Tuesday, September 27, 2011

#Radiation Map by Ministry of Education: Gunma Looks Worse Than Expected

On September 27 the Ministry of Education and Science announced the result of their latest aerial survey of radiation contamination they did over Gunma Prefecture, and many people are dismayed that the contamination in the prefecture looks worse than feared.

So far, the Ministry has done the aerial surveys and mapped air radiation and soil contamination in: Fukushima, Miyagi, Yamagata, Ibaraki, Tochigi, and Gunma.

From 9/27/2011 map, on air radiation (microsievert/hour, 1 meter off the ground):


Cesium-134 and -137 deposition (becquerels/square meter):

Professor Hayakawa's map that he's been updating since April (current version is 4.0):


21 comments:

Mauibrad said...

Nice maps.

Anonymous said...

Well, looks like I'll never make it to Tohoku afterall...

East-West divide anyone?

Anonymous said...

Why does the radiation seem to stop at Saitama?

Anonymous said...

Ummm - that microSievert map is one meter off the ground?

Well - the radiation in that recent train out of Tokyo video had 10 microSieverts per hour in the train 1 meter off the ground!!

Anonymous said...

"Why does the radiation seem to stop at Saitama?"

not surveyed (yet)

Anonymous said...

I'm happy to see that is has been proven, everything TEPCO and the Japanese Government was "understating" were bold face lies!

So, don't believe ANYTHING they release!

The danger is deadly.
The danger is all around.
The danger is to trust the so called "experts."

Tony Bains said...

Time to evacuate from Japan. Tried to delay until today but after seeing these maps, hmm....

Anonymous said...

Dear Tony,

Yes, go back to where you came from. Have a nice flight.

Anonymous said...

Oh, noooooooooooo!!!

Atomfritz said...

Closely looking at the map, the survey raster appears to be about one square kilometer.
But, dangerous hotspot areas can be much smaller and so the map only shows an overall tendency.

And, even worse, Cesium precipitation is different to Strontium precitiation due to different properties of these contaminants (solubility, adherance to other particles like dust and so on).

So it is not possible to deduct that an area with little Cesium contamination is fit for agricultural use, as it could be heavily polluted with other radiocontaminants than Cesium.

You need to have contamination maps for every important radiopollutant to be on the safe side.

Just check out the different contamination maps for Cesium, Strontium and Plutonium in the former Soviet Union.

I recommend all to study this big and detailed report about the Chernobyl consequences some commenter hinted at a few days days ago:

http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov+Chernobyl+book.pdf&pli=1

Anonymous said...

Atomfritz

"Just check out the different contamination maps for Cesium, Strontium and Plutonium in the former Soviet Union."

Yeah, just check how Strontium and Plutonium are distributed over a smaller area, with lower concentrations and closer to the plant.

Atomfritz said...

anon 7:23

No.
Either you didn't check it out yourself or you are trying to disinform.

Look at the maps on pages 13 to 23 of the document (these are on total pages 34 to 44)

If you overlay these maps you'll quickly find out that the distribution of radionuclides is very dissimilar.

There even are widespread intensive transuranic (Plutonium etc) contaminations in many areas many hundreds of kilometers away from the Chernobyl NPP that have practically no Cesium or Strontium contamination.

Anonymous said...

Go! Go! Über Fritz!

Wahrheit! Wahrheit!

Atomfritz said...

anon 11:58

Ermm. I am not all uber.
If I were, I could, for example, scientifically explain why the maps (from Ukraine government) on page 17 (absolute page #38 of the document) do not seem to support the theory that plutonium fallout only occurs where cesium falls out.

I do not understand why plutonium fallout is high in some areas where no relevant cesium fallout has been found. Please especially look at the southern-southwestern regions.

But, I agree with you in another point.
Truth (= "Wahrheit" in german) should be told to all and not only to the nuclear cartel insiders.

I am sure many people all over the world appreciate the work of LaPrimavera (who is being called "Ultraman" sometimes) for his great efforts to tell the world the truth. What he does really deserves the word "uber".
I think I am only one of many many people who are grateful to him. Thanks again!

Anonymous said...

Some would say that Yablokov is trying to disinform. Actually, a lot of very smart people have said that. I'm sure they all just work for the nuclear industry though.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon 2:47

could you please substantiate your claims? Who are these 'some' you are talking about? Can you provide a link? Who are these 'smart people' you are talking about? Any links available?

I do not know about the credibility of Yablokov, but at least I know his name and I can check his data and conclusions (form the link). Your statement is pure fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), the information content of your post is ZERO (NIL - NADA)

Anonymous said...

Atomfritz,

I have studied those maps. I couldn't get Yablokov's book from your link, though, I downloaded it here: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

If you check the maps for Belarus (pages 14-16 of the report), for example, you see that Strontium-90 and Plutonium are distributed on lower concentrations on a smaller area closer to the plant.

In the case of the comparative map, the Yablokov's book omitted the units used in the second map. If you go to the source, Ukraine National Report 2006, you can check the raw data, table 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.2.6 (Pages 16-20): chernobyl.undp.org/english/docs/ukr_report_2006.pdf Again, smaller area, closer to the plant, lower concentrations.

Anonymous said...

I'm getting a reading of over 650 cpm in Shizuoka September 29 4:45 pm. The readings started spiking at 4:40 pm.

???

Atomfritz said...

anon 6:16

Thank you for the correction of my mistyped link.

In fact the raw data show the same discrepancies as you can find when overlaying the contamination maps.

For example, Ukraininan westernmost oblast Zakarpatska, hundreds of kilometers west of Chernobyl, shows high plutonium contamination in contrast to comparatively low cesium contamination.

So the theory spread by the nuclear lobby that plutonium contamination concentrates near the accident sites seems definitely to be wrong. (I have to admit that I also believed that deception until I looked closer at the facts that usually are kept classified.)

However, it is essential for the nuclear industry to maintain their lie that it is sufficient to look at cesium contamination only.

Because, if people would look at other contaminants and not only at cesium, they would recognize that the contamination damage is way larger and more widespread than being suggested to the public.

An important part of the deception is the belief that lower becquerel counts automatically mean less health risk.
This is grossly wrong because of various reasons.

First, as internal alpha radiation damage is officially considered at least twenty times more dangerous than gamma damage. So 100 Bq of plutonium are considered as dangerous as 2000 Bq of cesium.
Second, as plutonium is way longer lived than cesium, 100 Bq of plutonium contamination is much, much more pollution than 2000 Bq of cesium when you look at the weight/mass of the contaminants.
Third, plutonium does not conveniently decay in a few generations like the short-lived cesium. It causes quasi-permanent degradation of the land.
Fourth, as plutonium usually is in the form of hot particles, it is way more "efficient" in causing cancers.
And so on.

It is really sad to find how dense this web of deceptive lies is that the nuclear lobby spreads together with the mass media.

Anonymous said...

Atomfritz, I understand why you chose Zakarpatska as an example of your theory, as it's the only one which seems to correspond to it. Nice selection bias.

Still, compared to the other regions it had 91.5% of its territory contaminated with 40–100 Bq/m2 of Plutonium, as opposed to 35% contaminated with 2,000-4,000 Bq/m2 and 51% with 4,000-10,000 Bq/m2 of Cs-137.

It's interesting that, among this ranges, you decided to use the highest value for Plutonium and the lowest one for Cs-137. ("So 100 Bq of plutonium are considered as dangerous as 2000 Bq of cesium.")

Any comments on the maps of contamination by Cs-137, Sr-90 and Plutonium in Belarus?

Steve said...

Ha ha, check out the nuclear lobby shill. Anonymous of course.

Nice try to twist Atomfritz's message and score off a strawman tactic. He pointed out that Plutonium was 20 times worse than Cesium for danger due to this being the statistical relation between internal alpha radiation and gamma radiation. Not because there coincidentally was the same ratio between the highest and lowest concentrations of each as well.

Nice try though, your determination to strike a blow for nuclear power industry shows a lot of determination if nothing else. I hope they reward you for your efforts with a nice little dose of plutonium waste, since you seem to be fairly fond of the stuff.

Post a Comment