IODINE-131 a basic map comparison: Fukushima versus Chernobyl

Similarly to what I did to compare Chernobyl and Fukushima as far as the fallout maps for radioactive Cesium (137, 134)  (SEE HERE for the radioactive Cesium maps and those comparison basics), what follows is a basic comparison for I-131’s deposit maps.  It’s just to get a basic idea.

First: the Iodine-131 fallout map released by SPEEDI (Japan’s Education Ministry).  SOURCE: http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/saigaijohou/syousai/1305747.htm    –> Look for March 25, 2011 pdf (they had it all along, only just recently without any mainstream media attention added it to their data sets…)  It’s this one:   福島第1原子力発電所(特定条件 WSPEEDI)[平成23年3月25日(金曜日)]  (PDF:594KB) 

NOTE: the data are up to March 23, and I-131 has an 8-day half-life day, meaning that after some 10+ half-life cycles (3 months), the radiation is reduced to negligible.  But… the map I found for the same across Belarus, which received most of the Ukraine’s Chernobyl disaster fallout, also in the 2 weeks following it.  The main difference is that much more Fukushima fallout appears to have ended up in ground water and the ocean, rather than gone airborne. while in 1986 most went up in smoke and spread through the athmosphere.  The comparison here is for airborne deposits.

–> BEST Chernobyl fallout maps SOURCE I’ve found so far:  http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/annexj.pdf 

 I’ll just go through it step by step:

MAP FOR I-131 JAPAN (March 2011):

Same Map with enhanced borders (to see color boundaries better):

Japan Google map with scale showing same region, and a 200 kilometer by 200 kilometer square (from Fukushima Daiichi to the outskirts of Tokyo), and then this square supoerimposed on GoogleMaps:

This (above) map can be compared to the last one further in this blogpost.  On the Belarus map blue colors don’t even show up within the 200 km by 200 km square as the levels are so extreme (nothing under 1,000,000 Bq/m^2).

Okay, now for Chernobyl:  MAP for I-131 BELARUS (just north of Chernobyl – 1986):

Detail of that (square is also 200 km by 200 km):

.

—> HERE IS “THE KEY” to translate one color legend to the other and vise versa, so easy comparison becomes possible (notice the logarhitmic nature of the scale):

SO…

FUKUSHIMA I-131 in Chernobyl I-131 colors (CAUTION: margin of error so high this should be considered quasi-UNSCIENTIFIC in those areas where I had to GUESS where to put the color boundaries – this is simply and only to get a general idea):

 This map (200 km x 200 km with Belarus map colors, right below) can be compared to the Belarus map’s square right above the comparisson legend (just above):

Belarus’ CHERNOBYL I-131 in Fukushima I-131 colors:

Notice there’s no blue in this 200 km by 200 km square

= values ALL above 100,000 Bq/m^2, with hotspots over 200 km away from Chernobyl surpassing (early April 1986) measurements seen near Fukushima Daiichi reactor. 

My conclusion: unlike the Cesium fallout Map comparison (see here), where the MEXT (Fukushima) legends’ lowest level color (dark blue) made everything below 300,000 Bq/m^2 appear “low”, even though the upper end of this range is very high; for I-131 it’s interestingly the other way around.  As far as I-131 contamination goes, Chernobyl at least appears to have been much worse than Fukushima; for Cesium-137/134, I’m under the impression the disasters of Fukushima and Chernobyl are ‘on par’; BUT: it’s anyone’s guess how bad the ocean contamination from the fallout and flushing is.   In any case, the “map translation” result above seems odd to me, as the releases of Iodine and Cesium are mathematically tied, I though… Hmmm

Okay, well:  It is what it is:  a rudimentary map comparison only.  

But, based on my impressions of stuyding this the last few weeks  (a bit late, but better late than never perhaps): I wouldn’t drink milk from anywhere in Japan, Korea, Alaska or Hawaii. (For why I wouldn’t even drink Utah milk, see My “Going RadioLactoseIntollerant” blogpost from late last night, HERE).   Peace out —

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to IODINE-131 a basic map comparison: Fukushima versus Chernobyl

  1. Pingback: PLUME GATE – Internal NRC Communications Released under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proof deliberate Cover-Up of Severity of global Fukushima Fallout in 2011. Recent SFP4 News May Have Been Part of Cover-Up | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  2. Pingback: Fingerprints of an ongoing Cover-Up? EPA data makes Fukushima look over 1000% less serious than Chernobyl… | Not All Alleged Is Apparent…

  3. Pingback: Additional Ponderings Re. Pacific Ocean Ecological Crisis. Wondering about Effects of a speculated Fukushima-induced Polonium-210 (Alpha-emitting) surge’s on Sea Life. Iodine-131, Cobalt-60, Cesium-134 & Neobium-95 detected in Europe (May 2015!)

  4. Pingback: PLUME GATE – Internal NRC Communications Released under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proof deliberate Cover-Up of Severity of global Fukushima Fallout in 2011. Recent SFP4 News May Have Been Part of Cover-Up | Allegedly Apparent Blog

Thank you for commenting. Your comment won't show until approved. Sometimes that can take awhile. - mvb

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s