:

Radiation Risks are assumed to exist as a result of ANY exposure, no matter how small.

Exposure to natural radiation is, on average, 2.4 mSv per year.

At the current dose rates offsite, approximately one year of exposure would be needed to reach 1 mSv.

It is not possible to see statistical evidence of public health risk at exposures of less than 100 mSv.

The Japanese Workers

This is the most thorough account I’ve seen yet of what happened to the workers at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 who were contaminated with radiation. From Nucnet:

JAIF also confirmed that three workers were contaminated when laying cables in the turbine hall of unit 3.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the three were contract workers laying cables in the turbine hall. Two of them were found to have radioactivity on their feet and legs. JAIF said they were exposed to more than 170 millisieverts (mSv).

The workers were washed in an attempt to remove radioactivity, but since there was a possibility of beta-ray burning of the skin, the two were taken to the Fukushima University Hospital for examination and then transferred to Japan's National Institute of Radiological Sciences for further examination. They are expected to be monitored for around four days.

It is thought that the workers ignored their dosimeters’ alarms believing them to be false and continued working with their feet in contaminated water.

According to JAIF, the level of radioactive fission products in the water was about 3.9 million bequerels per cubic centimeter or 10,000 times higher than the reactor water used in the course of normal operations.

Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) has asked plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) to review the radiation control system immediately in order to avoid similar incidents in the future.

As of 24 March at 19:30 Japan time (11:30 central European time), the number of workers at the plant found to have received more than 100 mSv of radiation dose was 17 including the three contract workers. The remaining fourteen are Tepco employees, the IAEA said.

---

NPR talked to Evan Douple, associate chief of research at the Hiroshima-based Radiation Effects Research Foundation, which has worked on a decades long study of atomic-bomb survivors. The question was whether Fukushima Daiichi would be a plausible follow-up project. Answer: No The interviewer is Richard Knox.

Given what you said about the impossibility of doing the kind of long-term study you mounted of the atom-bomb survivors, can we learn anything from the current episode?

Douple: On the basis of our current estimates, there shouldn't be measurable numbers of cancers. So you won't be able to count them, ever. But once the dose estimates are put together and extrapolated, you should be able to make a crude estimate of the health effects, based on the RERF data. And I think that estimate will surprise a lot of people.

And they'll be surprised because?

Douple: They're so low.

Evan Douple

Friday Morning Update

From NEI’s Japan earthquake launch page:

UPDATE AS OF 9:30 A.M., MARCH 25:
Japanese officials are investigating the source of higher radiation readings at reactor 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant after two workers were contaminated while laying cable in the turbine building. Tests of the water in which the workers were standing contained a concentration of radioactive material many times the level normally found in water circulating in the reactor, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said.

"When we looked into the composition of the water, the source seems to be the reactor core," said NISA's Hidehiko Nishiyama. "Another possibility is the spent fuel, and we cannot rule out that possibility either."

Several possibilities could account for the presence of radioactive materials in the turbine building. Seawater sprayed onto the fuel pool area may have washed over the floor of the fuel pool area onto the turbine building and leaked through the damaged roof into the basement of that building. Other possibilities include a problem with an interconnected system to the primary containment, such as the main steam system, or a small opening in the reactor containment structure.

Japanese authorities recommended residents within 30 kilometers of the plant evacuate voluntarily, extending the recommendation from 20 kilometers. Damage to infrastructure in the area from the earthquake severely limits the ability to provide water, food and other necessary supplies to people sheltering in their homes for the coming weeks.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. is stepping up efforts to switch from sea water to fresh water for cooling the reactors and used fuel storage pools. The United States government has urged the switch to fresh water as soon as possible and is providing two U.S. Navy barges, each of which can carry up to 1,000 tons of water. The ships are scheduled to reach port about 60 kilometers from the Daiichi plant in about three days. Japanese workers at the site will install pipes and hoses to carry the water to the plant.

New Web Page on 'Health and Radiation'
NEI has created a new web page, "Health and Radiation Safety," which provides information and links to additional resources.

Afternoon Update

Note the reference to NEI’s Understanding Radiation booklet below. You can get a pdf of it here.

From NEI’s Japan Earthquake launch page:

UPDATE AS OF 1:30 P.M. EDT, MARCH 24

In a sign of progress, Tokyo Electric Power is working to switch from sea water to borated fresh water to cool uranium fuel at three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

All reactors now have access to offsite power, and work is under way to inspect, repair and connect equipment needed to cool the reactors. Testing by Tokyo Electric Power Co. indicates that many pumps are inoperable because of flood damage.

Restoring regular cooling to the used fuel pools at Fukushima Daiichi remains a high priority. The used fuel pools at reactors 5 and 6 are being cooled using heat removal systems with electric power. Workers continue to spray seawater on the reactor buildings and spent fuel pools at reactors 1, 3 and 4. Additional cooling water to the spent fuel pool is being supplied by a fire hose connection.

Overnight, steam was rising from the secondary containment buildings that house reactors 1 through 4.

Radiation dose rates at the site boundary range from 1 to 3 millirem per hour.

NEI has updated the brochure “Understanding Radiation: Its Effects and Benefits,” which includes facts about monitoring and protection against radiation.

Radiation and Fear Itself

As you can see in the post below, the brief scare about radiation over the weekend has quickly faded and there are still no signs of increased levels.

The Environmental Protection Agency has put up a Frequently Asked Questions page to explain how increased radiation levels are detected in the United States. I knew some of this but not all of it. Well worth a visit.

---

From NPR this morning, a discussion between Dr. Robert DuPont, who teaches clinical psychiatry at Georgetown Medical School and specializes in the study and treatment of fear, including the fear of nuclear energy:

DuPont: God, you've got people in California taking potassium iodide to prevent cancers from the radiation from this plant. What is that? And I think the answer is in biology. Fear dominates our attention. Whatever the tsunami was, whatever the earthquake was, that's over. Sure, it could happen again. But the nuclear reactor? Who knows.

That’s a little harsh – lack of good information played a part - but it leads into a productive conversation between DuPont and NPR’s Renee Montagne about fear of nuclear energy.

Montagne: Now, what makes people's reaction to nuclear energy so different than other energy sources - for instance, you know, drilling for oil or coal mining - when they have also some quite tragic, you know, loss of life and danger in the industry?

DuPont: They do, but it's familiar and it doesn't have the connection to Hiroshima that we have with nuclear power, and it's also familiar. We're used to thinking about industrial accidents.

The whole thing is worth a read. I’d hate to think that anyone suffered an irrational fear of nuclear energy, which is really rooted in a fear of radiation, but there you are.

---

But maybe it’s too easy to point to fear – either of nuclear energy or radiation – as determinative the response to Fukushima Daiichi. In the local event, a fear mongering media must take a large role. Or is even that true?

Only 44 percent of those who took part in the CBS telephone survey said they were more fearful of a possible nuclear accident in the U.S., even as Japan struggles to put the lid on their own potential catastrophe at the tsunami-ravaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

And that means:

Fifty-three percent of those polled said they were no more fearful of a similar catastrophe in the U.S. than they were prior to the ongoing issues at Fukushima.

Well, that still means that 44% are afraid of an accident here. CBS doesn’t appear to have polled it, but that must be a big uptick from the number prior to the Japan earthquake and a number that will doubtless decrease as time passes. For the moment, though, it suggests that efforts to name and dispel the fear are important.

That’s what EPA and NPR are doing and, of course, what NEI is doing, too. If this is polled again in a month or so, we’ll have a better way to judge fear whipped up by alarmist coverage and fear that sustains itself.

Not sure where this came from – I’ve seen old books on acting that showed your how to express different emotions. Pictures like this abound in them.