tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post6393606351729830238..comments2024-02-29T00:46:38.800-08:00Comments on Washingtons Blog: Cesium Fallout from Fukushima ALREADY Rivals ChernobylUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-3807846155796563172011-03-30T11:40:40.311-07:002011-03-30T11:40:40.311-07:00About the very last part:
"...anyone who bel...About the very last part:<br /><br />"...anyone who believes that Fukushima cannot possibly become as bad as Chernobyl..."<br /><br />It is commonly said by people who clearly have read plenty (I've seen this about 8 times/8 sites) that in Chernobyl the *fire* of graphite hugely increased the dispersion.<br /><br />So regardless of the fact of much more fuel at this Japanese complex (in total at the 6 reactors and their pools), a common thought is that even with a serious meltdown (a full meltdown of one core, and then perhaps even more trouble at other reactors), you still are unlikely to have anything similar to Chernobyl's fire.<br /><br />In other words, you don't have an obvious means of dispersing heavier radionuclides in more than tiny quantities -- what will carry the heavier elements in larger bulk? Roughly, one impression I got on that is you need smoke, ash, etc., to carry the heavier stuff. Steam would not do it. You'd need fire or explosion, etc.<br /><br />Have you seen something contrary to this?Hal Horvathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10851897967853698214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53246864840716464.post-83877280383633278432011-03-30T01:24:50.515-07:002011-03-30T01:24:50.515-07:00Regarding the animation in the blue square:
it was...Regarding the animation in the blue square:<br />it was done by the "Rhenish Institute for Environmental Reasearch at the University of Cologne" in Germany. <br />In the report it states: "The release rate is estimated as 1015 Bq/d. This is appr. one tenth of the Chernobyl release. This simulation is a so called "worst case scenario" with continuous release rate. The value of 0.001 Bq/m3 correspond to appr. one millionth of the concentration at the source. At distances more than appr. 2000 km away from the source, the concentrations are not harmful to health."<br />Check: http://www.eurad.uni-koeln.de/index_e.html for the direct link as updates will occur as data becomes available.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093520335041143662noreply@blogger.com