Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

In reply to the discussion: TEPCO Rose [View all]

PamW

(1,825 posts)
10. There's tons spread around the world WITHOUT the bunkers.
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:07 PM
Feb 2013

RobertEarl states:
And there are tons of plutonium sitting in bunkers spread around the world.

There are tons of plutonium spread around the world WITHOUT the bunkers. There are tons of plutonium that are just spread around the world in the environment due to the years of atmospheric nuclear testing by the USA and the Soviet Union back in the 1950s. To be precise, there are 10 metric tons, which equals 10,000 kilograms or 10 million grams of Plutonium in the environment due to atmospheric nuclear testing. Here's a reference from Clark University, see page 5:

http://www.clarku.edu/departments/marsh/projects/community/plutonium.pdf

The largest amount of plutonium released into the environment comes from atmospheric nuclear bomb testing (1945-1962). About 10 metric tons of plutonium were released into the atmosphere during these tests.

The 10 metric tons of plutonium, summed with the other radioactive debris from the tests including Strontium-90 and Cesium-137; in total provides less than 0.03% of the average person's annual radiation exposure. Courtesy of the University of Michigan Health Physics Society chapter; see Table entry denoted "Fallout":

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

From the above, University of Michigan website; nuclear weapon test fallout is <0.03%. The vast majority of the average person's annual radiation exposure is due to Mother Nature.

BTW, while we have 10 million grams of plutonium in the environment already due to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Fukushima just added 2 grams to that 10 million gram total:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5774#comment-21635

The BRAWM team at the Nuclear Engineering Dept. of University of California-Berkeley has been measuring and analyzing the fallout from the Fukushima event since the beginning. One of their members, Mark Bandstra, provided the above summary in the forum maintained by the BRAWM team of the total releases from Fukushima by isotope. If you sum the plutonium isotopes; you get about 2 grams.

PamW

TEPCO Rose [View all] Octafish Feb 2013 OP
What "murder of 8 billion people" are you talking about? wtmusic Feb 2013 #1
I imagine that refers to plutonium exposure. Octafish Feb 2013 #2
Sounds like the seabirds are healthy. wtmusic Feb 2013 #3
According to your way of thinking, wtmusic, plutonium must be good for you. Octafish Feb 2013 #4
Is that what passes for logic these days? FBaggins Feb 2013 #8
Fantastic catch! Octafish Feb 2013 #11
What about him/her? FBaggins Feb 2013 #12
Lady Barbara Judge is the subject of the post. Do you have anything to add about her? Octafish Feb 2013 #13
She's the subject of the thread... not the post. FBaggins Feb 2013 #18
Thanks. Very astute observation, FBaggins. Octafish Feb 2013 #29
This is where EDUCATION is needed.. PamW Feb 2013 #34
I like education Thanks Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #35
Spontaneous fission. PamW Feb 2013 #36
Turbine steam was in direct contact with the MOX fuel? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #37
Actually... PamW Feb 2013 #40
Tell us what you think of this, Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #41
Sure.... PamW Feb 2013 #43
Plutonium Pam RobertEarl Feb 2013 #44
I've looked... PamW Feb 2013 #46
Denying science again, aren't you, Pam? Yep. RobertEarl Feb 2013 #49
I don't doubt the Lithuaninan scientists.. PamW Feb 2013 #51
Bravo. wtmusic Feb 2013 #38
Pam sure made this clear RobertEarl Feb 2013 #39
You need to cool a reactor.. PamW Feb 2013 #42
Wow, Pam. RobertEarl Feb 2013 #45
Again... PamW Feb 2013 #47
Another profound statement RobertEarl Feb 2013 #50
I'm glad you AGREE!! PamW Feb 2013 #48
She's not suggesting they are thinking about re-starting parts of the Dai-ichi plant is she? AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #5
Her hiring may be a PR move of the first stank rather than as a professional fixer-upper. Octafish Feb 2013 #6
K&R RobertEarl Feb 2013 #7
Nuclear war is crazy. Nuclear weapons are crazy. Nuclear power is crazy. Octafish Feb 2013 #9
There's tons spread around the world WITHOUT the bunkers. PamW Feb 2013 #10
That paper was published in 2002. It's a good bet there's a lot more plutonium now. Octafish Feb 2013 #14
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! Everything you said was 100% WRONG!!! PamW Feb 2013 #15
Uhhh, Pam? You do know this, right? RobertEarl Feb 2013 #16
I hope she doesn't know it... FBaggins Feb 2013 #19
Hey, ya seen #4 RobertEarl Feb 2013 #20
Another straw man? FBaggins Feb 2013 #21
Building #4 has crumbled RobertEarl Feb 2013 #23
WRONG AGAIN!!! PamW Feb 2013 #25
There are TONS of spent MOX (PLUTONIUM and URANIUM!!!) outside that core in the spent fuel pools. Octafish Feb 2013 #32
Another thread you should review FBaggins Feb 2013 #33
You're kidding, right? FBaggins Feb 2013 #26
Self-righteous anti-nukes. PamW Feb 2013 #28
You'll get a kick out of today's Dilbert FBaggins Feb 2013 #30
I'll have to send this to my colleague.. PamW Feb 2013 #31
YES - volatile materials PamW Feb 2013 #22
Thank you for straightening me out, PamW. Octafish Feb 2013 #17
But you need to be an engineer... PamW Feb 2013 #24
Scientifically - I agree with the TEPCO assessment PamW Feb 2013 #27
Lady Barbara Judge to give David J. Rose Memorial Lecture at MIT PamW Feb 2013 #52
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»TEPCO Rose»Reply #10