2012-04-11 The Real Lessons of Fukushima

4 Measurements of Radioactivity from Fukushima

Measurements of radioactivity may be used with plume models to estimate the source terms of the release, the ground deposition and the dose to humans. Releases contain many nuclides, of which the activity declines with time, characterised by their half-lives, but these vary widely. Also their attributes - alpha, beta, gamma, X-rays and neutrons – differ, as do the sensitivities of instruments to them. So measurements repeated at different times will decline – albeit at a rate that can be calculated from the above.

Of the radioactive attributes - alpha, beta, gamma, X-rays and neutrons - most simple instruments can measure only gamma radiation. 63 64 By assuming the Quality Factor as 1, they measure the absorbed dose rate – in Greys/time – but display it as the (human) dose equivalent rate – in Sieverts/time. However, this is true only for gamma radiation. 65 Therefore most reports give only dose values for the gamma emitters Iodine (131) and Cesium (134 and 137) and fail to mention that these are only indicative of the complete release. Moreover, the accuracy may be only +/- 50%. 66 To identify and quantify all the nuclides that may be present requires further measurement and analysis. 67 Measurements of radioactivity inside the human body require more elaborate equipment, such as whole body counters. 68

4.1 Ground-based Measurements

Measurements of radioactivity may come from fixed stations, including those around the Fukushima Daiichi site 69 and the CTBTO worldwide network of radioactivity monitoring stations. 70 71

4.2 Aerial Surveys

The air concentration and ground deposition of radioactivity may be determined by aerial survey. However, the Japanese authorities had no instrument at hand for airborne radioactivity measurements and the first aerial surveys were carried out in over 40 hours between March 17 and 19 by the Japan-based US Emergency Response Centers, with the results being made available via the US DOE website. 72 The dose equivalent of 11.9 to 125 microSieverts/hour (i.e. 104 to 1095 mSv/y) extended about 40 km to the north-west. Joint monitoring by the Japanese and the US - credited as MEXT (Japanese Science Ministry) and the DOE (Department of Energy) - began on March 25. 73 The aerial survey flights started close to the Fukushima Daiichi site – from 3 to 40 km and from 40 to 80 km - and then were added to progressively – by prefecture – to cover most of mid-Japan (Honshu). 74 From the aerial gamma radiation (air dose) results were derived the ground depositions of Cs-134+Cs-137, Cs-134 and Cs-137. The first results from MEXT and DOE, dated 2011-05-06, include maps showing Fukushima prefecture, with the air dose and the ground depositions of Cs-134 + Cs-137, Cs-134 and Cs-137. 75 The results dated 2011-11-25 include maps showing Tokyo and 21 other prefectures, with the air dose and the ground depositions of Cs-134 + Cs-137, Cs-134 and Cs-137. 76 77

Although Japan has installed and operated nuclear power plants capable of major radioactive releases for over 40 years, the Japanese authorities had no instrument at hand for airborne radioactivity measurements. This was gross negligence. Instead they had to rely initially on aerial surveys carried out by the Japan-based US Emergency Response Centers.

4.3 Soil Sampling for Iodine and Cesium

Kinoshita et al reported:

‘ Radioactive iodine, strontium, and cesium, which have large fission yields and low boiling points, present a large risk for internal radiation exposure via ingestion of contaminated agricultural crops. These predictions also require an estimation of the emission inventory as well as knowledge of the distributions of various radionuclides and their transport and deposition on the ground. Therefore, we carried out gamma-ray spectrometry of surface soil samples collected in central-east Japan to contribute to this scientific enterprise. ’ 78

Kinoshita et al reported: 'Radioactive iodine, strontium, and cesium, which have large fission yields and low boiling points, present a large risk for internal radiation exposure via ingestion of contaminated agricultural crops'.

4.4 Soil Sampling for Strontium and Actinides

NHK reported that:

‘Soil samples from around Fukushima Prefecture have revealed concentrations of radioactive strontium. Japan's science ministry conducted a survey for radioactive substances at 11 locations in 10 municipalities from late March to mid-May. It says strontium-90 was detected in all 11 locations. In Namie Town, the reading stood at 250 becquerels per kilogram of soil, while in Iitate Village the reading was 120 becquerels per kilogram. The readings in the other locations were between 2 and 18 becquerels.

Strontium-90 is generated during the fission of uranium in fuel rods in reactors. With a comparatively long half-life of 29 years, the radioactive substance poses a risk of accumulating in the bones if inhaled, because its properties are similar to those of calcium. If this happens, it could cause cancer. ’ 79

MEXT reported:

‘ ○ Soil samples for this survey were collected at places with a certain space free from disturbance. Although the monitored points were limited, we were able to ascertain the distribution of plutonium 238 and 239+240, and strontium 89 and 90 in the area within 80 km from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP. ’

‘ *1: These points are located in the restricted areas and planned evacuation areas, in which nobody resides at present. ’

(Reference 1)

‘ ● Accumulated effective doses for 50 years at points where the largest deposition amounts of plutonium 238 and 239+240, and strontium 89 and 90 were detected in this survey

(i) Plutonium 238 : 0.027 mSv

(ii) Plutonium 239+240 : 0.12 mSv

(iii) Strontium 89 : 0.61 μSv (0.00061 mSv)

(iv) Strontium 90 : 0.12 mSv

(Reference 2)

● Accumulated effective doses for 50 years at points where the largest deposition amounts of cesium 134 and 137 were detected in this survey

(v) Cesium 134 : 71 mSv

(vi) Cesium 137 : 2.0 Sv (2,000 mSv)

○ Compared with the accumulated effective doses for 50 years of cesium 134 and 137, those of plutonium and radioactive strontium were very small. Therefore, when assessing exposure doses or implementing decontamination measures in the future, we should focus attention on deposition amounts of cesium 134 and 137. ’

The MEXT report included two maps of the results: 'Where Pu-238 and Pu-239+240 are considered to have been newly deposited due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP' and 'Where Sr-89 and Sr-90 are considered to have been newly deposited due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPP (nuclear power plant)'. 80

5 Estimating Source Terms of the Releases from Fukushima

5.1 Air-borne Source Terms for Gases and Volatiles

Vitazkova and Cazzoli noted:

‘A range of possible atmospheric source terms is estimated, using three methods: dosimetric measurements at the plant, simplified accident progression, and aerial USDOE maps of surface contamination.’ 81

The first uses measurements made in the stack of the nuclear power plant, which is assumed not to be bypassed by damage.

The second is based on the radioactive inventory in the reactors and spent fuel pools and the damage to the fuel rods - estimated from the hydrogen produced. Using this 'direct' method, El-Jaby reported the source terms for: 'Cs-137, 3.48E+17 Bq, I-131, 1.33E+18 Bq'. 82

The third uses measurements of radioactive concentrations and depositions on- and off-site. This is by considering a unit source of a given nuclide and using plume modelling to predict the concentration and deposition patterns. The unit source may then be scaled as necessary to align with the measurements for the same nuclide. This may be repeated for all the nuclides of concern – usually I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 – to give the source terms. The procedure is known as 'reverse estimation'. 83

Wotawa reported on 2011-03-23:

‘Regarding Iodine-131, the ...total 4-day emission ...(is) 4 10^17 (4E17) Bq ’ . ‘ Regarding Cesium-137, ... the source terms would be about 3 10^15 (3E15) Bq during the first two days, and 3 10^16 (3E16) during the second two-day period.’ 84

IRSN reported on 2011-03-22 the releases of the radioactive elements with the most significant radiological consequences, using proportions usually encountered in irradiated fuel. Rare gases were 2E18 Bq., Iodine 2E17 Bq., Cesium 3E16 Bq., and Tellurium 9E16 Bq. 85

Michel gave estimated values for the total inventory (units 1 to 4) as I-131: 5E18, Cs-134: 2E18, and Cs-137: 2E18 Bq and quoted IRSN, 22.3.2011 for source terms Xe-133: 2E18, I-131 9E16, Cs-134: 1E16, and Cs-137: 1E16 Bq'. 86

Wotawa reported on 2011-04-01, that:

‘..the sum of Iodine-131 emitted during the first week in Fukushima is between 1016 and 7 1017 (1E16 and 7E17) Bq. The sum of Caesium-137 is between 1015 and 7 1016 (1E15 and 7E16) Bq.’ 87

Michel quoted:

‘NISA, 12.4.2011: I-131 1.3E17 Bq, Cs-137: 6.1E15 Bq ’ and ‘ NSC, 12.4.2011: I-131 1.5E17 Bq, Cs-137: 1.2E16 Bq.’ 88

Chino et al reported:

‘According to Eq. (2), the total amounts of 131 I and 137 Cs discharged into the atmosphere from 10 JST on March 12 to 0 JST on April 6 are estimated to be approximately 1.5 1017 and 1.3 1016 Bq, respectively.’ 89

The Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie reported the GRS estimated source term as Cs-134 of 1.0E16, Cs-137 of 1.0E16 and I-131 of 2.0E17 Bq. 90

Morino et al reported:

‘We simulated the deposition of I-131 and Cs-137 from Fukushima in March 2011. The model reproduced observed deposition rates over 15 Japanese prefectures. About 13% of I-131 and 22% of Cs-137 were deposited over land in Japan'.

Table 1 shows the emission (source term) for I-131 as 1.42E17 and Cs-137 as 9.94E15 Bq. Fig. 3 shows plots of the 'Model' versus the 'Observed' values of deposition for I-131 and Cs-137. 91

Sugata et al reported more on the work of Morino et al, including the methodology and results. 92

Scheuermann et al reported that:

‘Released activity used in the calculation: Iodine gas 3.1E17 Bq., Aerosol gas (taken as Cesium) 1.9E17 Bq.’ 93

Skomorowski et al reported that:

‘Based on the model simulations and the available CTBTO (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization) measurements, ZAMG was the first institution world-wide that estimated a release rate of 131I and 137Cs. The estimate amounted to about 4*1017 Bq for 131I and 4*1016 Bq for 137Cs (ZAMG, 2011). Similar release rates were reported by the French Radiation Protection Institute a few hours later (IRSN, 2011) and later on by the Japan Nuclear Safety Commission and Japan Atomic Energy Agency (Chino et al., 2011).’ 94

Stohl et al reported:

‘Regarding 133Xe, we find a total release of 16.7 (uncertainty range 13.4–20.0) EBq [16.7E18 Bq], which is the largest radioactive noble gas release in history not associated with nuclear bomb testing. There is strong evidence that the first strong 133Xe release started very early, possibly immediately after the earthquake and the emergency shutdown on 11 March at 06:00UTC. The entire noble gas inventory of reactor units 1–3 was set free into the atmosphere between 11 and 15 March 2011. For 137Cs, the inversion results give a total emission of 35.8 (23.3–50.1) PBq [35.8E15 Bq], or about 42% of the estimated Chernobyl emission’. 95

Almost all the results were obtained by reverse estimation, from plume models and (air) dose or ground deposition readings. Despite the difficulty of determining the source terms, particularly early on from limited data, these are notably consistent, with (mid-)values for I-131 and Cs-137 within factors of about 3. Only the CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) estimates were direct, from the nuclear fuel inventory and the core damage. Relative to the others, these values are about 10 times as high.

Releases are usually quantified with the Iodines, mainly I-131, which has a half-life of 8 days. On the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), 5 implies a radiological release equivalent to I-131 of several times E14 Bq, 6 of several times E15 Bq and 7 of several times E16 Bq. 96 However, actual releases include source terms of other nuclides.

5.2 Air-borne Source Terms for Strontium and Actinides

There is a one-page article on the emissions of Plutonium and Neptunium from Fukushima, based on data from TEPCO. 97 It includes a table with, for four unequal time slots, the Total Emissions of Pu-239 and Np-239 as percentages and values in Bequerels. For the first 100 h, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-241 together was 1.2 trillion Bq, and Np-239 was 76 trillion Bq. The two maps of Japan show the total concentrations of Pu-239 and Np-239 respectively. These show that all the Pu-239 and almost all the Np-239 were carried over the ocean. 98

According to the MEXT report, the accumulated effective dose for 50 years at points where the largest deposition amounts of strontium 90 was detected would be only about 0.12 mSv. (See Section 4.4). The Dose Conversion Factor for internal exposure of Sr-90 according to the ECRR model is about 60 times that according to the ICRP model. 99 . However, this would still be only about 7 mSv, compared with the largest amounts detected of Cs-134 at 71 mSv and Cs-137 at 2000 mSv. Also almost all the Np-239 and Pu-239 have been carried over the ocean.

5.3 Source Terms for the Sea

Nuclear Engineering International reported:

‘TEPCO has also issued a report about the three releases of radioactive water into the sea at Fukushima Daiichi. The first, 1-6 April, was a leak from the unit 2 turbine building. The 500 m3 of leaked water contained a total of 4.7x10^15 Bq of I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137. Based on recently-measured radioactivity concentrations, 99.9% of this leak discharged out of the port by 9 May.

The second was an intentional discharge of 10,393 m3 of low-level radiation water from the central radioactive waste disposal facility, 4-10 April, to make way for more highly-contaminated water. Total radioactivity was 1.5x10^11 Bq of I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137. That water was also judged to have left the port.

As a result of these leaks, a peak was noticeable at measuring points even 30km (18.6 miles) offshore during April (maximum: 186 Bq/L Cs-137), although most readings fell below measurable limits (10 Bq/L) in early May. Diffusion simulations suggest that the discharged water is likely to diffuse along the coast in a southerly direction, and then turn to the east from the Black Stream current.

The third leak was 250 m3 of highly contaminated water from the unit 3 turbine building 10-11 May. The total amount of radiation of I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 was estimated to be 2x10^15 Bq. Silt fences and other countermeasures have kept this water in the port area.’ 100

Thus the total of I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 source terms in radioactive water released to the sea was 6.7E15 Bq.

Stohl et al reported that for Cs-137, the deposition was about 35.8 PBq (3.58E16 Bq), of which Japan 6.4 PBq – 19%, Other land 0.7 PBq – 2%, Over sea, balance – 79%. 101

Thus the airborne Cs-137 source term that fell on the sea was 3.58E16 Bq x 0.79 = 2.8E16 Bq.

‘In an update of research done since their last report in July, France's nuclear monitor, the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), said on Wednesday that the amount of cesium 137 that leaked into the Pacific from the wrecked power plant was the “ greatest single contamination by artifical radionuclides of the sea ever seen ” . Their new assessment shows that the amount of cesium 137 that flowed into the Pacific after the disaster was probably nearly 30 times the amount stated by Tokyo Electric Power Company in May, reports Mainichi Japan. The IRSN estimate that the amount of cesium 137 that flowed into the sea from the power plant between 21 March and mid-July reached 27 peta (10 to the power of 15) becquerels. They also report that 82% of this contamination had reached the sea by 8 April. (1 Becquerel is one radioactive decay per second).’ 102 103

This study found that the total Cs-137 source term via waterborne and airborne pathways was 2.7E16 Bq.

TEPCO reported that the radioactive I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 source terms released to the sea via water discharges, deliberate and not, was 6.7E15 Bq. Other studies found that the Cs-137 released via airborne fallout was 2.8E16 Bq and the total, via both waterborne and airborne pathways, was 2.7E16 Bq, about 4 times as much.

6 Consequences of the Radioactive Release from Fukushima

6.1 Ground Deposition and Dose to Humans

The ground deposition and dose to humans may be estimated with plume models, together with measurements of radioactivity. As with the estimation of the source terms, some measurements of radioactivity were time-series from a few fixed stations, while others were spatially distributed, from aerial surveys and soil samples.

Isnard reported the estimation on about 2011-04-22 of the radioactive releases and use of atmospheric dispersion (plume) models to estimate the atmospheric air activity of I-131 and rainfall. He also reported the use of US DOE aerial survey dose rate measurements to estimate the distribution of the first year external dose to humans. 104

Chino reported the use of SPEEDI with environmental monitoring data to model the plume and so estimate the source term. With WSPEEDI, it was also used to predict air concentration, ground deposition and radiological doses – both internal to the thyroid and external to the human body. 105 106

The Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie used the GRS estimated source term with the RODOS plume model to estimate the ground deposition of Cs-137. The results were compared with the Aerial Measuring Results Joint US/Japan Survey Data as reported by the NNSA. The agreement of the distributions and the peak values was 'relatively good'. 107

Vitázková & Cazzoli used several estimated source terms with the MACCS2 plume model to estimate the ground deposition, the dose to humans and the land area and number of people affected. 108

Arnold et al used the source term of Chino et al with ARTM and RODOS to model the plume and estimate deposition values for Cs-134 and Cs-137. These agreed reasonably well with aero gamma measurements. 109

Kinoshita et al used data from five soil sampling points and the HYSPLIT plume model to estimate the depositions of individual radionuclides of tellurium, iodine and cesium. 110

Yasunari et al used the FLEXPART plume model and data on daily depositions of Cs-137 on Fukushima and surrounding prefectures, to estimate the total Cs-137 deposition and the spatial distribution. 111

Several studies have used plume models of the radioactive release to estimate the spatial distribution of the ground deposition and of the doses that would be received by humans living there. Deposition and dose are usually quantified with the Cesiums, mainly Cs-134 and Cs-137, because they are longer-lived, with half-lives of 2 and 30 years. However, actual releases include source terms of other nuclides.

6.2 Land Area and People Affected

The land area affected may be determined from the ground deposition distribution by applying a radioactivity criterion (in Bq/m2). The number of people affected may be determined either from the land area by estimating the population before evacuation or by estimating the population distribution and then applying a human dose criterion (in mSv/y).

The French Nuclear Safety Agency, IRSN, reported in the Executive Summary that:

‘On the 56th day after the accident, MEXT published the first maps of caesium depositions. They revealed high values comparable with the most contaminated areas of Chernobyl, even beyond the initial 20 km-radius evacuation zone around the Fukushima plant. A new dose assessment was carried out by IRSN on the 66th day after the accident to estimate projected doses due to external exposure from radioactive deposits, for exposure durations of 3 months, 1 year and 4 years before evacuation.

The estimated projected doses reach particularly significant values, some of them even above 200 mSv, which are no longer in the range of "low doses" according to UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) definition. Moreover these dose levels do not take into account neither the doses received from other pathways such as immersion within the plume and inhalation of particles in the plume during the accident nor the doses already received or to be received from ingestion of contaminated foodstuffs. The total effective doses to be received (external + internal) could be much higher according to the type of deposit (dry or wet), diet and source of food.

The number of Japanese people living in the most contaminated areas outside the initial 20 km radius evacuation zone around the Fukushima plant (874 km2 with caesium 134+137 deposits higher than 600,000 Bq/m2) was estimated to 70,000 people including 9,500 children of 0-14 years in age.’

‘The table on p 28 shows the Initial Evacuation Zone of 20 km radius to have an area of 628 km2, and a former population of 85,000. The 1st year External Dose is calculated from the Cs-137 deposits at 33 mSv per Million Bq/m2. For Cs-137 deposits of > 5E5 Bq/m2 and a 1st year External Dose of > 16 mSv, the total area is 1182 km2 and the total people affected 111,400. For Cs-137 deposits of > 3E5 Bq/m2 and a 1st year External Dose of > 10 mSv, the total area is 1502 km2 and the people affected 154,000.’ 112

The Mainichi Daily News reported:

‘Soil contamination from Fukushima crisis comparable to Chernobyl: study.

A massive soil decontamination project will be indispensable before residents in those areas can return," said Tomio Kawata, a research fellow of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan, at the meeting of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, which sets policies and strategies for the government's nuclear power development. According to Kawata, soil in a 600 square kilometer area mostly to the northwest of the Fukushima plant is likely to have absorbed radioactive cesium of over 1.48 million becquerels per square meter, the yardstick for compulsory migration orders in the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe. Kawata also said soil in a 700 square km area is likely to have absorbed 555,000-1.48 million becquerels per square meter, which was a criteria for temporary migration during the Chernobyl disaster. Kawata estimated the soil contamination using data on radiation levels in the air monitored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The size of the contaminated areas in the Fukushima crisis is one-tenth to one-fifth of those polluted in the Chernobyl disaster, Kawata said. While the expected radiation exposure from 1.48 million becquerels of cesium is around five millisieverts a year, below the government's benchmark of 20 millisieverts for evacuation orders, decontamination will still be necessary before evacuees can return as radioactive cesium binds strongly to soil, making it hard to reduce radiation levels, Kawata said.’ 113

Large and Associates reported that:

‘As for the public: over 200,000 individuals, some of them forcibly, have had to be evacuated from the Fukushima Prefecture to the north-east of the plant, about 3,200km2 of urban and arable land has been heavily contaminated, schoolchildren are now expected to tolerate a dose exposure of up to 20mSv. Confronted with all of this, the IAEA mission, headed by the UK’s Chief Nuclear Safety Inspector Mike Weightman, concluded, amongst other things, that the people evacuated will shortly be able to resume their normal lives. Nothing could be further from the truth’. 114

Vitazkova and Cazzoli reported that:

‘..the annual yearly dose limit (obviously not enforced) for all ages is 1 mSv,... ’ ‘ From the information shown above it is estimated that about 260,000 people were evacuated within the first two months (to 20 km), and a further 120,000 should have been “ relocated” after April 22nd, when the government “urged the population to leave selected areas”.’ 115

The Asahi Shimbun reported:

‘An extensive area of more than 8,000 square kilometers has accumulated cesium 137 levels of 30,000 becquerels per square meter or more after the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to Asahi Shimbun estimates. 'The Asahi Shimbun calculated the size of the contaminated area based on a distribution map of accumulated cesium 137 levels measured from aircraft, which was released by the science ministry on Sept 8.’ 116

von Hippel estimated the contaminated area as very roughly 600 km², and – for a larger area - the people affected as about 1 million, with cancer deaths of about 1000. 117

According to Shepherd, the extent of the contaminated (>20 mSv/y) zone was 700-1000km² and roughly 70,000-150,000 people were displaced. 118

AFP reported:

‘Some land in Japan too radioactive to farm: study. ’

‘ East Fukushima prefecture exceeded limit for rice-growing soils of 5000 Bq/kg but three neighbouring prefectures are below 25 Bq/kg.’ 119

This refers to: Yasunari et al. 'Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident'. From the Abstract:

‘We show that 137Cs strongly contaminated the soils in large areas of eastern and northeastern Japan, whereas western Japan was sheltered by mountain ranges. The soils around Fukushima NPP and neighboring prefectures have been extensively contaminated with depositions of more than 100,000 and 10,000 MBq km−2, respectively. ’ (1E5 and 1E4 Bq/m2) ‘ According to our results, food production in eastern Fukushima prefecture is likely severely impaired by the 137Cs loads of more than 2,500 Bq kg−1 (upper limit of farming) and also partially impacted in neighboring provinces such as Iwate, Miyagi, Yamagata, Niigata, Tochigi, Ibaraki, and Chiba, where values of more than 250 Bq kg−1 cannot be excluded.’ 120

The Economist reported:

‘Recently the government said it needed to clear about 2,419 square kilometres of contaminated soil—an area larger than greater Tokyo—that received an annual radiation dose of at least five millisieverts, or over 0.5 microsieverts an hour. That covered an area far beyond the official 30km restriction zone (see map). Besides pressure- hosing urban areas, this would involve removing about 5cm of topsoil from local farms as well as all the dead leaves in caesium-laden forests.’ 121

The IAEA reported that:

‘The remediation programme covers about 500 km2 where radiation dose levels are above 20 mSv/a and about 1300 km2 where radiation dose levels are between 5 mSv/a and 20 mSv/a.’ 122

The Australian Broadcasting Company reported that:

‘Japan's science ministry says 8 per cent of the country's surface area has been contaminated by radiation from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant. ’ ‘ It says more than 30,000 square kilometres of the country has been blanketed by radioactive caesium. ’ ‘ The ministry says most of the contamination was caused by four large plumes of radiation spewed out by the Fukushima nuclear plant in the first two weeks after meltdowns. ’ ‘ The government says some of the radioactive material fell with rain and snow, leaving the affected areas with accumulations of more than 10,000 becquerels of caesium per square metre.’ 123

In the various studies, both the land areas and the people affected vary widely, depending on the values of the criteria. The land areas vary inversely with the deposition criteria in Bq/m2. In most cases, the number of people affected vary inversely with the dose criterion in mSv/y, but some estimates are based on simple deposition models, or on other studies. Also those favouring low dose-effect models may choose high dose criteria values and vice-versa. In these studies of Fukushima, the highest estimates of the land area – at 30,000 km2 (8% of Japan) – and of the people affected – at about 1 million – are both very large.

6.3 People Evacuated

Significant contamination of land by radioactive deposition – fallout - means that people must be evacuated. As well as the external dose, they must avoid breathing in particles and consuming food and water from the area, since these can result in an internal dose from radioactivity retained in the body. After decontamination and/or the passage of time (decades), the radioactivity of the environment, food and water may be low enough to allow some evacuees to return.

Fig. 1 is a map of Fukushima prefecture from the aerial survey by MEXT and DOE, dated 2011-05-06, showing the deposition of Cs-137. 124 This confirmed the need for the existing evacuation area to 20 km but also showed the need for expanding the evacuation area to the north-west. The Japanese Government began this evacuation only on 2011-05-16. 125

Michel noted:

‘Evacuation of 80,000 people from the 20 km circle on March 12, 2011.’ ‘stay in‐house 20 km ‐ 30 km on March 12, 2011'. '„should consider leaving“ 20 km – 30 km am 15.3.2011.’ 126

The JAIF 'Earthquake Report' noted that:

'About 1,800 people in the evacuation area near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant still remain in their homes, despite the deadline to leave by the end of Tuesday. The government had instructed about 10,000 residents in the evacuation area sprawling 5 municipalities outside the 20 kilometer no-entry zone around the plant, to evacuate by the end of May'. 127 .

Fig. 2 shows the Restricted Area, Evacuation Area and Evacuation-Prepared Areas, as of 2011-08-03. 128

Vitazkova and Cazzoli reported that:

‘From the information shown above it is estimated that about 260,000 people were evacuated within the first two months (to 20 km), and a further 120,000 should have been “relocated” after April 22nd, when the government “urged the population to leave selected areas”.’ 129

Large and Associates reported that:

‘As for the public: over 200,000 individuals, some of them forcibly, have had to be evacuated from the Fukushima Prefecture to the north-east of the plant, about 3,200km2 of urban and arable land has been heavily contaminated, schoolchildren are now expected to tolerate a dose exposure of up to 20mSv. Confronted with all of this, the IAEA mission, headed by the UK’s Chief Nuclear Safety Inspector Mike Weightman, concluded, amongst other things, that the people evacuated will shortly be able to resume their normal lives. Nothing could be further from the truth.’ 130

Reuters reported that:

‘About 80,000 people were forced to leave their homes by the nuclear crisis'. They were quoted as asking: "Can we actually go back home? And if not, can you guarantee our livelihoods?" 'The company expects a total of 300,000 claims from businesses given that the impact of the radiation crisis has been so widespread.’ 131

Fig. 3 is a map of Tokyo and 21 other prefectures derived by Asahi Shimbun from the aerial survey by MEXT, dated 2011-11-25, showing the deposition of Cs-134 and Cs-137. 132 For the decontamination plan, the dose limit was set equal to the ICRP recommendation and the Japanese 'planned exposure' value for the general public, at 1 mSv/y. 133 134 135 At the IRSN scaling of 16.6 mSv/y per million Bq/m2 of Cs-134 + Cs-137, this corresponds to a deposition of 60,000 Bq/m². 136. The blue area with more than this deposition extends far beyond the Restricted Area and Evacuation Area (shown in Fig. 2 ). It includes much more of Fukushima prefecture and large parts of Tochigi and Gunma prefectures, reaching almost 250 km. So to reduce the health effects, the evacuation zones should be far larger and more people should evacuate.

Although there was some voluntary evacuation, the number of people to be evacuated depends mainly on the value of the exposure criterion applied. The dose limit was a political judgement, set initially at 20 mSv/y. So the number of people evacuated – at about 80,000 – was far smaller than the largest estimate of those affected – at about 1 million. However, the dose limit for the decontamination plan was later set equal to the ICRP recommendation for the general public, at 1 mSv/y. So to reduce the health effects, the evacuation zones should be far larger and more people should evacuate.

6.4 Animals Left Behind

Nathalie-Kyoko Stucky wrote:

‘ The Buddha of Fukushima’s Forbidden Zone: A Photo Essay.

Mr. Matsumura is willing to live in a nuclear wasteland to take care of the 400 cows, 60 pigs, 30 fowls, 10 dogs, 100 cats and an ostrich that the nuclear meltdown left behind. He is the Buddha of The Forbidden Zone. ’

‘ This is the story of Naoto Matsumura, Tomioka City, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan–the last man standing in Fukushima’s Forbidden Zone. He will not leave; he risks an early death because his defiance of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the government is his life now. He is not crazy and he is not going. He remains there to remind people of the human costs of nuclear accidents. He is the King of The Forbidden Zone; its protector. He is the caretaker or empty houses, a point of contact for those citizen who can’t return. He takes care of the animals, “the sentient beings”, that remain behind because no one else will. He is the Buddha of the forbidden zone. ’

‘ Since the nuclear accident, Naoto Matsumura refuses to leave his farm. At the age of 52, this farmer is physically in a good shape. In the city of Tomioka, Fukushima Prefecture, where he currently lives, there is no water and no electricity. “When I wake up in the morning, I take my dogs for a nice walk. I brushing my teeth. I do this for about twenty minutes. And then I try to think about what to do for the rest of my day”. Matsumura usually eats instant ramen, which are easy to prepare with a bit of boiled water. He drinks mineral water when he manages to find some. In summer, he took showers in the greenhouse, with the water from the river, which he boils with charcoal he finds here and there. The water from the river is radioactive. Before the nuclear accident, Matsumura used to fish at the river. Last summer, he did his laundry there. With a large smile on his face, Matsumura says: “I love fishing. The rivers and the sea here are full of fish, however I cannot eat them, because they contain too much cesium. The rain of cesium particles spread by the crippled Fukushima Number 1 power plant （福島原発第一） after the nuclear meltdown back in March has contaminated them.”

Tomioka is a small town that stands between the Fukushima Number 1 and Number 2 power plants. It used to be a quiet little town on the Pacific coast of Japan, where 16,000 inhabitants lived before March 12. To this day, some elderly people have been coming and leaving, but there is only one citizen who has stayed and lived there continuously. Tomioka was been evacuated on the next day after the tsunami hit. The orders from the authorities were clear and simple: “Take the minimum amount of your possessions and get out.”

The refugees from Fukushima (Tomioka) have abandoned their houses, their belongings, their cars, their pets, but they hoped to come back afterwards. The last people who were resisting the orders like Matsumura, felt they had to give up the fight. TEPCO, the private operator of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, after first denying any meltdowns later revised their statements to acknowledge the core of three reactors had melted down and that the “problem” might still be actually solved… after 30 years. Matsumura notes that “TEPCO and the Japanese government have never stopped lying, out of their good will, in order to avoid panic among the population. Such good intentions, of course.”.’

‘In May 2011, there were about 2000 living cows. Three moths ago, there were 400 of them. As for the cats and dogs, we are not really sure about the numbers anymore. ’

‘ One day in June, Matsumura made an unexpected encounter in Okuma, a neighborhood in Tomioka. He does not like to go there because the level of radiation is very high, one of the highest spots in the forbidden zone. In Okuma, the corpses have been abandoned because they were too radioactive to be given back to their families. In the middle of the street, there was an ostrich. She was the only survivor of the local farm, which used to keep thirty other ostriches. ’

‘ For Matsumura, when asked to speak on the subject of TEPCO, the operator of the power plant, he thinks they did not act with excessive moderation, but with apathy and indifference.

“The citizens of Fukushima protest very little. TEPCO took their houses, their land, the air and the water, and they accept it! No one was angry. Before the construction of the nuclear power plant, TEPCO said: ‘Problems will never occur, never’. Everyone has been cheated. I went myself to the headquarters of TEPCO in Tokyo to ask them for explanations. The only things that the leaders have been able to tell me is ‘sumimasen’ (we’re sorry). And the Japanese government has repeatedly announced during three months, that the radioactivity is not dangerous!”. ’

‘ At some point, Matsumura has accepted to take a whole body counter check of the situation inside his body (internal exposure). The doctors exclaimed: “You are a champion of radiation!” Matsumura does not wish to comment any further on this subject. When he speaks about his family, he speaks very freely: “ My father is 80 years old, my grandmother lived until she was hundred years old, so I had the hope to live at least until I get to my eighties. With the radioactivity, I think I will live until my sixties, at best”.

“Tomioka, for me, is the most beautiful place in the world, there is the ocean, the mountains and the forest. Nothing will make me leave this soil, on which my family has been living on for five generations”.’ 137

6.5 Duration of Land Lost and People Excluded

The New York Times reported that:

‘Broad areas around the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could soon be declared uninhabitable, perhaps for decades, after a government survey found radioactive contamination that far exceeded safe levels, several major media outlets said Monday.

The formal announcement, expected from the government in coming days, would be the first official recognition that the March accident could force the long-term depopulation of communities near the plant, an eventuality that scientists and some officials have been warning about for months. Lawmakers said over the weekend — and major newspapers reported Monday — that Prime Minister Naoto Kan was planning to visit Fukushima Prefecture, where the plant is, as early as Saturday to break the news directly to residents. The affected communities are all within 12 miles of the plant, an area that was evacuated immediately after the accident.

The government is expected to tell many of these residents that they will not be permitted to return to their homes for an indefinite period. It will also begin drawing up plans for compensating them by, among other things, renting their now uninhabitable land. While it is unclear if the government would specify how long these living restrictions would remain in place, news reports indicated it could be decades. That has been the case for areas around the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine after its 1986 accident.’ 138

Reuters reported that:

‘Japan faces the daunting task of decontaminating large areas of land around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex, which is still leaking low levels of radiation nearly six months after an earthquake and tsunami triggered a nuclear meltdown. In a meeting with local officials on Saturday, the government estimated it could take more than 20 years before residents could safely return to areas with current radiation readings of 200 millisieverts per year, and a decade for areas at 100 millisieverts per year. The estimates, which merely confirm what many experts have been saying for months, are based on the natural decline of radiation over time and do not account for the impact of decontamination steps such as removing affected soil. ’

‘ The Japanese government unveiled guidelines this week with the aim of halving radiation in problem areas in two years, but for spots with very high readings it could take much longer to reach safe levels. “ I can't deny the possibility that it could be a long time before people can return to and live in regions with high radiation levels ” , outgoing Prime Minister Naoto Kan was quoted by domestic media as telling Fukushima Governor Yuhei Sato.

Japan has banned people from entering within 20 km (12 miles) of the Fukushima plant, located 240 km northeast of Tokyo. Around 80,000 people have been evacuated since the March 11 quake and tsunami and many are living in shelters or temporary homes. The government's announcement follows the release of data this week showing radiation readings in 35 spots in the evacuation zone above the 20 millisieverts per year level deemed safe by the government. The highest reading was 508 millisieverts (per year) in the town of Okuma, about 3 km from the nuclear plant.’ 139

The ABC reported that:

‘Former special adviser says Japan “too scared” to tell people the truth about Fukushima future. ’

‘ [...] Former special adviser to Japan’s prime minister and cabinet Kenichi Matsumoto has told the ABC that the government has known for months that many who live close to the Fukushima plant will not be able to return to their homes for 10 to 20 years because of contamination. [...] He says the government is simply too scared to tell Fukushima residents that they cannot return. [...] “The government should have conveyed the truth to the evacuees. But it felt scared; it feared telling the truth to the people.” [...]’ 140

The nuclear fallout from Fukushima includes Cs-137, which has a half-life of about 30 years. (See Table 3 above). So unless the contamination and dose to humans can be reduced by removal, it will take many decades to die away. Therefore, even with decontamination, a significant area of Japan will remain uninhabitable for 10 to 20 years or more.

7 Human Health Effects from Fukushima

7.1 Prompt Health Effects

Following nuclear disasters, the people most exposed – both in dose and time - are the workers at the plant. Many are temporary and are 'burned out' by working in radioactive areas until they have received a certain dose and then replaced. Hence they are most likely to suffer prompt health effects – cancers and deaths.

Paul Jobin wrote:

‘Dying for TEPCO? Fukushima’s Nuclear Contract Workers.
Liquidators recruited by ads

In the titanic struggle to bring to closure the dangerous situation at Fukushima Nuclear Plant No1, there are many signs that TEPCO is facing great difficulties in finding workers. At present, there are nearly 700 people at the site. As in ordinary times, workers rotate so as to limit the cumulative dose of radiation inherent in maintenance and cleanup work at the nuclear site. But this time, the risks are greater, and the method of recruitment unusual.

Job offers come not from TEPCO but from Mizukami Kogyo, a company whose business is construction and cleaning maintenance. The description indicates only that the work is at a nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture. The job is specified as 3 hours per day at an hourly wage of 10,000 yen. There is no information about danger, only the suggestion to ask the employer for further details on food, lodging, transportation and insurance.

The life of contract workers at nuclear plants

Those who answer these offers may have little awareness of the dangers and they are likely to have few other job opportunities. $122 an hour is hardly a king’s ransom given the risk of cancer from high radiation levels. But TEPCO and NISA keep diffusing their usual propaganda to minimize the radiation risks'.
On March 14th, the Ministry of Health and Labor raised the maximum dose for workers to 250 mSv a year, where previously it was set at 100 mSv over 5 years (either 20 mSv a year for five years or 50 mSv for 2 years, which is in itself a strange interpretation of the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection’s guideline stipulating a maximum of 20 mSv a year. The letter that the Ministry sent the next day to the chiefs of Labor Bureaus (都道府県労働局) to inform them of the decision justifies it on the grounds of the state of emergency (やむを得ない緊急の場合), ignoring the safety of the workers. This could be a measure to avoid or limit the number of workers who would apply for compensation. Stated differently, it has the effect of legalizing illness and deaths from nuclear radiation, or at least the state’s responsibility for them. Usually, in case of leukemia, a one year exposure to 5 mSV is sufficient to obtain occupational hazards compensation. The list of potential applicants could be very long in light of the number of workers already on the job, or who are likely to be recruited to dismantle the reactors. The project proposed by Toshiba to close down and safeguard the reactors would take at least 10 years. In short, the state’s concern appears to be less the health of employees and more the cost of caring for nuclear victims.’ 141

NHK reported:

'Radiation exposure for 2 workers may exceed limit

Two workers at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant may have been exposed to high levels of radiation exceeding the safety limit set by the government. If confirmed, these are the first cases of radiation exposure since the health ministry raised the limit in March following the accident.

Tokyo Electric Power Company said on Monday the 2 workers are men. One is in his 30s and the other in his 40s. Both worked at the control rooms of the Number 3 and 4 reactors, and elsewhere, after the accident broke out at the plant. TEPCO said a test conducted at an institute last Monday found 9,760 becquerels and 7,690 becquerels of radioactive iodine-131 in the workers' thyroids. This means they are likely suffering from internal radiation exposure after inhaling radioactive substances. These figures are more than tenfold the other workers. It was confirmed that the 2 contaminated workers have been exposed to external radiation of 74 and 89 millisieverts so far.

TEPCO said these combined readings suggest that the 2 may have been exposed to radiation levels exceeding the safety limit of 250 millisieverts set for emergency situations'. 142

The JRC Fukushima Update dated 2011-06-14 quoted:

‘(WNN) Tests of the two control room operators exposed to radiation have been carried out. One of the workers has received a total dose of 678 mSv (88 mSv external dose, and 590 mSv internal dose), while the second worker received a total dose of 643 mSv (103 mSv external dose and 540 mSv internal dose). None of them show currently health problems as a result of their exposure.’ 143

This statement is far from the whole truth, as any competent authority would know. Whether or not any workers show health problems, latent cancers can take 10 or even 50 years to appear, and about half would be lethal. (See Section 7.2 below). So TEPCO, the nuclear agencies and the government were all misleading the workers and the general public.

NHK reported:

‘Fukushima workers exposed to high radiation

The operator of the damaged nuclear power plant in Fukushima has been slow in checking workers at the plant for internal exposure to radiation. TEPCO began internal check-ups on March 22nd, 11 days after the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. To date, less than 40 percent of about 3,700 workers at the damaged Daiichi plant have received internal check-ups for radiation exposure.

TEPCO says 2 workers may have been exposed to about 650 millisievert of radiation. The 2 had been at the plant since the March 11th earthquake and tsunami that caused the nuclear disaster, but had their first internal check-up in mid-April, more than a month later. TEPCO says 30 workers have been externally exposed to more than 100 millisievert of radiation. Two of them were exposed on March 24th while working with their feet soaked in radioactive water in the basement of the Number 3 reactor's turbine building. One was found to have been internally exposed to 240 millisievert and the other to 226 millisievert.’ 144

NHK reported:

‘Growing exposure problems at Fukushima

Six other workers at the Fukushima-1 plant may have received radiation doses above the allowable emergency level. TEPCO reported to the health ministry on Monday on the results of the latest checks of workers at the power plant.

The ministry says the provisional amount of radiation exposure was up to 497 millisieverts for each of six TEPCO male employees. The maximum allowable dose was formerly 100 millisieverts, but it was raised to 250 millisievert after the crisis started. One of the men was working in the control center, while the other five were performing maintenance work. Six additional workers received doses of between 200 and 250 millisievert, and 88 were exposed to between 100 and 200 millisievert.

In late May, two TEPCO employees on duty at Reactors No. 3 and 4 received doses more than twice the emergency limit'.[i.e. more than 500 mSv].’ 145

The JAIF reported that:

‘TEPCO has been examining the radiation exposure of about 14,800 workers who worked at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS. Intermediate result of this examination as of 9/30 is as follows.

99 workers received more than 100mSv. (100-150mSv: 77 workers, 150-200mSv: 14 workers, 200-250mSv: 2 workers, 250mSv-: 6 workers)

Definite exposure doses of 6 workers who received more than 250mSv are distributed from 309 to 678mSv.

*The allowable emergency limit for radiation doses: 250mSv.’ 146

The Canadian reported that:

‘Fukushima rescuer dies from internal radiation. ’
‘ Her friend was a member of the special rescue unit of the Fire Department (probably in Osaka) who was sent numerous times to the disaster-affected areas in Fukushima and Iwate for the rescue effort. In July, he was found with internal radiation exposure, but he had to continue working. His employer kept sending him and his colleagues to the disaster area even after the internal radiation exposure was found in them. She says that they got sick and they had to quit. But that was after they were berated by their superior as “ unpatriotic ” . Her friend died in 3 months after having been found with internal radiation exposure.’ 147

The Japan Times reported that:

‘Ministry not keeping track. ’
‘ The health ministry has not been keeping track of radiation that workers at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant are exposed to while off-site or off duty, ministry officials said Saturday, prompting concerns that current systems to check exposure may be inadequate. The health ministry also doesn't check radiation doses that workers are exposed to during decontamination efforts around the wrecked No. 1 plant. The ministry currently only keeps track of radiation exposure for the plant's employees when they are engaged in work around the facility.’ 148

7.2 Latent Health Effects

Busby has estimated the health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe using the ICRP, Tondel and ECRR risk models for the dose-effect relation. This last has been validated by several lines of evidence, including that from Chernobyl. It puts the number of excess cancers for the 10 million people living within 200 km of the Fukushima power plants as approximately 420,000 in the next 50 years, although immediate evacuation would reduce this significantly. (Of these, about half would die from the excess cancers, according to Busby). 149

Cochran et al estimated:

‘For the ten prefectures considered – the total excess cancers as 703.7 and the total excess cancer deaths as 353.5.’ 150

Turkenburg reported:

‘(26 April 2011) First Rough Estimates of (Health) Effects for Japan.

● No death within weeks due to radiation; about 4 death due to other reasons.

● At present: Exposure to radiation of about 3,500 workers, about 99% of them to values below 100 mS(v), 1% between 100 and 250 mS(v), and maybe some above 250 mS(v).

● Radioactive contamination of an area of about 1,000 km2 to levels (that) may result in its long-term evacuation.

... 1,000 death among the radiological workers and people living in “contaminated areas” (above 37kBq/m2 of Cs-137) and about 1,000 death in the rest of Japan'.

'Fukushima workers exposed to high radiation

● The operator of the damaged nuclear power plant in Fukushima has been slow in checking workers at the plant for internal exposure to radiation. TEPCO began internal check-ups on March 22nd, 11 days after the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

● To date, less than 40 percent of about 3,700 workers at the damaged Daiichi plant have received internal check-ups for radiation exposure.

● TEPCO says 2 workers may have been exposed to about 650 millisievert of radiation. The 2 had been at the plant since the March 11th earthquake and tsunami that caused the nuclear disaster, but had their first internal check-up in mid-April, more than a month later.

● TEPCO says 30 workers have been externally exposed to more than 100 millisievert of radiation.

● Two of them were exposed on March 24th while working with their feet soaked in radioactive water in the basement of the Number 3 reactor's turbine building. One was found to have been internally exposed to 240 millisievert and the other to 226 millisievert.

Source: NHK, May 30, 2011 & June 10, 2011.

Growing exposure problems at Fukushima

● Six other workers at the Fukushima-1 plant may have received radiation doses above the allowable emergency level.

● TEPCO reported to the health ministry on Monday on the results of the latest checks of workers at the power plant.

● The ministry says the provisional amount of radiation exposure was up to 497 millisieverts for each of six TEPCO male employees. The maximum allowable dose was formerly 100 millisieverts, but it was raised to 250 millisievert after the crisis started.

● One of the men was working in the control center, while the other five were performing maintenance work.

● Six additional workers received doses of between 200 and 250 millisievert, and 88 were exposed to between 100 and 200 millisievert.

● In late May, two TEPCO employees on duty at Reactors No. 3 and 4 received doses more than twice the emergency limit.

● Source: NHK, Monday, June 13, 2011 20:57 +0900 (JST).’ 151

Vitazkova and Cazzoli reported:

‘The results with respect to health effects show that within 80 years the number of victims of the Fukushima disaster can be expected to be AT LEAST in the range of 10,000 to 300,000 people in terms of deaths due to infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases, genetic diseases, and cancers; and about the same number of sicknesses/syndromes needing prolonged hospitalization and health care are expected to occur. This estimates accounts only for the population already living at the time of the accident. A comparable number of excess deaths and sicknesses may be expected in the population that will be born in the period. In addition to these, more than 100,000 excess still-births and a comparable or larger number of excess children born with genetic deformations (e.g. Down syndrome) are expected, projecting the results of [48].’ 152

By comparing Fukushima with Chernobyl, von Hippel estimated that the cancer deaths would be about 1000. 153

7.3 Health Checks

NHK reported that:

‘Checking internal radiation of people begins.

An atomic energy research facility in Ibaraki Prefecture has begun screening residents from neighboring Fukushima in northeast Japan for internal radiation. Fukushima Prefecture plans to check its entire population of about 2 million to assess the effect of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. It is now checking internal radiation levels for residents in the evacuation zone and areas near the nuclear plant as well.

Similar checks have also begun at the government-affiliated Japan Atomic Energy Agency in Tokai Village, Ibaraki where a total 28 pregnant women, parents and their small children from Namie Town arrived on Tuesday. A piece of equipment called a Whole Body Counter will be used to determine if they have absorbed radioactive materials through food and drinks. The facility will examine about 2,800 people from Fukushima through next month.’ 156

The Telegraph reported that:

‘Children in Fukushima to be given regular cancer tests.
Fukushima prefectural government plans to carry out regular ultrasound examinations on all residents who were 18 years old or under when the nuclear crisis broke out on March 11. The tests, designed to spot early symptoms of thyroid cancer, will be conducted every two years until the age of 20 and then every five years, according to Japanese news reports. An estimated 360,000 young residents will be entitled to the free medical tests, which will start operating from October this year, with further in-depth urine and blood testing taking places if any abnormalities are discovered.

News of the lifelong testing follows growing concern surrounding the potential health impact of the still stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant on residents in surrounding regions.’ 157

NHK reported:

‘Radiation effect on children’s thyroid glands.

[...] A group of researchers led by Hiroshima University professor Satoshi Tashiro tested 1,149 children in the prefecture for radiation in their thyroid glands in March following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Radioactive iodine was detected in about half of the children. Tashiro says radiation in thyroid glands exceeding 100 millisieverts poses a threat to humans, but that the highest level in the survey was 35 millisieverts. [...]’ 158

The BBC reported that:

‘Health officials hope to test some 360,000 people who were under 18 years old when the nuclear crisis began in March, and provide regular follow-up tests.’ 159

The Asahi Shimbun reported that:

‘On the basis of estimated exposure levels, the prefectural government plans to conduct follow-up health surveys, which will cover all of the approximately 2 million residents, for at least 30 years.’ 160

The Fukushima prefectural government plans to test some 360,000 people who were under 18 on March 11 throughout their lives and all of the approximately 2 million residents for at least 30 years.

8 Food and Water Contamination from Fukushima

Many news reports mention the radioactivity entering the human food chain and the loss of livelihood for farmers and fisherfolk. However, very few mention that ingestion and inhalation add internal exposure to any external exposure.

Martin J. Frid wrote:

‘Food Safety: Addressing Radiation in Japan’s Northeast after 3.11

Japan had no guidance levels or restrictions for nuclear substances on food at the time of the nuclear disaster. It raced to draw up provisional regulation values by March 17 and legislation by March 29, 2011.

Japan’s Food Safety Commission (FSCJ) notes:

“Due to this radiation leakage, from the perspective of the Food Sanitation Act, which aims to prevent sanitation hazards resulting from eating and drinking, the ‘ Indices relating to limits on food and drink ingestion ’ indicated by the Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan was adopted for the time being as provisional regulation values. So the foods which exceed these levels are regulated to ensure those foods are not supplied to the public to eat, and local governments have been notified by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare on 2011 March 17. This provisional regulation values [sic] were adopted without an assessment of the effect of food on health by FSCJ because of its urgency, therefore on 2011 March 20, the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare requested FSCJ for an assessment of the effect of food on health.”

The safety levels in Japan are generally similar to values in other countries, and identical to those of the 26 member countries of the European Union. The exposure limit for Caesium-134 plus Caesium-137 in drinking water and milk is 200 Bq/kg in Japan and the EU, while the US has settled on a higher level (1,200 Bq/kg). Also, in foods such as vegetables, grains and meat, Japan and the EU has a limit of 500 Bq/kg while the US has a limit of 1,200 Bq/kg. Whether or not the public in Japan is exposed to levels above these limits is not clear at this point and needs to be investigated further.’ 161

Foodwatch & IPPNW wrote:

‘Foodwatch and IPPNW believe that the European Union, the German government and the Japanese government do not do enough to inform their citizens that there are no “ safe ” maximum limits for the radioactive contamination of foodstuffs. Exposure to radiation, no matter how minimal, is a risk to health because it is enough to trigger major illnesses such as cancer. The setting of any permissible limits is equivalent to making a decision on the number of fatalities to be tolerated. ’

‘ Permissible limits today in the EU stand between 200 and 600 becquerels of cesium per kilogram of food. This is in stark contradiction to standards found in currently valid German legislation. The German Radiation Protection Ordinance governing the operation of nuclear power plants stipulates that total exposure for an individual may not exceed an effective annual dose of 1 mSv per year. In contrast, the EU radiation limits for foodstuffs tolerate an annual dose of at least 33 mSv for adults and 68 mSv for children and adolescents. ’

‘ Since there is enough food available which is far less radioactively contaminated, there is no need to expect people to eat highly contaminated products. For this reason, foodwatch and IPPNW are calling for a drastic lowering of the value limits from their present level of 370 becquerels (200 for imports from Japan) down to 8 becquerels of cesium per kilogram for baby food and milk products, and from the present level of 600 becquerels (currently 500 for imports from Japan) down to 16 becquerels of cesium per kilogram for all other foodstuffs. ’

‘ In calling for this change, we know full well that allowing any permissible limits at all means that a certain number of people will be victims of radiation. This should be reason enough to question the continuing operation or new construction of nuclear facilities. ’

‘ As a consequence of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the European Union set maximum limits on the level of radioactive contamination permitted in foodstuff imports from countries outside the EU; regarding total cesium radionuclides, these limits stand at 370 becquerels/kilogram for baby food and milk products and at 600 becquerels/kilogram for other foodstuffs. These limits also apply to food traded within the EU. In response to the Fukushima disaster, the EU provisionally set stricter permissible limits at 200 and 500 becquerels respectively for imports from Japan. ’

‘ 3. Influence of commercial interests

• In an agreement made more than 50 years ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) relinquished jurisdiction to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on defining the health damage caused by radiation. The declared aim of the IAEA is the expansion and promotion of nuclear energy. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) are dominated by the nuclear industry and radiologists.’ 162

The health effects are increased if radioactivity is ingested with food and drink - and especially if inhaled – causing additional, internal exposure. (See Section 3.1 above). Japan has had nuclear power plants for more than 40 years, yet had no guidance levels or restrictions for nuclear substances on food at the time of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The reason for this is unknown, but is at least incompetence. That said, Europe did not develop such standards until the fallout from Chernobyl arrived in 1986. In both cases, the nuclear interests knew of the dangers, but failed to alert the politicians to the need for such standards, even though the criteria values would be political judgements. To comply with the current German radioactivity limits for food, the EU limits should be reduced by around 40-fold. However the World Health Organization (WHO) has relinquished jurisdiction to the IAEA, which like the ICRP and EURATOM (the European Atomic Energy Community), is dominated by the nuclear industry and their commercial interests.

8.1 Land Food Contamination

NHK reported:

‘Cesium found in hay at another farm in Fukushima. ’

‘ Radioactive cesium far exceeding safe limits has been detected in hay fed to cattle at a second farm near the crippled nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture. Fukushima's government warned on Thursday that 42 possibly contaminated cattle have already been shipped out from the farm in Asakawa Town. The finding came during inspections ordered by the prefecture after a large dose of the radioactive substance was found in hay at the first farm in Minami-Soma City. The latest checks uncovered radioactive cesium measured up to 97,000 becquerels per kilogram -- some 73 times the government-set safety limit. [of 1300 Bq/kg] The 42 cattle had been sent to 4 meat-processing plants between April 8th and July 6th -- 14 to Yokohama; 13 to Tokyo; 10 to Sendai and 5 to Chiba. The prefecture has ordered the farm to stop shipping and transporting its cattle. It has also provided detailed information to relevant municipalities, asking them to trace back distribution channels of beef from the cattle. ’ 163

NHK reported:

‘ Govt to buy back beef with excessive cesium levels.

The Japanese government says it will buy back beef containing radioactive cesium that has already reached the distribution chain. The measure, announced on Tuesday, is designed to allay rising concerns about the safety of beef.

Consumers have been rattled by reports of cattle fed with rice straw containing cesium in excess of the government-mandated limit.

NHK has learned that more than 2,800 head of cattle allegedly fed with such straw have been shipped to 46 of Japan's 47 prefectures, excluding Okinawa. Excessive levels of cesium have been detected in beef in 6 of the prefectures, including Fukushima, where work continues to contain a nuclear plant accident. Some of the beef that reached the markets has yet to be tested. The government will seek inspections of all such beef, and buy the meat back if higher-than-permissible cesium is detected. The government plans to eventually pass on the buy-back costs to Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of the disabled nuclear plant.’ 164

NHK reported:

‘Govt to check rice for radiation' and 'Govt bans beef cattle shipments from Iwate.’ 165

Reuters reported:

‘Concerns have grown over the safety of food supplies after a March 11 earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, spreading radiation over a large swathe of northern and eastern Japan. Excessive levels of radiation have been found in vegetables, tea, milk, seafood and water. The government last month halted shipments of beef cattle from Miyagi and Fukushima after finding that livestock had eaten straw contaminated with radioactive cesium stemming from the leaks at the plant.

“ We have put in place steps for securing the safety (of cattle shipped from Miyagi) ” , Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told a news conference. “ But this is only a partial lifting of the ban to allow shipments under a controlled environment. ” Shipments from Miyagi will be allowed on condition that cattle are tested for radiation contamination, while the Miyagi prefectural government will be responsible for eliminating tainted feed, Edano said. As for cattle from Fukushima, the government needs to wait “ a few more days ” to decide whether to lift its ban, a farm ministry official said. The decision comes after beef from a cow shipped from Fukushima in April was found on Friday to contain radioactive cesium exceeding the government-imposed ceiling of 500 becquerels, the official said.’ 166

AFP reported:

‘Japan bans Fukushima rice for radiation. ’
‘ Authorities in Fukushima prefecture say rice produced near the stricken atomic power plant contained caesium they measured at 630 becquerels per kilogram (2.2 pounds). The government safety limit is 500 becquerels. Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura ordered Fukushima Governor Yuhei Sato to restrict shipments of rice from Onami -- from where the samples were sourced -- according to an agricultural ministry official. “ This restriction won't be lifted until safety of the rice produced in the area can be confirmed ” , the official said, adding that the ban will affect 154 farms that produced 192 tonnes of rice this year.’ 167

The Yomiuri Shimbun reported:

‘Suspect cattle still untested / Location of nearly 3,000 cows in radiation scare remains unknown.

The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry has been unable to track the distribution routes of nearly 3,000 cows whose meat is suspected to contain high levels of radioactive cesium, ministry officials said. The ministry wanted to inspect the meat of 4,626 beef cattle from 15 prefectures because it suspected the animals were fed rice straw contaminated by radioactive substances released at the outbreak of the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant. The meat of 1,630 cows--about 35 percent--had been inspected as of Wednesday, but the ministry says the distribution routes of the remaining 2,996 animals remains unknown. ’

‘ Beef from the 4,626 cows is known to have been shipped from 15 prefectures spanning from Hokkaido to Shimane Prefecture. From July to October, the beef from 1,585 animals had been inspected, and meat from another 45 animals was tested in November, according to reports from prefectural governments. But there have been no inspections of beef from the remaining cattle. The results from the inspections show meat from 105 cattle in six prefectures--6.4 percent of the 1,630 animals tested--had radioactive cesium exceeding the government's provisional limit of 500 becquerels per kilogram. By prefecture, 54 of the 105 cows were bred in Miyagi and 21 were shipped from Fukushima. Iwate had 16, followed by Tochigi with 10. Two each were from Yamagata and Akita.’ 168

The aerial and soil surveys give estimates of soil contamination but the food contamination is affected by Transfer Factors. Thus taking the limit for rice - as for all foodstuffs - as 500 Bq/kg, then – assuming that the Transfer Factor is 0.1 – the limit for soil for rice-growing is 5000 Bq/kg. However, the Transfer Factors may be very different for different foods. Moreover, the radioactive contamination can be increased in concentration in food chains – e.g. vegetable to animal. Yet the limit for fodder (e.g. rice straw) is 1300 Bq/kg, while that for meat (e.g. beef) is 500 Bq/kg – in line with international standards.

The requirements for testing land foods for radioactivity are very considerable. They include staff, instruments and compensation for any that is rejected as over the limit. Moreover, this must continue for 10 to 20 years or more.

8.2 Sea Food Contamination

In the case of seafoods, seawater, silt and sea animals all move. Moreover, radioactivity is increased in concentration in marine food chains. For example, Cs-137 is increased by 30 to 50 times for various sea foods. 169

The New York Times reported:

‘On Tuesday, the government said that a fish caught about 43 miles away was found to have high levels of radioactive iodine 131, prompting it to announce radiation safety levels for fish. ’

‘ The small fish caught Friday – before the intentional dumping [of radioactive water] began – had 4,080 bequerels of iodine 131 per kilogram. The new standards allow up to 2,000 bequerels of iodine 131 per kilogram, the standard used for vegetables in Japan, but it was unclear how the government would enforce the new rules. ’

‘ The fish also contained cesium 137, which decays much more slowly than iodine 131, at a level of 526 bequerels per kilogram. ’ ‘ Fish and seaweed can concentrate radioactive elements as they grow, leading to levels that are higher, sometimes far higher, than in the surrounding water. Seaweed can concentrate iodine 131 10,000-fold over the surrounding water; fish concentrate cesium 137 modestly.’ 170

Turkenburg quoted:

‘Excessive radioactive cesium found in fish caught off Fukushima'. (2011-04-13).
Level was 25x standard.

● Radioactive cesium 25 times above the legal limit for consumption was detected Wednesday in young sand lance caught off Fukushima Prefecture, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare said. One of the sample fish had a level of cesium of 12,500 becquerels per kilogram about 500 meters off the city of Iwaki, and 35 kilometers from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, it said. The limit is 500 becquerels per kg under the Food Sanitation Law. ’

● ‘ Japan's science ministry has detected extraordinarily high levels of radioactive cesium in seafloor samples collected off Miyagi and Ibaraki Prefectures.

● The ministry collected samples from 12 locations along a 300-kilometer stretch off Fukushima prefecture's Pacific coast between May 9th and 14th. It hoped to get an idea about the spread of nuclear contamination caused by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

● Radioactive substances were found in all locations, including those off Miyagi and Ibaraki Prefectures, which had not been previously investigated.

● Radioactive Cesium-137, measuring 110 becquerels per kilogram or about 100 times the normal level, was found in samples collected from the seabed 30 kilometers off Sendai City and 45 meters beneath the surface.

NHK. 'Radioactive materials found off Miyagi and Ibaraki'. 2011-05-28.’ 171

Weiss reported the contamination of water, sediments and biota near Fukushima and concluded:

‘Activity values of radioactive cesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137) in fish in the vicinity of the NPP sometimes amounted to more than 1,000 Bq/kg, however measuring less than 10 Bq/kg radioactive cesium in the fishing grounds of Northern Pacific at the distance of some 100 km. In other seafood species from the coastal areas only sporadical total cesium contents of higher than 500 Bq/kg were measured.

As the seaside setting of the Fukushima NPP is restricted up to about 30 km for fishing of seafood and seaweed, and while current Cs concentration values in water, sediments and fish measured at greater distance remaining inconspicuous, there is no danger for people to be posed by consumption of fish and seafood from those particular Pacific fishing grounds.’ 172

Since the radioactive half-life of Cs-137 is 30 years, and the radioactivity in sea foods is very hard to estimate, it is necessary to have comprehensive testing. The activity values of radioactive cesium (Cs-134 + Cs-137) in sea foods from the coastal areas now only rarely exceeds the limit of 500 Bq/kg while that in other species from fishing grounds some 100 km away measures less than 10 Bq/kg. Even so, the coastal fishing industry has been greatly damaged.

9 Decontamination and Radioactive Waste Storage After Fukushima

9.1 Decontamination of Water, and Liquid Radioactive Waste Storage

NHK reported:

‘Water levels are rising in the basements of the turbine buildings of reactors 3 and 4. The total amount of accumulated wastewater at the plant is now estimated at more than 105,000 tons. TEPCO plans to start filtering highly radioactive water on June 15th. It will treat 1,200 tons of water per day and transfer the filtered water to temporary tanks'. 173 Shepherd included photographs of the tanks.’ 174

Large and Associates reported:

‘TEPCO managed to maintain the increasingly absurd line that the fuel cores had not melted and that the reactor containments were holding for two months into the accident. During that time, the 10,000 or so tonnes of highly contaminated water on the site increased to 100,000 tonnes presenting almost insurmountable storage capacity difficulties against which thousands of tonnes of so-called lightly radioactive water was sacrificially dumped into the marine environment.’ 175

The Asahi Shimbun reported:

‘Fisheries cooperatives on Dec. 8 demanded Tokyo Electric Power Co. rescind its plan to release radioactive water from its crippled nuclear plant into the sea, saying the move would further damage their industry'. 'The company said it is running out of options because the nuclear complex has limited space for additional tanks that can store the water. The existing storage tanks at the plant now hold about 100,000 tons but are expected to be full in March. The water is being used to cool the damaged reactors in a recycling system that purifies the radioactive water and pumps it back into the reactors. But an estimated 400 tons of groundwater a day continues to flow into the plant. The company has considered recycling such water and stemming the inflow, as well as buying additional water-treatment equipment, but it has not come up with a solid plan.’ 176

Radioactive waste water will continue to accumulate until the reactor and fuel pool decay heat falls, reducing the cooling load, and the radioactive water cleanup plant throughput catches up with the water demand for cooling. Until then, fresh water must be supplied for 'once-through' cooling, and the resulting radioactive waste water would require ever more 'temporary' storage tanks and/or discharges to the sea.

9.2 Decontamination of Land, and Solid Radioactive Waste Storage

The Economist provided a detailed impression of the many impacts of Fukushima:

‘Hot Spots and Blind Spots.

Crest the hill into the village of Iitate, and the reading on a radiation dosimeter surges eightfold—even with the car windows shut. “Don’t worry, I’ve been coming here for months and I’m still alive”, chuckles Chohei Sato, chief of the village council, as he rolls down the window and inhales cheerfully. He pulls off the road, gets out of the car and buries the dosimeter in the grass. The reading doubles again.

Iitate is located 45km (28 miles) from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant hit by a tsunami on March 11th this year. In the mountains above the town, the forests are turning the colour of autumn. But their beauty is deceptive. Every time a gust of wind blows, Mr Sato says it shakes invisible particles of radioactive caesium off the trees and showers them over the village. Radiation levels in the hills are so high that villagers dare not go near them. Mr Sato cannot bury his father’s bones, which he keeps in an urn in his abandoned farmhouse, because of the dangers of going up the hill to the graveyard.

Iitate had the misfortune to be caught by a wind that carried radioactive particles (including plutonium) much farther than anybody initially expected after the nuclear disaster. Almost all the 6,000 residents have been evacuated, albeit belatedly, because it took the government months to decide that some villages outside a 30km radius of the plant warranted special attention. Now it offers an extreme example of how difficult it will be to recover from the disaster.

That is mainly because of the enormous spread of radiation. Recently the government said it needed to clear about 2,419 square kilometres of contaminated soil—an area larger than greater Tokyo—that received an annual radiation dose of at least five millisieverts, or over 0.5 microsieverts an hour. That covered an area far beyond the official 30km restriction zone (see map). Besides pressure- hosing urban areas, this would involve removing about 5cm of topsoil from local farms as well as all the dead leaves in caesium-laden forests.

However, Iitate’s experience suggests the government may be underestimating the task. Villagers have removed 5cm of topsoil from one patch of land, but because radioactive particles continue to blow from the surrounding trees, the level of radiation remains high—about one microsievert an hour—even if lower than in nearby areas. Without cutting down the forests, Mr Sato reckons there will be a permanent risk of contamination. So far, nobody has any idea where any contaminated soil will be dumped.

The second problem is children’s health. On September 30th the government lifted an evacuation advisory warning to communities within a 20-30km radius of the plant. The aim was partly to show that the authorities were steadily bringing the crippled reactors under control.

But these areas are still riddled with radiation hot spots, including schools and public parks, which will need to be cleaned before public confidence is restored. Parents say they are particularly concerned about bringing their children back because the health effects of radiation on the young are so unclear. What is more, caesium particles tend to lurk in the grass, which means radiation is more of a risk at toddler height than for adults. In Iitate, Mihori Takahashi, a mother of two, “believes only half of what the doctors say” and says she never wants to bring her children back. That, in itself, may be a curse. “The revival of this town depends on the children returning,” says Mr Sato.

And even if people return, Mr Sato worries how they will make a living. These are farming villages, but it will take years to remove the stigma attached to food grown in Fukushima, he reckons. He is furious with Tokyo Electric Power, operator of the plant, for failing to acknowledge the long-term impacts of the disaster. He says it is a way of scrimping on compensation payouts.

One way to help overcome these problems would be to persuade people to accept relaxed safety standards. A government panel is due to propose lifting the advisory dose limit above one millisievert per year. This week in Tokyo, Wade Allison, a physics professor at Oxford University, argued that Japan’s dose limit could safely be raised to 100 millisieverts, based on current health statistics. Outside Mr Sato’s house, however, a reading of the equivalent of 150 millisieverts a year left your correspondent strangely reluctant to inhale.’ 177

Asahi Shimbun reported:

‘Estimated 13,000 square km eligible for decontamination.

The central government will be responsible for decontaminating about 13,000 square kilometers across eight prefecture, or about 3 percent of Japan's total landmass, under new standards for cleaning up radiation from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to Asahi Shimbun estimates. The Environment Ministry on Oct. 10 endorsed a basic policy to make the government responsible for decontaminating all areas with radiation levels exceeding 1 millisievert per year. Based on an earlier annual threshold of 5 millisieverts, the ministry initially said about 1,800 square km of land in Fukushima Prefecture would be subject to decontamination. But under the new standard, the size of the area will grow sevenfold.’

‘The costs for the cleanup could also grow. In late September, the Environment Ministry said that full decontamination in areas above 5 millisieverts per year and partial decontamination for areas between 1 and 5 millisieverts would involve removing about 29 million cubic meters of surface soil and fallen leaves in forests. It predicted the decontamination measures would cost the central government about 1.2 trillion yen ($15.6 billion). Following protests by local governments, however, the ministry decided that the central government would assume responsibility for decontaminating all areas above 1 millisievert per year. That basic policy plan was accepted by an expert panel on radioactive contamination on Oct. 10.’ 178 .

Reuters reported:

‘In northern Japan, stored-up radioactive ash and dehydrated sludge from the sewage treatment process alone totaled 52,000 tones in mid-September, up 63 percent from levels at the end of July, data from the Transport Ministry showed. The volume is still growing by about 360 tones a day.’ 179

The Guardian reported:

‘Fukushima plant could take 30 years to clean up.

While radiation emissions have dropped significantly since the 11 March earthquake and tsunami, workers continue to operate in highly dangerous conditions. Towns near Fukushima have responded cautiously to plans to build temporary storage sites for massive quantities of radioactive debris generated by the accident.

Almost eight months after the start of the crisis the government says the facilities will not be ready for at least another three years. In the meantime, towns will have to store the contaminated waste locally, despite health concerns.

To reach its target of halving radiation levels within two years the government will have to remove large quantities of soil. Scraping 4cm of topsoil from contaminated farmland in Fukushima prefecture would create more than 3m tonnes of waste, says the agriculture ministry, enough to fill 20 football stadiums. Once completed, the storage facilities would hold soil and other contaminated waste for up to 30 years, local reports said.

“ We have been aiming to start cleaning up as soon as possible ” , Toshiaki Kusano, an official in Fukushima city, told Reuters. “ To do so we need to talk about where to store the waste, but we have not been able to answer the question residents are asking: how long it was going to stay there? ” Fukushima city, 35 miles from the nuclear plant, contained enough radioactive waste to fill 10 baseball stadiums, he said.’ 180

The IAEA reported that:

‘The remediation programme covers about 500 km2 where radiation dose levels are above 20 mSv/a and about 1300 km2 where radiation dose levels are between 5 mSv/a and 20 mSv/a.’ 181

Trees and firewood stored outside were also exposed to the release. If burnt, the ash may contain high levels of radioactivity. 182

The Mainichi Shimbun reported:

‘Radioactive crushed stone used in around 60 Fukushima buildings.

The number of houses and condominiums confirmed to have been built using radiation-contaminated crushed stone quarried near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has reached around 60 in Fukushima Prefecture, government sources said Sunday. The sources said the total number of buildings could top 100 if more surveys are conducted on the crushed stone that was shipped from a quarry in Namie located near the plant.

A total of 5,725 tons of crushed stone was shipped from the quarry between the start of the crisis triggered by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, and the designation by the government of the town as an evacuation zone the following month. The crushed stone, after being processed into concrete, was used in the construction of infrastructure such as housing, roads and river dikes at nearly 1,000 locations in the prefecture after the March disaster, they said.’ 183

The Asahi Shimbun reported:

‘Road map released for Fukushima decontamination'. 2012-01-27.
The Environment Ministry released a road map on Jan. 26 for decontaminating areas around the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, hoping to provide encouragement for residents forced to flee the radioactive fallout from the accident. ’

‘ The Environment Ministry used a three-way zoning structure based on radiation levels to determine priority for decontaminating land plots other than forests--including residential land for about 60,000 households, farmland, commercial and industrial estates. ’

‘ The efforts will start in areas with annual doses of 10-20 millisieverts, where a sizable reduction can be expected and the reduction goal is 10 millisieverts or less. A stricter reduction target of 1 microsievert per hour (corresponding to 5 millisieverts per year) or less will apply to schools.

Decontamination work, including soil removal, will begin in July and hopefully be finished by December 2012, according to the road map. That time frame may provide an indication of when the evacuation order will be lifted.

Owners’ approval will be sought and decontamination efforts will start in June for areas with annual doses below 10 millisieverts. Under the road map, decontamination will be finished by March 2013 in areas between 5 and 10 millisieverts and by March 2014 in areas between 1 and 5 millisieverts. March 2014 is also the target date for completing decontamination in the “ no-residence zones ” , or areas with annual doses between 20 and 50 millisieverts. The target for dose reduction there is 20 millisieverts or less per year. But for the "no-return zones," where annual doses exceed 50 millisieverts, the road map provided no specific schedule for decontamination work, leaving room for abandonment of efforts as an option. Only pilot decontamination programs will be conducted in those zones.’ 184

Minimising the loss of developed land will require vast efforts at decontamination, but this will be impractical for undeveloped land and forests. Also some land will be required for storing the huge volumes of radioactive waste.

10 Costs of Human, Land and Water Consequences and Decontamination after Fukushima

H. Satoh stated:

‘The damage to the Japanese economy as a whole has also been incalculable. Nearly 7,000 businesses, many of them manufacturers of highly specialised materials, are inside the no-entry zone (a 20km radius around Fukushima Dai-ichi). While they cannot resume normal operations (and these also include factories destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami), Japan’s industrial supply chain remains crippled. Export industries, agriculture and fishery were also heavily affected as many countries imposed bans on all imports from Japan for fear of radiation contamination. The number of tourists to Japan also dropped sharply in the first two months, even in Kyoto, which is more than 800km from Fukushima.’ 185

Reuters reported:

‘Japan faces costly, unprecedented radiation cleanup.

“ The technology for decommissioning and cleaning up plants has been studied for a while, but we hardly have any experience in decontaminating materials that were released into the environment ” , said Tetsuo Iguchi, a Nagoya University professor. “ Fukushima is mountainous and such large-scale and highly concentrated contamination has not taken place on earth before in an area like this. How things will go is unpredictable. ”

The area in need of cleanup could be 1,000 to 4,000 square km, about 0.3 to 1 percent of Japan's total land area, and cost several trillion to more than 10 trillion yen ($130 billion), double what it took to build six nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi plant, some experts say.

The government has banned people from entering an area in a 20 km radius surrounding the crippled plant and some 80,000 people have evacuated. Residents are calling on Tokyo Electric Power Co, the plant operator, to clean up the area, but the firm is still struggling to bring the reactors under control.

Another major headache is where to store the radioactive waste like dirt and water generated from cleanup work.’ 186

Asahi Shimbun reported that the Environment Ministry predicted the decontamination measures would cost the central government about 1.2 trillion yen ($ 15.6 billion). 187

Reuters reported:

‘Fukushima victims are desperate, angry, homeless.
About 80,000 people were forced to leave their homes by the nuclear crisis'. “ Can we actually go back home? And if not, can you guarantee our livelihoods? ” ’ ‘ A government panel overseeing the compensation scheme estimates claims are likely to reach 3.6 trillion yen ($46.5 billion) in the financial year to next March'. 'The company expects a total of 300,000 claims from businesses given that the impact of the radiation crisis has been so widespread.’ 188

The Guardian reported:

‘The government has so far earmarked 220bn yen (£1.75bn) for decontamination work, with an additional 460bn yen requested for next year. But according to one estimate the operation could end up costing 1.5tn yen.’ 189

The Asahi Shimbun reported:

‘Up to 1 million residents of municipalities within 50 kilometers of the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant will be eligible for nuclear accident compensation, a government committee decided on Dec. 5'. 'There are some locations outside the 50-km radius where radiation levels are high, raising the possibility of the number of recipients increasing further.’ 190

10.1 Insurance, Subsidies and Ethics

Swiss Re wrote:

‘The anticipated extent of loss from a nuclear accident was generally believed to justify a special liability regime. Such a regime would both ensure proper compensation for the public and foster the development of the nuclear power industry, which would otherwise be faced with an overwhelming burden. Accordingly, the operators' interests were secured by limiting their liability in time and amount, and the liability regime was introduced in the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy [of 1960] and in the Vienna Convention on Liability for Nuclear Damage [of 1963].’ 191

The Paris and Vienna Conventions were prompted by the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 in the USA and followed by the Nuclear Installations Act of 1965 (plus later amendments) in the UK, saying that the risk would be carried by the State. Such 'Statutory Indemnities' are described by the UK Government as 'unquantifiable'. This means 'unlimited', so must be taken as 'infinite'. 192

The German Renewable Energy Association published on 2011-05-11 a study commissioned from 'Versicherungsforen Leipzig GmbH' on the calculation of an adequate insurance premium for the operators of nuclear power plants. 193 This found that the mean insured sum payable for a nuclear disaster could be 6090 billion euros. If passed on to consumers and spread over 50 years, the additional cost of electricity in euros per kWh would be 8.71 for each individual nuclear plant or 0.51 for all 17 plants in Germany and if spread over ten years, 67.3 or 3.96. (At 1 euro = £ 0.88, these are 766, 45, 5922 and 348 p/kWh). The study concluded that 'in practical terms, nuclear disasters are not insurable'. It has been reported briefly in English. 194

If shared by the 54 nuclear power plants in Japan and spread over 50 or 10 years, this hypothetical additional insurance cost would be 14 or 110 p/kWh. At £ 1 = 130 yen, it would then be 18 or 143 yen/kWh.

The German Government set up an Ethics Commission for a Safe Energy Supply. This found that:

'The withdrawal from nuclear energy is necessary and recommended to rule out future risks from nuclear in Germany. It is possible because there are less risky alternatives'. 195 .

For ethical reasons, nuclear power stations should only continue to operate until the power they produce can be replaced by lower-risk sources of power. The output of nuclear power stations that is already dispensable today, amounting to 8.5 gigawatts, should be taken from the grid permanently. The temporary shutdown of the seven oldest nuclear power stations and of the Krümmel nuclear power station demonstrates that the 8.5 gigawatts of power they supplied can be replaced by lower-risk sources of power. 196

The Ethics Commission has come to the conclusion that a safe energy supply can be achieved which provides more jobs in business and manual trade without compromising environmental protection, whilst also avoiding a power shortage and having to import nuclear energy. 197

T. Kitamura wrote:

‘This US$10,000 is not everything. It is only part of compensation in an advance payment. The compensation is first paid by the nuclear energy liability insurance. TEPCO has paid the insurance premium for that. The insurance covers up to US$1,200 million. Beyond that, TEPCO bears. Beyond the amount TEPCO can bear, the government bears, which means the public pays as tax. The total amount of compensation may reach or exceed US$100 billion, in view of the compensation needed for farmers and fishermen.’ 198

Japan Today reported:

‘Gov't may buy land within 20-km radiation no-go zone.
TOKYO — The Japanese government is considering buying the land within the 20-km exclusion zone around the crippled Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant. Reconstruction Minister Tatsuo Hirano, who visited Fukushima Prefecture on Sunday, said that due to extremely high levels of radiation within the 20-km zone, it may be unsafe for residents to return to their homes for a long time. ’ ‘ Hirano told NHK that in order to support those displaced by the disaster, the administration will have to buy the land and compensate the residents as well as build permanent housing for evacuees. A government report projected that radiation accumulated over one year at 22 monitoring sites within roughly 20 kilometers of the nuclear plant would be at least five times higher than the international safety standard.’ 199

The Asahi Shimbun reported:

‘Insurance Companies Reject Fukushima Nuke Plant. ’

‘ In both frameworks, payment can cover up to 120 billion yen ($ 1.6 billion) per nuclear plant. Electric power companies, in principle, pay the remainder of the burden. For the Fukushima accident, the maximum limit is well short of the estimated trillions of yen needed to cover all the damage compensation claims.’ 200

The Kuwait News Agency reported:

‘Fukushima plant operator gets USD 7.2 billion from public fund.
TOKYO, Nov 15 (KUNA) -- Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) said Tuesday it has received JPY 558.7 billion (USD 7.2 billion) from the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund, a state-backed funding body, to pay compensation to those affected by its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster in March. Earlier this month, the government approved the JPY 891 billion (USD 11.6 billion) rescue plan involving public funds after cash-strapped TEPCO promised to cut more than JPY 2.55 trillion (USD 33.1 billion) in costs over 10 years through measures such as reducing some 7,400 employees and cutting corporate pension payments for retirees under a business restructuring plan drawn up by TEPCO and the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund. The funding injection allows the operator of the crippled Fukushima plant to pay compensation without going bankrupt, as the compensation to be paid by TEPCO could cost at least JPY 4.5 trillion (USD 58.3 billion) by 2013, according to a government estimate.’ 201

The Asahi Shimbun reported:

'TEPCO to deposit 120 billion yen for future claims

Rejected by insurers, Tokyo Electric Power Co. plans to deposit 120 billion yen ($1.56 billion) in compensation reserves with a government body in case further accidents hit the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. It will be the first time a power company has made such a move against a possible nuclear accident. The crippled Fukushima plant will also be the first in Japan not covered by liability insurance. TEPCO’s board of directors was expected to approve the plan as early as Jan. 11. The company will deposit the money with the Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau this week to cover compensation claims for possible future accidents at the plant. If the reactors at the plant are decommissioned without further incident, the money will be returned to TEPCO'.

'Power companies usually take out liability insurance worth 120 billion yen per nuclear plant with a private insurance company under the nuclear accident compensation law. But the Japan Atomic Energy Insurance Pool, an institution jointly formed by 23 nonlife insurers, decided last fall not to renew its insurance contract with TEPCO for the Fukushima No. 1 plant, given the risks involved in dealing with the unprecedented disaster in Japan. The contract expires on Jan. 15'. 202

11 Fukushima Could Have Been Far Worse

11.1 Larger Inventory and Release Fraction

M. M. R. Williams reported:

‘The first serious such accident was that at the Windscale, air-cooled, graphite moderated reactor in 1957 which, due to a Wigner energy release, caught fire. This led to substantial amounts of radioactive material being deposited over England, Wales and Northern Europe. It is estimated that about l015 Bq of the iodine and about l014 Bq of the caesium must have escaped. Since the reactor was not enclosed by a containment building the question of the effectiveness of such a structure could not be assessed; although there is no doubt that the filters in the stack proved very useful.’ 203

Chino et al reported:

‘According to Eq. (2), [at Fukushima] the total amounts of 131 I and 137 Cs discharged into the atmosphere from 10 JST on March 12 to 0 JST on April 6 are estimated to be approximately 1.5 1017 and 1.3 1016 Bq, respectively.’ 204

R. Michel wrote that the “maximum physically possible” release would be the whole inventory of the damaged nuclear power plants. For Fukushima Reactors 1, 2, and 3 and Spent Fuel Pool 4, the inventory was estimated as I-131: 5E18, Cs-134: 2E18, and Cs-137: 2E18 Bq. 205

The Guardian reported that:

‘UK government's Fukushima crisis plan based on bigger leak than Chernobyl. ’

‘ The British government made contingency plans at the height of the Fukushima nuclear crisis which anticipated a “ reasonable worst case scenario ” of the plant releasing more radiation than Chernobyl, new documents released to the Guardian show. ’

‘ The UK government's response to the unfolding crisis is revealed in documents prepared for Sir John Beddington, the chief scientist and chair of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), and released to the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act. The 30 documents include advice from the National Nuclear Laboratory on damage to the plant, public safety assessments from the Health Protection Agency (HPA), computer models of the radioactive plume from Defra's Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network (Rimnet), and the worst case scenario that might unfold at the plant. ’

‘ The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate estimated this would release 10% of the radioactive caesium-137 and iodine-131 in the cores and one third of the caesium-137 in the spent fuel ponds. Under that scenario, wind currents carried the plume directly towards Tokyo at a speed of five metres per second. Had the event happened, it could have released the equivalent of 9.92 million terabecquerels of radiation from iodine-131 into the open air, nearly double the 5.2 million terabecquerels released by the fire at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine in 1986. ’ 206

Pretzsch et al estimated the radioactive inventory of Fukushima Reactors 1 to 3 and Spent Fuel Pools 1 to 4 as I-131: 1.186E19, Cs-134: 3.8E18 and Cs-137: 2.988E18 Bq and the total activity as 2.6E21 Bq. 207

Michel estimated the Fukushima fuel inventory – and hence the maximum physically possible release - as I-131 of 5E18 Bq. However, Pretzsch et al later estimated the inventory of I-131 as about 1.2E19 Bq, so the NII Fukushima 'reasonable worst case scenario' release of about 1E19 Bq is consistent.

The Fukushima release source term is far less than the maximum possible from Reactors 1 to 4. Compared with the Chino et al Fukushima I-131 release estimate of 1.5E17 Bq, the I-131 source term for the NII 'reasonable worst case scenario' is about 1E19 Bq, which is about 66 times higher. This is consistent with estimates of the radioactive inventories of I-131. It is roughly 100 times higher than INES 7 – the highest value defined by the IAEA – but it would be INES 9. The total for all nuclides would be larger. (See Sections 5.1 and 5.2 above). Therefore the total release source terms could be far larger than anything that has occurred to date. Also, multiple reactors and spent fuel pools per site and nearby sites would further increase the potential total release.

11.2 More of the Release Falling On Land and Major Cities

Stohl et al reported that for Cs-137, the deposition (total emission) was about 35.8 PBq (3.58E16 Bq), (~ 42% of that estimated for Chernobyl), of which Japan 6.4 Pbq – 19%, Other land 0.7 Pbq – 2%, so total over land – 21%. (i.e. 7.1E15 Bq). In Fig. 16, the rightmost map shows the simulated surface concentration of 137Cs total from 00:00 UTC on 20 March to 12:00 UTC on 22 March.

‘Luckily, it did not rain (also confirmed by radar data) exactly at the time when – according to our simulation – the highest concentrations were advected over Tokyo and other major Japanese cities. In such a disastrous scenario, much higher 137Cs deposition in the major population centers would have been possible.’ 208

Broomfiel reported:

‘The model also shows that the accident could easily have had a much more devastating impact on the people of Tokyo. In the first days after the accident the wind was blowing out to sea, but on the afternoon of 14 March it turned back towards shore, bringing clouds of radioactive caesium-137 over a huge swathe of the country (see Radioisotope reconstruction ). Where precipitation fell, along the country's central mountain ranges and to the northwest of the plant, higher levels of radioactivity were later recorded in the soil; thankfully, the capital and other densely populated areas had dry weather. “ There was a period when quite a high concentration went over Tokyo, but it didn't rain," says Stohl. "It could have been much worse. ” ’ 209

If the release had fallen on land and especially a major city such as Tokyo (population about 35 million), complete evacuation would be impossible and the health and economic consequences would have been much worse.

11.3 Combination of Far Larger Release and Falling On Major Cities

The Asahi Shimbun reported:

‘Government envisioned Tokyo evacuation in worst-case scenario.

In a worst-case scenario, the central government would have requested the evacuation of Tokyo and everyone within a 250-kilometer radius of the damaged Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. Goshi Hosono, minister in charge of the nuclear disaster, on Jan. 6 unveiled the emergency plan, which was personally drawn up two weeks after the Great East Japan Earthquake by Shunsuke Kondo, chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission. The plan would have ordered mandatory evacuations of everyone within a 170-km radius of the plant. Evacuations would have been voluntary for those living between 170 km and 250 km from the plant, including the Japanese capital. ’

‘ The worst-case scenario imagined the melting of 1,535 fuel assemblies, an equivalent of fuel used for two reactors, kept in a spent fuel storage pool at the No. 4 reactor. ’

‘ The scenario envisioned that if another hydrogen explosion took place at the No. 1 reactor, workers would be forced to flee and suspend recovery operations, resulting in an enormous amount of radioactive material released from the pool in two weeks. The report also predicted the extent of soil contamination of areas required to evacuate in light of standards set after the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine. The scenario said areas within a 170-km radius of the plant would have been contaminated with 1,480 kilobecquerels per square meter, a level that requires mandatory evacuation.

Areas where the government would have requested voluntary evacuations were predicted to have 555 kilobecquerels per square meter, extending to a 250-km radius, which included Tokyo and surrounding areas. If the release of cesium was limited to an equivalent of one reactor, the mandatory evacuation zone would have been a radius of 110 km and recommended evacuation a radius of 200 km. The report said it would have taken several decades for radiation levels to decrease naturally in the mandatory and voluntary evacuation zones. The report also said high radiation levels could have extended beyond the 250-km radius, and people in those areas would have also been advised to relocate.’ 210

The Kondo report worst case data imply that the Evacuation Distance varies with (Ground Deposition) ^-0.3932 . At the ICRP dose criterion of 1 mSv/y, the Cs-137 ground deposition would be 3E4 Bq/m², according to the IRSN. (See Section 6.2 above). So by extrapolation, the Evacuation Distance would be about 800 km.

The Courier-Mail reported:

‘Japan “ had Tokyo evacuation plan ” .

Japan feared that tens of millions would be evacuated in a secret worst-case scenario report after Fukushima.

The Japanese government's worst-case scenario at the height of the nuclear crisis last year warned that tens of millions of people, including Tokyo residents, might need to leave their homes, according to a report obtained by The Associated Press. But fearing widespread panic, officials kept the report secret.

The recent emergence of the 15-page internal document may add to complaints in Japan that the government withheld too much information about the world's worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl. It also casts doubt about whether the government was sufficiently prepared to cope with what could have been an evacuation of unprecedented scale.

The report was submitted to then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan and his top advisers on March 25, two weeks after the earthquake and tsunami devastated the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, causing three reactors to melt down and generating hydrogen explosions that blew away protective structures. Workers ultimately were able to bring the reactors under control, but at the time, it was unclear whether emergency measures would succeed.

Mr Kan commissioned the report, compiled by the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, to examine what options the government had if those efforts failed. Authorities evacuated 59,000 residents within 20 kilometres of the Fukushima plant, and thousands more were evacuated from other towns later. The report said there was a chance far larger evacuations could be needed.’

‘The report looked at several ways the crisis could escalate - explosions inside the reactors, complete meltdowns, and the structural failure of cooling pools used for spent nuclear fuel. It said that each contingency was possible at the time it was written, and could force all workers to flee the vicinity, meaning the situation at the plant would unfold on its own, unmitigated. Using matter-of-fact language, diagrams and charts, the report said that if meltdowns spiral out of control, radiation levels could soar. In that case, it said evacuation orders should be issued for residents within a 170-kilometre radius of the plant and "voluntary" evacuations should be offered for everyone living within 250 kilometres.

That area that would have included Tokyo and its suburbs, with a population of 35 million people, and other major cities such as Sendai, with a million people, and Fukushima city with 290,000 people.

The report further warned that contaminated areas might not be safe for “ several decades ” .

“ We cannot rule out further developments that may lead to an unpredictable situation at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, where there has been an accident, and this report outlines a summary of that unpredictable situation ” , says the document, written by Shunsuke Kondo, head of the commission, which oversees nuclear policy.’ 211 212

The Kondo Report worst case considered two complete reactor-loads of spent fuel from Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4, but Units 1 to 4 comprised five loads, and Units 5 and 6 at least two more. Moreover, Fukushima Daiini Units 1 to 4 comprised at least four reactor-loads, with more in spent fuel pools. All are within the 20 km evacuation zone, so the Kondo worst case release could easily require all the operators to leave or even incapacitate them. Even shut-down, if any more decay heat cooling systems failed, they could give rise to further meltdowns and releases. Also multiple reactors and spent fuel pools per site and other sites nearby would further increase the potential release source terms.

The human health consequences – both locally and worldwide – would depend on how much material fell on land, the population density and the scope for evacuation. For the Fukushima disaster, only about 18% of the fallout was over Japan. The fallout from Chernobyl was almost 100% over land, but the low local population density limited the consequences. However, for the US WASH-740, WASH-1250 and CRAC-2 studies and the German study for Biblis, 100% was over land, with much high population densities and hence far higher health consequences. 213

Furthermore, Chernobyl showed that – with particular combinations of wind and rain – the radioactive release could travel more than 2400 km to the hills of the UK. The ground deposition was such that – even 25 years later – some Cumbrian and Welsh hill farms are still contaminated and subject to restrictions on sheep movement. 214

The Kondo report worst case data imply that the Evacuation Distance varies with (Ground Deposition) ^-0.3932 . Relative to the NII Fukushima release, the NII 'reasonable worst case scenario' release is 66 times as large. So assuming that the Ground Deposition is proportional to the release, the Evacuation Distance would be 66 ^0.3932 = 5.2 times as large.

The contaminated area could be between (Evacuation Distance) 1 and (Evacuation Distance) 2 – i.e. 5.2 to 27 times as large. So assuming that the population and property densities are constant, the compensation and decontamination cost for a worst case release could be between $ 936 billion and $ 4.8 trillion – i.e. roughly £ 1 trillion. This is of the same order as the hypothetical mean insured sum payable for a German nuclear disaster of 6 trillion euros estimated by the Versicherungsforen Leipzig. (See Section 10.1 above).

12 Consequences of a Major Radioactive Release in the UK

Dr Clifford Beck of the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) said in 1959:

‘If worst conceivable accidents are considered no site except one removed from populated areas by hundreds of miles would offer sufficient protection.’ 215

Following the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, Sandia produced the 'CRAC-2' study on the siting criteria for nuclear power plants in 1982. Most were located near to major cities and for a major release, the 'Peak Early Fatalities' were estimated at up to 100,000. 216

It was reported that:

‘Emergency planning for a nuclear accident in the UK is to be radically overhauled following a recent exercise at the Bradwell reactor in south-east England. The exercise tested the response to a large passenger aircraft crashing into the reactor. One of the significant finding was that radiation would spread to least 10 km within a few hours of an accident. Until now all emergency planning has been based on radiation affecting only within 3km of a reactor. In the Bradwell exercise an estimated 500,000 people would have needed evacuation.’ 217

Hirschberg et al noted that:

In particular, early fatalities can be extrapolated from one site another from the ratio of population within 8 to 10 km'. 'Delayed cancer deaths are found to be strongly correlated to the total population within 80 to 120 km'.'Cancer deaths occurring from ingestion (late deaths) ... are considered proportional to the ratio of populations within 800 km'. 'Finally, land contamination is assumed to be correlated to the ratio of land fractions to 120 km, even though the correlation was found to be weaker than the ones found for health effects'.

The map on page 82 shows the sites with circles of 100 and 800 km. These are the approximate extents of delayed cancer deaths and late deaths. 218

The UK Weightman report includes:

‘Conclusion IR-7: There is no need to change the present siting strategies for new nuclear power stations in the UK.

Recommendation FR-6: The nuclear industry with others should review available techniques for estimating radioactive source terms and undertake research to test the practicability of providing real-time information on the basic characteristics of radioactive releases to the environment to the responsible off-site authorities, taking account of the range of conditions that may exist on and off the site.

Recommendation FR-7: The Government should review the adequacy of arrangements for environmental dose measurements and for predicting dispersion and public doses and environmental impacts, and to ensure that adequate up to date information is available to support decisions on emergency countermeasures.’ 219

However, it makes no mention of any such decision support assets being available in the UK. Yet the UK has had nuclear facilities and power plants capable of major radioactive releases for over 60 years.

The UK siting criteria for nuclear power plants are based on those originally developed for Magnox and AGR stations, adjusted for PWRs such as Sizewell B. They consider a radioactive release of 1000 Curies (3.7E13 Bq) of I-131 and a distance of 30 km. 220 221 Yet at Fukushima, the release of I-131 was about 1.5E17 Bq, which is 4000 times as much and for the NII Fukushima 'reasonable worst case scenario', it is about 1E19 Bq, which is 270,000 times as much. (See Section 11.1 above). Also in the Kondo Report worst-case scenario, residents within a radius of 170 km of the power station, and possibly even further away, would be forced to evacuate. Those living within a radius of between 170 km and 250 km of the plant, including Tokyo, could chose to evacuate voluntarily. The report also said high radiation levels could have extended beyond the 250-km radius, and people in those areas would have also been advised to relocate. 222 By extrapolation, at the ICRP dose criterion of 1 mSv/y, the radius would be about 800 km. (See Section 11.3 above).

Fig. 4 is a map of Great Britain, showing the areas threatened by the ten proposed nuclear power plants and an example of fallout from Hinkley Point extending to 170 km. Evidence from Fukushima shows that fallout from Hinkley Point could require evacuation for 170 to 250 km or more. Carried by south-westerly winds, this would reach Birmingham, or on the prevailing westerlies, London and beyond. Likewise fallout from Sizewell, carried by north-easterly winds for 170 km, would reach London.

13 Conclusions

This study is based on evidence on the Fukushima disaster and it's consequences, almost all from the internet. Many quantitative studies have been found, but no proper studies from the IAEA or the UK ONR. The fast-moving and highly dangerous events of such a disaster require decision support. Thermal models of the reactors and spent fuel pools are essential to predict their behaviour under Station Blackout and evaluate possible counter-measures. Also plume (dispersion) models of possible radioactive releases are essential to inform decisions on the magnitude and direction of evacuations. The Japanese have such a plume model, but it was ignored until later. Also they had no instrument for airborne radioactivity measurements at hand and had to rely initially on aerial surveys carried out by the Japan-based US Emergency Response Centers. These deficiencies were omitted or downplayed in the reports of the IAEA Fact Finding Mission, but most were included in the report of the Hatamura Panel.

Following the disaster, nearly 15,000 workers have received doses of up to 250 mSv. Several have received more and at least one has died due to internal radiation. Excess cancers and resulting deaths may take up to 50 years to appear. Using widely accepted dose-effect models, the excess cancer deaths are estimated as 350 to 3000, while with other dose-effect models they may be 100,000 to 200,000, though all these should be reduced by evacuation.

About 80,000 persons have been forced to evacuate parts of Fukushima prefecture and live elsewhere. Radioactivity above Japanese government limits has been found in many foods, including rice, beef and fish. This would cause internal exposure if eaten, and has destroyed the businesses of farmers and fisherfolk over wide areas. The compensation for persons and businesses has been estimated at 3.6 trillion yen ($ 47 billion).

The area of land contaminated with radioactive cesium to more than 10,000 Bq/m2 is about 30,000 km2, some 8% of the land area of Japan. Part of this will be uninhabitable for 10 to 20 years or more. According to the decontamination plan, the land area for which the dose to humans would be over 1 mSv/y is about 13,000 km2. It would require removing about 29 million cubic meters of topsoil and fallen leaves, and such radioactive waste needs land for storage. The cost of the decontamination measures have been estimated at from 1.2 to more than 10 trillion yen ($130 billion).

Hence the personal and business compensation and the decontamination cost may be up to 14 trillion yen ($ 180 billion). Yet the insurance fund available is only about 120 billion yen ($ 1.6 billion) per nuclear plant. In principle, the electric power companies should pay the rest, but TEPCO is virtually bankrupt. So almost all the cost must be met by the taxpayers. This and other subsidies means that nuclear power can never be competitive.

Of the radioactive fallout from Fukushima, only 19% fell on Japan, 2% on other land, and 79% on the sea. So the fallout over land could have been higher by up to 5 times. The radioactive plume passed over Tokyo, but by chance it was not raining. If it had been, the human health and other consequences would have been hugely higher. Scenarios with larger releases, all over land and over crowded cities, have consequences that are even more horrific.

Germany, Switzerland and Italy have decided to join many other countries and phase out nuclear power. Also Japan has shut down almost all the nuclear power plants, and will shut down the rest this spring. Whether the citizens will allow any to be re-started remains to be seen. Economy minister Yukio Edano said he does not expect any nuclear power plant to be operating this summer, but thermal power and conservation efforts should be enough for the nation to get by.

The UK criteria for siting nuclear power plants consider only a small radioactive release and fallout reaching 30 km. Yet the Fukushima release was about 4000 times as much and the NII Fukushima 'reasonable worst-case scenario' release is about 270,000 times as much. According to the Kondo Report, the worst case release would require evacuation for 170 or 250 km or more, e.g. from Hinkley Point to Birmingham or London. Also the compensation for the land and property losses and the decontamination costs would be far larger than for Fukushima, at roughly £ 1 trillion. So the UK siting criteria are wholly inadequate and almost all the citizens of Britain are threatened by the existing and proposed nuclear power plants. In the words of Dr John Gofman, this is 'licensing random premeditated murder'. Thus the former must be phased out forthwith and the latter abandoned.

Gordon Taylor, B.Sc., M.Sc., M.I.Mech.E.
G T Systems 19 The Vale, Stock, Ingatestone, Essex, CM4 9PW
Tel: 01277-840569
Email: gordon@energypolicy.co.uk Web: http://www.energypolicy.co.uk
This work was funded by the author.

14 Glossary

1/2T – The half-life of a nuclide. That is, the time for the radioactivity to fall by one-half.

Actinide – a radioactive element with an atomic number from 89 (actinium) to 103 (lawrencium).

AEC - (US) Atomic Energy Commission. Superceded by US DOE and US NRC.

Aerosol – 'a suspension of fine particles in the atmosphere which can arise due to a core melt, leading to vaporized fission products or as the result of a fire'. 225

Bq – Bequerel – SI unit of radioactivity.

BEIR VII – Beir VII: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. 226

BWR – Boiling Water Reactor (as Fukushima Daiichi Reactors 1-6).

CDF – Core Damage Frequency.

Ci – Curie – old unit of radioactivity.

CNSC – Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

CTBTO – Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization. It operates a worldwide network of radioactivity monitoring stations.

Curie – 3.7E10 Bequerels.

Decay Heat – heat produced by a nuclear reactor even after it has been shut-down.

DNA – Deoxyribonucleic acid, the genetic material of all living things.

DOE – US Department of Energy.

ECRR – European Committee on Radiation Risk. 227

GRS – German Nuclear Safety Organization.

Gy – Gray – SI unit of absorbed dose.

Half-life - the time for the radioactivity of a nuclide to fall by one-half.

HRA – Human Reliability Analysis.

IAEA – International Atomic Energy Agency.

ICRP – International Commission on Radiation Protection. 228 229

IKE - Institute for Nuclear Technology and Energy Systems, University of Stuttgart, Germany.

INES – International Nuclear Event Scale (0-7). 230

IPPNW - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

IRSN – French Nuclear Safety Institute.

JAEA – Japan Atomic Energy Authority.

JAIF – Japan Atomic Industry Forum.

JRC – Joint Research Centre of the European Union.

JST – Japanese Standard Time (UTC + 9:00)

KI – Potassium Iodide (tablets). Sometimes provided as a mitigation measure after a nuclear release.

LOCA – Loss of Cooling Accident.

MAAP – a thermal model of a nuclear reactor and/or spent fuel pool.

METI – Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

MEXT – Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (or Science Ministry, for short).

Model – mathematical model, embodied in a software package, used for simulation runs/estimates.

MWth – MegaWatt (1E6 Watts) thermal.

NHK – Japanese Broadcasting Corporation, originator of the NHK World television channel.

NII – UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, now the Office of Nuclear Regulation.

NISA – National Industrial Safety Agency of Japan.

NISC – National Information Security Center of Japan.

NPP – Nuclear Power Plant.

NRC – US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NSC – Nuclear Safety Commission of Japan.

Nuclide – an atom of specific properties, such as the number of neutrons and protons and the energy state of its nucleus.

ONR – UK Office of Nuclear Regulation.

PSA - Probabilistic Safety Analysis.

PWR – Pressurized Water Reactor.

RPV – Reactor Pressure Vessel, the second containment after the cladding of the nuclear fuel.

SBO – Station Blackout (loss of power from the grid and the backup diesel generators).

SI – Systeme International, the world-standard rational system of units.

SPEEDI – a plume (dispersion) model for airborne releases, here of radioactive materials.

Sv – Sievert – SI unit of (human) dose equivalent.

TEPCO – Tokyo Electric Power Company, owners and operators of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

UNSCEAR – United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. 231

US DOE – US Department of Energy.

WHO – World Health Organization.

ZAMG – Central Establishment for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Austria.

15 Figures

16 References

1 Taylor, G. 'The Case Against Nuclear Power'. 2011-06-06.
http://www.energypolicy.co.uk/nuclear.htm

2 Mohrbach, L. '..Consequences for Fukushima and Other Nuclear Power Plants'. VGB PowerTech. 2011-03-24.
http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Anhang_Hintergrundinfo_023_Analyse_Reaktorkatastrophe.pdf

3 Braun, M. 'The Fukushima Daiichi Incident'. Areva. 2011-03-25 (revised 2011-04-01).
http://cryptome.org/0003/fukushima-areva.zip The zip file contains a pdf.

4 Michel, R. Radioecological Aspects of the Reactor Accident in Fukushima'. 2011-05-16. Accessed 2012-01-01.
http://www.zsr.uni-hannover.de/handouts/dufascha.pdf

5 Turkenburg, W. 'What happened with the nuclear plant Fukushima-1, and what could be the impact ?' 2011-06-16.
http://nws.chem.uu.nl/publica/Publicaties%202011/Fukushima-16%20June%202011.pdf

6 Omoto, A. 'Fukushima Accident : An overview'. University of Tokyo & AECJ. 2011-06-27.
http://www.n.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/gcoe/jpn/international/docs/ANS_PRINTrev_Omoto.pdf

7 Shepherd, J.E. 'The Crisis at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant'. 2011-09-30.
http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/%7Ejeshep/fukushima/ShepherdFukushima30Sept2011.pdf

8 Uspuras, E. et al. 'Fukushima Accident. Description of the accident scenarios, current status of the reactors'. 2011-11-08.
http://www.eurosafe-forum.org/userfiles/F_1_ Description of accident%20 scenarios_pap_Uspuras_20111021.pdf
and
http://www.eurosafe-forum.org/userfiles/F_1_ slides_Fukushima%20 Accident scenario-v3_Uspuras_20111031.pdf

9 IAEA. 'IAEA International Fact Finding Expert Mission.... Preliminary Summary'. 2011-06-01.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/missionsummary010611.pdf

10 NISA. 'Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety...'.
2011-06-08.
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/kan/topics/201106/iaea_houkokusho_e.html

11 IAEA. 'IAEA Activities in Response to the Fukushima Accident'. 2011-06-08.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/govinf2011-8.pdf

12 IAEA. 'IAEA International Fact Finding Expert Mission.... Final Report'. 2011-06-22.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/meetings/PDFplus/2011/cn200/documentation/cn200_Final-Fukushima-Mission_Report.pdf

13 IAEA. 'Summary Report of the Preliminary Findings of the IAEA Mission on remediation...'. 2011-10-14.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/pre_report.pdf

14 IAEA. 'Final Report of the International Mission on Remediation of Large Contaminated Areas Off-Site the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP'. 2011-11-15.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/final_report151111.pdf

15 Hatamura Panel. 'Executive Summary of the Interim Report...'. 2011-12-26.
http://icanps.go.jp/eng/120224SummaryEng.pdf

16 Shepherd, J.E. 'The Crisis at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant'. 2011-09-30. Slide 26.
http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/%7Ejeshep/fukushima/ShepherdFukushima30Sept2011.pdf

17 Mohrbach, L. '..Consequences for Fukushima and Other Nuclear Power Plants'. VGB PowerTech. 2011-03-24. Slide 12
http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Anhang_Hintergrundinfo_023_Analyse_Reaktorkatastrophe.pdf

18 Braun, M. 'The Fukushima Daiichi Incident'. Areva. 2011-04-07. Slide 5.
http://www.slideshare.net/dungeon_keeper/areva-fukushima

19 Braun, M. 'The Fukushima Daiichi Incident'. Areva. 2011-03-25 (revised 2011-04-01). Slide 19.
http://cryptome.org/0003/fukushima-areva.zip The zip file contains a pdf.

20 GRS. 'Gemessene Dosisleistungen an ausgewählten Messpunkten Fukushima'. 2011-03-23.
http://fukushima.grs.de/sites/default/files/Radiation-Data_Daiichi_20110322-0800.pdf

21 Braun, M. 'The Fukushima Daiichi Incident'. Areva. 2011-03-25 (revised 2011-04-01).
http://cryptome.org/0003/fukushima-areva.zip The zip file contains a pdf.

22 Mohrbach, L. '..Consequences for Fukushima and Other Nuclear Power Plants'. VGB PowerTech. 2011-03-24.
http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Anhang_Hintergrundinfo_023_Analyse_Reaktorkatastrophe.pdf

23 NHK World. 2011-04-22.

24 NHK World. 2011-04-27.

25 Daily Yomuri Online. 'Meltdown speed varied by reactor'. 2011-05-25.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110524005872.htm

26 Daily Yomuri Online. 'Melt-through at Fukushima ?' 2011-06-08.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110607005367.htm

27 Omoto, A. 'Fukushima Accident : An overview'. University of Tokyo & AECJ. 2011-06-27. Slide 29.
http://www.n.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/gcoe/jpn/international/docs/ANS_PRINTrev_Omoto.pdf

28 Large and Associates. 'Review of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Preliminary Summary of its Fact Finding Expert Mission to Japan of 24 May to 1 June 2011'. 2011-06-06.
http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/atomkraft/Large_IAEA_Final_update_0611.pdf

29 Large and Associates. 'Fukushima: Lessons Learned for UK New Nuclear Build'. 2011-06-14.
http://www.nuclearconsult.com/docs/seminars/140611/R3200-Summary.pdf

30 Turkenburg, W. 'What happened with the nuclear plant Fukushima-1, and what could be the impact ?' 2011-06-16. Slide 41
http://nws.chem.uu.nl/publica/Publicaties%202011/Fukushima-16%20June%202011.pdf

31 The Asahi Shimbun. 'Panel: Wide communication gaps hampered response in Fukushima'. 2011-12-27.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112270046

32 USAEC. WASH-740. "Theoretical Possibilities and Consequences of Major Accidents in Large Nuclear Power Plants". 1957.
Page 19.
http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/wash740.pdf

33 NRC. 'Official Transcript of Proceedings. Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Subcommittee on Fukushima'. 2011-05-26. pp 92-96.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1114/ML11147A075.pdf

34 Omoto, A. 'Fukushima Accident : An overview, LL and implications'. University of Tokyo & AECJ. Slide 45.
http://www.n.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/gcoe/jpn/international/docs/ANS_PRINTrev_Omoto.pdf

35 Mochizuki, I. 'US army received live information from SPEEDI'. 2012-01-07.
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/01/us-army-received-live-information-from-speedi/

36 Arnold et al. 'Modelling of Atmospheric Dispersion with ARTM and RODOS Following the Accident at Fukushima Daiichi NPP and Comparison with Measurements'. GRS, 2011-10-02.
http://www.harmo.org/Conferences/Proceedings/_Kos/publishedSections/H14-334.pdf

37 FZK. 'RODOS Decision support for nuclear emergency management'. No date.
http://www.rodos.fzk.de/Overview/Docs/RODOS_flyer.pdf

38 IAEA. 'IAEA International Fact Finding Expert Mission.... Final Report'. 2011-06-22. Page 51.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/meetings/PDFplus/2011/cn200/documentation/cn200_Final-Fukushima-Mission_Report.pdf

39 Hatamura, Y. 'Executive Summary of the Interim Report. Investigation Committee on the Accidents at Fukushima...'. 2011-12-26.
http://icanps.go.jp/eng/120224SummaryEng.pdf

40 Asahi Shimbun. 'Without SPEEDI, residents fled in direction of radiation'. 2011-12-27.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112270061

41 BBC TV. 'Inside the Meltdown'. 2012-02-23.

42 Asahi Shimbun. 'Private panel blames TEPCO's 'systematic negligence'. 2012-02-28.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201202280030

43 NHK, 'The Core of the Disaster'. 2012-03-10.
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/tv/special/311special.html

44 USAEC. WASH-740. "Theoretical Possibilities and Consequences of Major Accidents in Large Nuclear Power Plants". 1957.
http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/wash740.pdf

45 Anon. 'Impact of a Meltdown at Nuclear Plant, Consequences of Reactor Accident (CRAC-2) Report'.
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/crac2.pdf

46 Farmer, F.R. "Reactor Safety and Siting: A Proposed Risk Criterion". Nuclear Safety 8, 539-48 (1967).

47 NRC. 'NUREG-75/014. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
(WASH-1400)'. 1975.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr75-014/

48 Hirschberg, S. et al. 'China Energy Technology Program: Comparative Assessment of Severe Accidents in the Chinese Energy Sector'. Paul Scherrer Institute. PSI Bericht 03-04. 2003 March. pp 77 to 80.
http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/PSI_Report/CETP_RA_Report.pdf

49 Vitazkova & Cazzoli. 'Risk Targets in View of Fukushima: Facts and Myths'. 2011-09-05. pp 5 to 8.
http://www.npsag.org/upload/userfiles/file/CastleMeeting2011/Papers/07 - Paper.pdf

50 Perrow, C. 'Fukushima and the inevitability of accidents', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2011-11-03.
http://www.yale.edu/sociology/faculty/pages/perrow/Fukishima11_1_11.pdf

51 Maurin, F. D. 'Fukushima: Consequences of Systemic Problems in Nuclear Plant Design'. 2011-03-26.
http://uab.academia.edu/FrançoisDiazMaurin/Papers/848047/Fukushima_Consequences_of_Systemic_Problems_in_Nuclear_Plant_Design

52 Asahi Shimbun. 'Nuclear safety advisers slam stress tests'. 2012-02-01.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201202010057

53 Asahi Shimbun. 'Government puzzled by Madarame's remarks on stress tests'. 2012-02-22.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201202220069

54 Asahi Shimbun. ''Edano not banking on nuclear energy this summer'. 2012-01-27.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201201270032

55 von Hippel, F. 'Strengthening the barriers between peaceful and military uses of nuclear energy in a disarming world'. Slide 4.
http://www.faap.br/cees/energianuclear/pdf/Frank von Hippel.pdf

56 Taylor, G. 'The Case Against Nuclear Power'. 2011-06-06.
http://www.energypolicy.co.uk/nuclear.htm

57 Anon. 'ESA21: Environmental Science Activities for the 21st Century – Nuclear Energy – Nuclear Decay'. No date. P 3.
http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/decay/decayactivity.pdf

58 Cherry, R. N. 'Chapter 48 – Radiation: Ionizing'. No date.
http://ilocis.org/documents/chpt48e.htm

59 Realo, E. 'Fukushima Dai-ichi TJ avarii: radionukliidide emissioon'. 2011-05-19.P 10
http://www.tuumajaam.ee/public/documents/Fukushima/Fukushima_environmental_190511.pdf

60 Freeman, L. 'Nuclear Witnesses, Insiders Speak Out'. 1982.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/nwJWG.html

61 Anon. 'RADNET : Information about source points of anthropogenic radioactivity'. No Date.
http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad2.html

62 Busby, C. 'The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe : Comments on the projects and reports of the Review Committee for the Fukushima Prefecture “Prefectural Peoples Health Management Survey”, 2011-08-27. P. 3.
http://www.crms-jpn.com/doc/CommentForFukushima.pdf

63 Dose-Gard Microelectronic Dosimeter.
http://www.dose-gard.com/pdf/dosegard_brochure.pdf

64 Horiba Environmental Radiation Monitor.
http://www.horiba.com/us/en/process-environmental/products/environmental-radiation-monitor/details/pa-1000-environmental-radiation-monitor-radi-3124/

65 NRC. '§ 20.1004 Units of radiation dose'. 2012-01-31.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1004.html

66 Vitázková and Cazzoli. 'Estimate of Consequences from the Fukushima Disaster'. 2011, p5.
http://www.npsag.org/upload/userfiles/file/CastleMeeting2011/Papers/09 - Paper.pdf

67 ORTEC. 'GammaVision®-32 V6.09 Gamma Spectrum Analysis Software'. 2011.
http://www.ortec-online.com/download/A66-B32-GammaVision-32-Gamma-Spectrum-Analysis-Software.pdf

68 Canberra. 'Model 2250 Fastscan High-Throughput Whole Body Counter'. 2002.
http://www.canberra.com/products/629.asp

69 69 MEXT. 'Readings of air dose rate in 20km Zone of TEPCO Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP'.（Mar 18～23 ,2012). P 4.
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/old/en/1100/2012/03/1100_032614.pdf

70 Wotawa, G. 'Accident in the Japanese NPP Fukushima'. ZAMG. 2011-04-01.
http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-04-01_1400_E1.pdf

71 Skomoroski et al. 'Modelling the Regional and Long-Range Dispersion of Radioactivity from the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster at the Austrian Weather Service: Estimate of Release Rates and First Model Validation Based on CTBTO Measurement Data'. ZAMG, 2011-10-02.
http://www.harmo.org/Conferences/Proceedings/_Kos/publishedSections/H14-333.pdf

72 NRC. 'Official Transcript of Proceedings. Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Subcommittee on Fukushima'. pp 92-96.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1114/ML11147A075.pdf

73 Asahi Shimbun. 'Poor communications botched radiation monitoring on March 12'. 2012-02-24.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201202240055

74 'MEXT and DOE Airborne Monitoring'.
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/old/en/monitoring_around_FukushimaNPP_MEXT_DOE_airborne_monitoring/

75 MEXT. 'Results of Airborne Monitoring by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the U.S. Department of Energy'. 2011-05-06.
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/old/en/1280/2011/05/1304797_0506.pdf

76 MEXT. 'Results of Airborne Monitoring Survey by MEXT in Aichi, Aomori, Ishikawa, and Fukui Prefectures'. 2011-11-25. pp 21 to 24.
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/old/en/1270/2011/11/1270_1125.pdf

77 Asahi Shimbun.'Cesium from Fukushima plant fell all over Japan'. 2011-11-26.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201111260001

78 Kinoshita et al. 'Assessment of Individual Radionuclide Distributions from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Covering Central-East Japan'. 2011-12-06.
http:// www.pnas.org/content/108/49/19526.full.pdf

79 NHK News, 'Survey: strontium widespread in Fukushima'. 2011-06-09. in JAIF. 'Earthquake Report, No 107: 18:00, June 9. P 4.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1307611469P.pdf

80 MEXT, 'Results of the Nuclide Analysis of Plutonium and Strontium by MEXT'. 2011-09-30. pp8, 9.
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/old/en/1750/2011/09/1750_093014.pdf

81 Vitázková & Cazzoli. 'Estimate of Consequences from the Fukushima Disaster'. 2011-09-05. P 1
http://www.npsag.org/upload/userfiles/file/CastleMeeting2011/Papers/09 - Paper.pdf

82 El-Jaby, A. 'Fukushima Daiichi NPP Event and Associated Radioactive Source Term – CNSC’S Initial Response'. 2011-08-10. Slide 31.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/ja/wnu_si_intro/document/2011/el-jaby_fukushima_canadianresponse.pdf

83 Chino et al., 'Preliminary Estimation of Release Amounts of I-131 and Cs-137 Accidentally Discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Atmosphere', JAEA. 2011-05-02.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-lM5qg9ztErMzY1NDAxNmUtNmFkNi00OWEwLWI0MzMtMGI5ZjFjZTk0NTBi/edit?hl=en_US

84 Wotawa, G. 'Accident in the Japanese NPP Fukushima'. ZAMG. 2011-03-22.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-lM5qg9ztErZTNlOGRlMDctYTA2Mi00MDhmLWEyMDAtYzI1MDVhZDBiOTcy/edit?hl=en_US

85 'IRSN publishes assessment of radioactivity released by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant...'. 2011-03-22.
http://www.irsn.fr/EN/news/Documents/IRSN_fukushima-radioactivity-released-assessment-EN.pdf

86 Michel, R. 'Radiological Aspects of the Reactor Accident in Fukushima'. 2011-05-16. Page 27. Accessed 2012-01-01.
http://www.zsr.uni-hannover.de/handouts/dufascha.pdf

87 Wotawa, G. 'Accident in the Japanese NPP Fukushima'. ZAMG. 2011-04-01. P3.
http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/aktuell/Japan2011-04-01_1400_E1.pdf

88 Michel, R. 'Radiological Aspects of the Reactor Accident in Fukushima'. 2011-05-16. Page 27. Accessed 2012-01-01.
http://www.zsr.uni-hannover.de/handouts/dufascha.pdf

89 Chino et al., 'Preliminary Estimation of Release Amounts of I-131 and Cs-137 Accidentally Discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Atmosphere', JAEA. 2011-05-02.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-lM5qg9ztErMzY1NDAxNmUtNmFkNi00OWEwLWI0MzMtMGI5ZjFjZTk0NTBi/edit?hl=en_US

90 KIT. 'Hintergrundinformationen zu ausgewählten Themen zum nuklearen Störfall in Japan Nr. 052'. 2011-05-26. P 1.
http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Japan-Hintergrundinfo_Nr052_Caesium_Kontamination.pdf

91 Morino et al. 'Atmospheric behavior, deposition, and budget of radioactive materials from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March'. 2011-08-02.
http://www.nies.go.jp/shinsai/Merge-2011GL048689-pip.pdf

92 Sugata, S. et al. 'Air Quality perspectives from Japan and Response/impact of the recent Earthquake/Tsunami'. Slides 30-38.
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/IWAQFR/presentations/Japan_KEYNOTE_Sugata.pdf

93 Scheuermann et al, 'Modelling and Simulation of the Radioactive Release During the Fukushima Accident'. U. Stuttgart, 2011-10-02. Table 3
http://www.harmo.org/Conferences/Proceedings/_Kos/publishedSections/H14-332.pdf

94 Skomoroski et al. 'Modelling the Regional and Long-Range Dispersion of Radioactivity from the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster at the Austrian Weather Service: Estimate of Release Rates and First Model Validation Based on CTBTO Measurement Data'. ZAMG, 2011-10-02.
http://www.harmo.org/Conferences/Proceedings/_Kos/publishedSections/H14-333.pdf

95 Stohl et al. 'Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant...', 2011-10-20. P 28321.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011-print.pdf

96 IAEA, 'INES The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User's Manual 2008 Edition'. P 17
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf

97 TEPCO. Report indicating total release, within the first 100 hours, of P238,P239,P240,P241,Np239. (2011).
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B-lM5qg9ztErNGUyMzFkMGUtYTY0NC00YWJhLTg0YjItNmE4MDMzMzAxZTFl&hl=en_US

98 Anon. 'Study Modeling Fukushima NPP P-239 and Np-239 Atmospheric Dispersion'. 2011-10-27.
http://www.datapoke.org/blog/89/study-modeling-fukushima-npp-p-239-and-np-239-atmospheric-dispersion/

99 Busby, C. 'The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe : Comments on the projects and reports of the Review Committee for the Fukushima Prefecture “Prefectural Peoples Health Management Survey”, 2011-08-27. Table 1.
http://www.crms-jpn.com/doc/CommentForFukushima.pdf

100 NEI. 'TEPCO reports limited damage at unit 2&3 majority of fuel damaged, but still in core'. 2011-05-26.
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2059707

101 Stohl et al. 'Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant...'. 2011-10-20. P 28322
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011-print.pdf

102 MNT. 'Fukushima Radiation Fallout Bigger Than Officially Reported'. 2011-10-31.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/236811.php

103 IRSN. 'Synthèse actualisée des connaissances relatives à l’impact sur le milieu marin des rejets radioactifs du site nucléaire accidenté de Fukushima Dai-ichi'. P 1
http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Documents/IRSN-NI-Impact_accident_Fukushima_sur_milieu_marin_26102011.pdf

104 Isnard, O. 'The Elaboration of a Mapping during the Emergency Phase: the example of Fukushima NPS'. 2011-11-08.
http://www.eurosafe-forum.org/userfiles/2_3_%20paper_Mapping%20Emergency_Isnard.pdf

105 Chino, M. 'System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information SPEEDI/ WSPEEDI -Its Application to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident'. Japan Atomic Energy Agency. 2011-10-03.
http://www.batan.go.id/ptlr/seminar/sites/default/files/Materi_Speedi_Massamichi_Chino.pdf

106 Anon. 'SPEEDI calculation, March 11‐April24, Cumulative exposure to adult'. 2011-04-25.
http://www.nsc.go.jp/info/110425_top_siryo.pdf

107 KIT. 'Hintergrundinformationen zu ausgewählten Themen zum nuklearen Störfall in Japan Nr. 052'. 2011-05-26. P 1
http://www.kit.edu/downloads/Japan-Hintergrundinfo_Nr052_Caesium_Kontamination.pdf

108 Vitázková & Cazzoli. 'Estimate of Consequences from the Fukushima Disaster'. 2011-09-05.
http://www.npsag.org/upload/userfiles/file/CastleMeeting2011/Papers/09 – Paper.pdf

109 Arnold et al. 'Modelling of Atmospheric Dispersion with ARTM and RODOS Following the Accident at Fukushima Daiichi NPP and Comparison with Measurements'. GRS, 2011-10-02.
http://www.harmo.org/Conferences/Proceedings/_Kos/publishedSections/H14-334.pdf

110 Kinoshita et al. 'Assessment of Individual Radionuclide Distributions from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Covering Central-East Japan'
2011-12-06.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/49/19526.full.pdf

111 Yasunari et al. 'Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident', 2011-12-06.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/11/1112058108.full.pdf

112 IRSN. 'Assessment on the 66th Day of Projected External Doses for Populations Living in the North-West Fallout Zone of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident'. 2011-05-23.
http://www.irsn.fr/EN/news/Documents/IRSN-Fukushima-Report-DRPH-23052011.pdf

113 Mainichi. 'Soil contamination from Fukushima crisis comparable to Chernobyl: study'. 2011-05-26.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/archive/index.php/t-21390.html

114 Large and Associates. 'Fukushima: Lessons Learned for UK New Nuclear Build', 2011-06-14.
http://www.nuclearconsult.com/docs/seminars/140611/R3200-Summary.pdf

115 Vitázková & Cazzoli. 'Estimate of Consequences from the Fukushima Disaster'. 2011-09-05. P 15
http://www.npsag.org/upload/userfiles/file/CastleMeeting2011/Papers/09 – Paper.pdf

116 Asahi Shimbun. 'Fukushima cesium contamination widespread but less than Chernobyl', 2011-09-14.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109130348.html

117 von Hippel, F. 'Radiological and Psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident', 2011-09-19. pp 28,29
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/5/27.full.pdf

118 Shepherd, J.E. 'The Crisis at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant'. 2011-09-30. P 199.
http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/%7Ejeshep/fukushima/ShepherdFukushima30Sept2011.pdf

119 AFP. 'Some land in Japan too radioactive to farm: study'. 2011-10-05.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iDPPfrrAKeCREAnNAOZlvfUtX6pw?docId=CNG.e7097baaf0cac3cf07a994d1d9ba8139.511

120 Yasunari et al. 'Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident'. 2011-12-05.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/11/11/1112058108.full.pdf

121 The Economist. "Hot spots and blind spots", 2011-10-08.
http://www.tokyoprogressive.org/content/economist-oxford-professor-says-ok-raise-annual-dose-limit-1000-times-japanese-reporter-relu

122 IAEA. 'Final Report of the International Mission on Remediation of Large Contaminated Areas Off-Site the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP'. 2011-11-15. P 1.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/final_report151111.pdf

123 ABC. 'Radiation covers 8pc of Japan', 2011-11-22.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-22/japan-land-contaminated-by-radiation/3686324

124 MEXT. 'Results of Airborne Monitoring by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the U.S. Department of Energy'. 2011-05-06. Annex 4.
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/old/en/1280/2011/05/1304797_0506.pdf

125 Vitázková & Cazzoli. 'Estimate of Consequences from the Fukushima Disaster'. 2011-09-05. Page 15.
http://www.npsag.org/upload/userfiles/file/CastleMeeting2011/Papers/09 – Paper.pdf

126 Michel, R. 'Radioecological Aspects of the Reactor Accident in Fukushima'. 2011-05-16. Accessed 2012-01-01
http://www.zsr.uni-hannover.de/handouts/dufascha.pdf

127 JAIF, 'Earthquake Report: No. 98: 18:00, May 31'. 2011-05-31. P 5.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1306833181P.pdf

128 METI. 'Restricted Area, Deliberate Evacuation Area, Evacuation-Prepared Area in case of Emergency And Regions including Specific Spots Recommended for Evacuation (As of August 3, 2011). 2011-08.03
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/roadmap/pdf/evacuation_map_a.pdf

129 Vitázková & Cazzoli. 'Estimate of Consequences from the Fukushima Disaster'. 2011-09-05. P 15
http://www.npsag.org/upload/userfiles/file/CastleMeeting2011/Papers/09 – Paper.pdf

130 Large and Associates. 'Fukushima: Lessons Learned for UK New Nuclear Build', 2011-06-14.
http://www.nuclearconsult.com/docs/seminars/140611/R3200-Summary.pdf

131 Reuters. 'Fukushima victims are desperate, angry, homeless', 2011-10-18.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44947085/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/fukushima-victims-are-desperate-angry-homeless/

132 Asahi Shimbun. 'Cesium from Fukushima plant fell all over Japan'. 2011-11-26.
http:// ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201111260001

133 ICRP. 'Publication 111'. 2009. Page 11.
http://www.icrp.org/docs/P111(Special%20Free%20Release).pdf

134 AESJ. 'Effects of Radiation Exposure on Human Body and Radiological Protection Criteria'. 2011-05-09. Table 1
http://www.aesj.or.jp/en/release/Radiological_Protection_Criteria110509.pdf

135 Asahi Shimbun. 'Estimated 13,000 square km eligible for decontamination'. 2011-10-12.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201110110214.html

136 IRSN. 'Assessment on the 66th Day of Projected External Doses for Populations Living in the North-West Fallout Zone of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident'. 2011-05-23. P18.
http://www.irsn.fr/EN/news/Documents/IRSN-Fukushima-Report-DRPH-23052011.pdf

137 Nathalie-Kyoko Stucky. 'The Buddha of Fukushima’s Forbidden Zone: A Photo Essay'. 2012-01-15.
http://www.japansubculture.com/the-buddha-of-fukushimas-forbidden-zone-a-photo-essay/

138 New York Times. 'Large Zone Near Japanese Reactors to Be Off Limits'. 2011-08-21.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/world/asia/22japan.html

139 Reuters. 'Areas near Japan nuclear plant may be off-limits for decades', 2011-08-27.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/27/us-japan-nuclear-uninhabitable-idUSTRE77Q17U20110827

140 ABC. 'Former special adviser says Japan “too scared” to tell people the truth about Fukushima future', 2011-09-23.
http://enenews.com/abc-former-special-adviser-japan-scared-people-return-fukushima-govt-conveyed-truth

141 Paul Jobin. 'Dying for TEPCO? Fukushima’s Nuclear Contract Workers'. The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 18 No 3. 2011-04-29.
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Paul-Jobin/3523

142 NHK. 'Radiation exposure for 2 workers may exceed limit'. in JAIF, 'Earthquake Report: No. 97: 18:00, May 30'. 2011-05-30. P 2.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1306747714P.pdf

143 'Summary of the events reported in Japanese NPPs as a result of the earthquake on Friday 11th March – status on Tuesday, June 14th'. P 1.
https://clearinghouse-oef.jrc.ec.europa.eu/prompt-notifications/fukushima-nuclear-accident/daily-updates-on-the-situation/Fukushima%20-%20update%20%2395th%20day.pdf

144 NHK, May 30, 2011 & June 10, 2011. In Turkenburg, W. 'What happened with the nuclear plant Fukushima-1, and what could be the impact ?' 2011-06-16. Slides 77 & 112.
http://nws.chem.uu.nl/publica/Publicaties%202011/Fukushima-16%20June%202011.pdf

145 NHK, Monday, June 13, 2011 20:57 +0900 (JST). In Turkenburg, W. 'What happened with the nuclear plant Fukushima-1, and what could be the impact ?' 2011-06-16. Slide 113
http://nws.chem.uu.nl/publica/Publicaties%202011/Fukushima-16%20June%202011.pdf

146 JAIF, 'Status of countermeasures for restoring from the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 1 through 4. as of October 7th, 2011'. 2011-10-07. P.2.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1317958363P.pdf

147 The Canadian. 'Fukushima rescuer dies from internal radiation'. 2011-11-13.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/intrnational/2011/11/13/1687.html

148 The Japan Times, 'Cabinet kept alarming nuke report secret'. 2012-01-22.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120122a1.html

149 Busby, C. 'The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe: Initial analysis from risk model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk', 2011-03-30. Tables 5 and 6
http://www.llrc.org/fukushima/subtopic/fukushimariskcalc.pdf

150 Cochran, T.B. et al. 'Statement ... on the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster and its Implications for Nuclear Power Safety', 2011-05-26. Page 44, Table A2.
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/nrsb/miscellaneous/Cochranpresentation.pdf

151 Turkenburg, W. 'What happened with the nuclear plant Fukushima-1, and what could be the impact ?' 2011-06-16. Slides 77, 112 and 113
http://nws.chem.uu.nl/publica/Publicaties%202011/Fukushima-16%20June%202011.pdf

152 Vitazkova, J. & Cazzoli, E. 'Estimate of Consequences from the Fukushima Disaster'. 2011-09-05. P 38
http://www.npsag.org/upload/userfiles/file/CastleMeeting2011/Papers/09%20-%20Paper.pdf

153 von Hippel, F. 'Radiological and Psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident', 2011-09-19. P 1.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/5/27.full.pdf

154 Sutcliffe, Charles. 'The Dangers of Low Level Radiation'. ISBN 0 566 05482 5. 1987. Page 195.

155 ECRR. '2010 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk. The Health Effects of Exposure to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation'. 2010.
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf

156 NHK. 'Checking internal radiation of people begins'. in JAIF. Earthquake Report, No. 141: 12:00, July 13. P 4.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1310526965P.pdf

157 The Telegraph. 'Children in Fukushima to be given regular cancer tests'. 2011-07-26.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8661421/Children-in-Fukushima-to-be-given-regular-cancer-tests.html

158 NHK. 'Radiation effect on children’s thyroid glands'. 2011-08-14.
http://enenews.com/radioactive-iodine-found-in-50-percent-of-childrens-thyroids-up-to-35-millisieverts-35000- microsieverts

159 BBC. 'Fukushima children receive thyroid tests'. 2011-10-09.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15234787

160 Asahi Shimbun. 'Half of Fukushima evacuees exposed to radiation above annual limit'. 2011-12-09.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/life_and_death/AJ201112090007

161 Martin J. Frid. 'Food Safety: Addressing Radiation in Japan’s Northeast after 3.11', The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 31 No 3, August 1, 2011.
http://japanfocus.org/-Martin_J_-Frid/3580

162 Foodwatch & IPPNW. 'Press Release, Official Permissible Limits for Radioactive Contamination in Foodstuffs', 2011-09-20.
http://foodwatch.de/foodwatch/content/e6380/e45020/e45141/press-release_background_report_ger.pdf

163 NHK. 'Cesium found in hay at another farm in Fukushima'. in JAIF. 'Earthquake Report No. 143: 12:00, July 15. P 4.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1310712950P.pdf

164 NHK. 'Govt to buy back beef with excessive cesium levels' in JAIF. 'Earthquake Report No 154'. 2011-07-26. P 2.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1311653664P.pdf

165 NHK. 'Govt to check rice for radiation' and 'Govt bans beef shipments from Iwate' in JAIF. 'Earthquake Report No. 161'. 2011-08-02. pp 3, 5.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1312260233P.pdf

166 Reuters. 'Japan lifts beef ban for Miyagi but Fukushima on hold'. 2011-08-19.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/us-japan-beef-idUSTRE77I1YB20110819

167 AFP. 'Japan bans Fukushima rice for radiation'. 2011-11-17.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jsC8TPfYltYyQgpGHq4atHounMvg

168 The Yomiuri Shimbun. 'Suspect cattle still untested / Location of nearly 3,000 cows in radiation scare remains unknown'.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120126006317.htm

169 Anon. UNSCEAR 1982, Annexe F, Table 37, p 312.
http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/1982/1982-F2_unscear.pdf

170 NY Times. 'Company Says Radioactive Water Leak at Japan Plant is Plugged'. 2011-04-05.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/asia/06japan.html

171 Turkenburg, W. 'What happened with the nuclear plant Fukushima-1, and what could be the impact ?' 2011-06-16. Slides 100 and 104.
http://nws.chem.uu.nl/publica/Publicaties%202011/Fukushima-16%20June%202011.pdf

172 Weiss, D. 'Contamination of water, sediments and biota of the Northern Pacific coastal area in the vicinity of the Fukushima NPP'. 2011-11-08.
http://www.eurosafe-forum.org/userfiles/2_2_ paper_marine environment_Fukushima_20111031.pdf
and
http://www.eurosafe-forum.org/userfiles/2_2_ slides_Contamination Pacific1_Weiss_20111108.pdf

173 NHK. 'TEPCO to install additional storage tanks'. 2011-06-04.
http://fukushimanewsresearch.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/japan-tepco-to-install-additional-storage-tanks/

174 Shepherd, J.E. 'The Crisis at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant'. 2011-09-30. Slides 216, 218, 235.
http://www2.galcit.caltech.edu/%7Ejeshep/fukushima/ShepherdFukushima30Sept2011.pdf

175 Large and Associates. 'Fukushima: Lessons Learned for UK New Nuclear Build'. 2011-06-14.
http://www.nuclearconsult.com/docs/seminars/140611/R3200-Summary.pdf

176 Asahi Shimbun. 'Fisheries demand TEPCO drop water-release plan', 2011-12-08.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112080064

177 The Economist. "Hot spots and blind spots", 2011-10-08.
http://www.tokyoprogressive.org/content/economist-oxford-professor-says-ok-raise-annual-dose-limit-1000-times-japanese-reporter-relu

178 Asahi Shimbun. 'Estimated 13,000 square km eligible for decontamination'. 2011-10-12.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201110110214.html

179 Reuters. 'Japan cities face growing radioactive ash, troubles ahead', 2011-10-17.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/us-japan-nuclear-waste-idUSTRE79G0JX20111017

180 Guardian. 'Fukushima plant could take 30 years to clean up', 2011-10-31.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/31/fukushima-nuclear-plant-30-years-cleanup?newsfeed=true

181 IAEA. 'Final Report of the International Mission on Remediation of Large Contaminated Areas Off-Site the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP'. 2011-11-15. P 1.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/final_report151111.pdf

182 Asahi Shimbun. 'High radioactive content detected in ash from wood stoves'. 2012-02-11.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201202110053

183 Mainichi. 'Radioactive crushed stone used in around 60 Fukushima buildings'. 2012-01-23.
https://11byevelyn.com/feed/527-radioactive-crushed-stone-used-in-around-60-fukushima-buildings-–-mainichi-daily-news

184 Asahi Shimbun. 'Road map released for Fukushima decontamination'. 2012-01-27.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201201270048

185 Satoh, H. 'Fukushima and the Future of Nuclear Energy in Japan: The Need for a Robust Social Contract (ARI), ARI 113-2011 – 29/6/2011. 2011-06-29.
http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_eng/Content?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/asia-pacific/ari113-2011

186 Reuters. 'Japan faces costly, unprecedented radiation cleanup'. 2011-08-25.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/26/us-japan-nuclear-decontamination-idUSTRE77P0HE20110826

187 Asahi Shimbun. 'Estimated 13,000 square km eligible for decontamination'. 2011-10-12.
http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201110110214.html

188 Reuters. 'Fukushima victims are desperate, angry, homeless', 2011-10-18.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44947085/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/fukushima-victims-are-desperate-angry-homeless/

189 Guardian. 'Fukushima plant could take 30 years to clean up', 2011-10-31.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/31/fukushima-nuclear-plant-30-years-cleanup?newsfeed=true

190 Asahi Shimbun. 'Up to 1 million people could get Fukushima compensation'.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201112060011

191 Swiss Re. 'Nuclear Risks in Property Insurance and Limitations of Insurability'. 2003-11 P 2.
http://media.swissre.com/documents/pub_nuclear_risks_in_property_insurance_en.pdf

192 'Department for Business, Innovation and Skills resource accounts 2009-10: including the consolidated resource accounts for the year ended 31 March 2010' (HC 211, Session 2010-11).
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/b/10-p102-bis-resource-accounts-2009-10.pdf

193 Versicherungsforen Leipzig. 'Studie: Berechnung einer risikoadäquaten Versicherungsprämie...' 2011-04-01.
http://www.bee-ev.de/_downloads/publikationen/studien/2011/110511_BEE-Studie_Versicherungsforen_KKW.pdf

194 PV Magazine. 'True cost of nuclear examined in new study'. 2011-05-11.
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/true-cost-of-nuclear-examined-in-new-study_100002882/

195 Ethics Commission for a Safe Energy Supply. 'Germany’s energy transition – A collective project for the future'. 2011-05-30. P 4.
http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/_Anlagen/2011/05/2011-05-30-abschlussbericht-ethikkommission_en.pdf

196 Toepfer, Prof. K. 'Consequences of Fukushima and a Proposal for Post 2012 Climate Regime'. 2011-06-26. Slide 19.
http://www.iges.or.jp/en/news/event/isap2011/pdf/day1/Topfer.pdf

197 Kleiner, Prof. M. 'Plenary Session 102A „Energy and Environment“, 8th Annual Meeting STS-Forum, Kyoto. 2011-10-2-4. P 13.
http://www.dfg.de/jp/zentralablage_jp/pdf/aktuelles/berichte/111002_stsforum_speech_kleiner.pdf

198 Kitamura, T. 'Kitamura experience in Evacuation Life (24)'. 2011-04-18.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/fukushima/evacuation/kitamura_diary_24.pdf

199 Japan Today. 'Gov't may buy land within 20-km radiation no-go zone'. 2011-08-22.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/govt-considering-to-buy-land-within-20-km-radiation-no-go-zone

200 Asahi Shimbun. 'Insurance Companies Reject Fukushima Nuke Plant', 2011-09-18.
http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/insurance-companies-reject-fukushima-nuke-plant-nuke-corporate-dole-bludgers/

201 KUNA. 'Fukushima plant operator gets USD 7.2 billion from public fund'. 2011-11-15.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2202448&Language=en

202 Asahi Shimbun. 'TEPCO to deposit 120 billion yen for future claims'. 2012-01-11.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201201110028

203 Williams, M.M.R. 'Nuclear Aerosol Behaviour During Reactor Accidents', 1990. P 101.
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/28803/1/0000637.pdf

204 Chino et al., 'Preliminary Estimation of Release Amounts of I-131 and Cs-137 Accidentally Discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Atmosphere', JAEA. 2011-05-02. P 5
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-lM5qg9ztErMzY1NDAxNmUtNmFkNi00OWEwLWI0MzMtMGI5ZjFjZTk0NTBi/edit?hl=en_US

205 Michel, R. 'Radioecological Aspects of the Reactor Accident in Fukushima', IRS, Leibniz University, Hannover. 2011-05-16. Page 27. Accessed 2012-01-01.
http://www.zsr.uni-hannover.de/handouts/dufascha.pdf

206 Guardian. 'UK government's Fukushima crisis plan based on bigger leak than Chernobyl', 2011-06-20.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jun/20/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-japan
and
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/58313487?access_key=key-1amf2uutax7h93geh699

207 Pretzsch, G et al. 'Radioactive Inventory at the Fukushima NPP'. 2011-11-08.
http://www.eurosafe-forum.org/userfiles/2_1_ paper_Radioact inventory Fukushima_Pretzsch_19102011.pdf

208 Stohl et al. 'Xenon-133 and caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant...'. 2011-10-20.
pp 28322, 28392, 28352.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/28319/2011/acpd-11-28319-2011-print.pdf

209 Broomfiel, G. 'Fallout forensics hike radiation toll'. Nature. 2011-10-25.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111025/full/478435a.html

210 Asahi Shimbun. 'Government envisioned Tokyo evacuation in worst-case scenario'. 2012-01-07.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201201070039

211 The Courier-Mail. 'Japan 'had Tokyo evacuation plan''. 2012-01-26.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/japan-had-tokyo-evacuation-plan/story-fn6ck55c-1226253956647

212 Kyodo. Photograph of Kondo 'Worst Case' Report. 2012-01-21.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4BiqyE_JTMs/Txs1KgvayRI/AAAAAAAAC80/4OcPMx8tY44/s400/kyodoworstcase.JPG

213 Taylor, G. 'The Case Against Nuclear Power'. 2011-06-06.
http://www.energypolicy.co.uk/nuclear.htm

214 Farmers' Guardian. 'Are fears over Chernobyl radiation restrictions justified?' 2012-01-19.
http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/livestock/livestock-news/are-fears-over-chernobyl-radiation-restrictions-justified?/44132.article

215 IAEA. 'Safety Assessment of General Design Aspects of NPPs, (Part 1)'. No Date. Slide 7
http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/ni/training/specific_expert_knowledge/safety assessment/III 1_1 SA of Gen Design Asp of NPPs (Part 1) (Coment1).pdf

216 Greenpeace USA. 'Risky Business: The Probability and Consequences of a Nuclear Accident'. 2008. P 5.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2008/3/risky-business-the-probabilit-3.pdf

217 Anon. 'Security overhaul' in 'N-Base Briefing News May - June 2002'.
http://www.n-base.org.uk/public/latest_links/latest1/latest83.htm

218 Hirschberg, S. et al. 'China Energy Technology Program: Comparative Assessment of Severe Accidents in the Chinese Energy Sector'. Paul Scherrer Institute. PSI Bericht 03-04. 2003 March. P 80
http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/PSI_Report/CETP_RA_Report.pdf

219 ONR. 'Japanese earthquake and tsunami: Implications for the UK nuclear industry. Final Report'. September 2011. p (viii) and p (x)
http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/fukushima/final-report.pdf

220 Highton and Senior. 'The Siting of Nuclear Installations in the United Kingdom'. 2008-07-03. Page 4.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/nusac/030708/p12-sittingpaper.pdf

221 NII. 'Land Use Planning and the Siting of Nuclear Installations in the United Kingdom'. No Date. Page 7.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/landuseplanning/land-use-planning.pdf

222 Asahi Shimbun. 'Government envisioned Tokyo evacuation in worst-case scenario'. 2012-01-07.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201201070039

223 BBC. 'New UK nuclear plant sites named'. 2011-06-23.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13887579

224 Stockie, J. 'Mathematics of Air: Modelling of Pollutant Transport in the Atmosphere. 2011-05-13. Slide 19.
http:// www.humboldtcanada.com/presentations_air/stockie.pdf

225 Williams, M.M.R. 'Nuclear Aerosol Behaviour During Reactor Accidents', 1990. P 1.
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/28803/1/0000637.pdf

226 US National Academy of Science. 'Beir VII: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation'. 2005.
http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/beir_vii_final.pdf

227 ECRR. '2010 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk. The Health Effects of Exposure to Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation'. 2010.
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf

228 ICRP. 'The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection'. 2007.
http://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20103

229 Wrixon, A.D. 'New ICRP recommendations'. 2008.
http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/28/2/R02/pdf/0952-4746_28_2_R02.pdf

230 IAEA, 'INES The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User’s Manual 2008 Edition'. P 17.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf

231 http://www.unscear.org/