Skip to main content

Putting The Radiation Release at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in the Proper Perspective

Let me make something clear at the outset: All over the world, the nuclear industry takes the events in Japan very seriously. With that in mind, here's some proper perspective from We Support Lee on just how much radioactive material was released from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant this week:
According to news sources, the leak of radiation at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Japan was 90,000 Becquerels, which is one billionth of the legal limit for radioactivity release.

90,000 Bq (Becquerels) means 90,000 disintegrations per second.


How much is 90,000 Bq in the medical world? Medical patients regularly receive 240 million Becquerels during treatments for hyperthyroidism. That's 2667 times what was released into the Sea of Japan.

These patients, some of whom are probably at a clinic in your town right now, watch tv, walk around, sit, talk, read, and disintegrate 131I at 2667 times the rate that the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant's release in the Sea of Japan is decaying.

The bottom line is that the radiation released during the earthquake is insignificant.
So when others start to compare this incident to Chernobyl, please keep this in mind.


Amazing crystal ball that Lee must have, seeing as the Wall Street Journal today reported there were unknown leaks occurring as late as WEDNESDAY NIGHT...let me guess, Lee has friends in high places at Tokyo Electric Power? That would at least explain his bias.
Joffan said…
I'm surprised, oh three-headed one, that you trust anything published in the WSJ.

And if by "crystal ball" you mean "access to CNN's web site", I guess We Support Lee qualifies. I know it's hard when people cite their sources, but those little links do come in handy. Personally I think the Internet is miles better than a crystal ball.

I freely confess that I am biased towards reality. Fiction is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Matthew66 said…
We Support Lee is an amazingly good blog, written by Ms. Ruth Sponsler. I've always found that Ruth cites reputable sources for her information rather than dabbling in the black arts.
Joseph said…
If I did the arithmetic right, 90,000 Becquerels is the same number of disintegrations per second as the potassium 40 in 300 gallons of orange juice.
Luke said…
It says here that orange juice has 436 mg of K per 250ml.

Relative abundance of K-40 is 1.2*10^-4, Specific Activity is 2.59*10^5 Bq/g.

(90000 Bq * 0.25L) / (436*10^-3 g * 1.2*10^-4 * 2.59*10^5 Bq/g) = 1,660 L, or 438.5 gallons.

That's close to the volume of water released from the plant. Ergo, one notes that the water was pretty much radiologically equivalent to orange juice.
Don Kosloff said…
How can the Wall Street Journal, or anybody, "report" on that which they state is "unknown", as in "there were unknown leaks"? Who manufactures the crystal ball that the Wall Street reporters use?
Anonymous said…
I found biased language on the other day. They had reprinted an article from the Associated Press. I wrote them a comment along the same lines, comparing the release to what is typically used for medical procedures, although I used Curies instead of Bacquerels.

Release from plant: 2 to 3 microCuries. Typical dose for one infusion of a rest/stress study for myocardial perfusion imaging: 60 milliCuries. Note that is more than 1000 times.

The interesting thing, my company is contracting on a project to design a new infusion cart, and the most serious risks are not radiation doses. They are things like electrical contact with the saline supply, which reaches all the way to the patient's heart, or air bubbles appearing in the line. In fact, due to the characteristics of the generator, it would be fairly difficult to give someone a harmful dose.

Of course similar risk disparities abound for any honest risk assessment done for pretty much anything having to do with nuclear technology.

bvidalin said…
Here is a link to TEPCO's press release regarding damage at their plant.

This is why I draw a different conclusion than what's presented in the world's media.

Bill V.
Anonymous said…
Is there a rule-of-thumb for converting Becquerels to rems or Sieverts? On this particular incident, I noted in another blog that the radioactivity of the water releases were quantified in Becquerels (per litre) whereas the radioactive air borne releases were quantified in Sieverts. Why is this? I have seen the nuclear industry expend a lot of time and effort trying to put radioactivity into context for the public, i.e. comparing the ionising radiation of background sources to living at or next door to a nuclear power plant, so why would the industry confuse the issue by throwing in Becquerels at this point?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot., the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…