TEPCO Rose

[PamW]

43. Sure....

RobertEarl,

The peak concentration of radioactivity that you quote above is the 3700 mBq/m3 of I-131.

Let's calculate just how much I-131 there is for 3700 mBq.

First 3700 mBq ( milli-Becquerel ) is 3.7 Bequerels

We need the radioactive decay constant of Iodine-131. The half-life of I-131 is 8.0197 days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-131

Let's convert that to seconds:

8.0197 days = 8.0197 days * 24 hours / day * 3600 sec / hour = 692902.08 sec

The decay constant is the natural logarithm of 2 divided by the half-life:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/halfli2.html

decay constant lambda = ln(2)/692902.08 sec = 1.00035e-06 inverse seconds

The radioactivity in Becquerels is equal to the product of the decay constant in inverse seconds and the number of atoms of the radioactive material:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/halfli2.html#c3

dN/dt = -lambda * N ( the negative sign means the number of radioactive atoms goes down due to the decay )

The radioactivity is the magnitude ( absolute value ) of dN/dt

So lambda * N = 3.7 Bq

So N = 3.7 Bq / 1.00035e-06 inverse seconds = 3.699e+06 atoms

A "mole" is 6.023e+23 atoms. So the number of moles we have is

#moles = 3.699e+06 atoms / 6.023e+23 atoms/mole = 6.141e-18 moles

The mass of a mole is the atomic weight in grams. Since the atomic weight of I-131 is 131; then there are 131 grams per mole of I-131.

So the mass of the Iodine-131 with 3700 mBq is

mass = 6.141e-18 moles * 131 grams/mole = 8.044e-16 grams

which is a bit less than 1.0e-15 grams. 1.0e-12 grams is a trillion-th of a gram. 1.0e-15 is one thousand times less.

So the amount of Iodine-131 in that 3700 mBq is less than one-thousand-th of one-trillion-th of a gram.

Congratulations your largest radioactivity above is a MANIFESTLY TRIVIAL amount of I-131.

The radioactivity measured in Lithuania from Fukushima is just like the radioactivity measured in California from Fukushima; a fantastically TRIVIAL amount.

That radioactivity is 10s of thousands of times LESS than what Mother Nature is giving you courtesy of the fact that her Earth is radioactive, and Mother Nature is making new radioactivity all the time due to cosmic rays.

Now WHY are we concerned about this manifestly trivial amount of radioactivity, when Mother Nature is blasting us with 10s of thousands of times MORE?

Do you think someone would get upset if you brought a handful of sand to the beach? Do you think they would get upset that you were doing environmental damage by adding a handful of sand to what the beach naturally has? Are you "over-sanding" your beach?

This is one of the problems with the anti-nukes; they don't understand the science. They see a number like 3700, and think that 3700 of anything is a lot. They don't understand that a Becquerel is a really, really small amount of radioactivity. A mBq is a thousand times less.

One of the things that the anti-nukes really fail to appreciate is that we have the technology to detect EXTREMELY small amounts of radioactivity.

In answer to your question about what I thought of the facts you posted; NOT MUCH.

Why should I, or you for that matter; be concerned with such a TRIVIAL amount of radioactive material?

Mother Nature is blasting us with orders of magnitude more; and the anti-nukes are focused on this minutia, just because it came from Fukushima.

Go figure.

PamW