Fukushima's Tap and Groundwater a Decade after the Nuclear Accident with Radiocesium, Tritium, and Radon

[NNadir]

The paper I'll discuss in this post is this one:

Fukushima’s Tap and Groundwater a Decade after the Nuclear Accident with Radiocesium, Tritium, and Radon Donovan Anderson, Yuki Oda, Yasuyuki Taira, Yasutaka Omori, Hirofumi Tazoe, Naofumi Akata, Chutima Kranrod, Ryohei Yamada, Haruka Kuwata, Yuki Tamakuma, Hiromi Kudo, Minoru Osanai, Natsuki Nishimura, Yumi Yasuoka, Tetsuya Sanada, Masahiro Hosoda, and Shinji Tokonami Environmental Science & Technology 2025 59 (10), 4906-4914

People are wholly disinterested in the death toll associated with the normal operations of fossil fuel devices, which, as air pollution is responsible for a little less than 20,000 people per day, but Fukushima, well, that's interesting; we can talk it to death, just so long as we don't talk about the roughly 20,000 who died from seawater in the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, and try drool all over ourselves to find out if someone, anyone, died from exposure to radiation. Hence I'm sure this paper will inspire interest, as opposed to a paper pointing out how many people will die each year from air pollution, roughly seven million.

Not worth discussing: Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249)

Of extreme interest: Fukushima’s Tap and Groundwater a Decade after the Nuclear Accident with Radiocesium, Tritium, and Radon

So let's get to the interesting paper, far more interesting, I'm sure, than a paper about say the planet burning up because of the accumulation of dangerous fossil fuel waste, aka, "extreme global heating."

Here we go:

The predominant radionuclides detected in drinking water are naturally occurring and can vary depending on the water source. (1,2) However, water is susceptible to artificial radionuclide contamination from both planned and accidental releases. (3,4) In either case, a comprehensive understanding of radionuclide behavior and consistent monitoring of both natural and artificial sources are essential for accurately assessing contamination levels. This ensures adherence to safety standards and enables the observation of correlations among isotopes and this approach helps guarantee that consuming the water will not pose radiological risks.

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accident in March 2011 resulted in widespread contamination of nearby environments and bodies of water, including potential impacts on drinking water sources. (5,6) All of the radionuclides released during the accident were artificial, including radiocesium, which, if ingested, could lead to adverse health consequences and radiation effects...

...As mentioned, the source of drinking water will influence the radionuclides detected. (1,2) Groundwater naturally has dissolved radionuclides due to its proximity to rocks and soil. (11) These radionuclides include α-particle emitters such as ²³⁸U, ²²⁶Ra, and ²¹⁰Po, alongside beta-particle emitters like ²²⁸Ra, ⁴⁰K, and ²¹⁰Pb, posing the risk of internal irradiation upon inhalation or ingestion. Consuming dissolved radon (²²²Rn) in water presents health risks as its radioactive decay products can emit α particles. An additional health risk associated with radon in water comes from the release of radon gas into the air when water is used (e.g., during showering, cooking, or other household activities). (12) Additionally, tritium (³H) is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that is naturally occurring, but it is also commonly released into the environment from various anthropogenic sources. These include, among others, nuclear weapons fallout and releases from nuclear reprocessing facilities. (13) As a byproduct of nuclear reactions, ³H can become incorporated into water molecules, leading to its presence in various water sources. (14,15) Tritium is present in water that is currently being released and continues to be released from FDNPP site into the Pacific Ocean. (16−18) Additionally, few studies have simultaneously measured both naturally occurring and artificial radionuclides in drinking water sources, particularly in tap and groundwater. Conducting such measurements within the same study allows for a more direct comparison of their respective contributions to ingestion dose.

In this study, we have a unique opportunity to measure naturally occurring radionuclides like radon, alongside anthropogenically released radionuclides such as ¹³⁷Cs in drinking water. Additionally, we can measure ³H, which occurs both artificially and naturally from cosmic sources. This allows for a better understanding of the dynamics of each radionuclide and comparison of their respective risks to human health a decade after a major nuclear accident. Furthermore, the Japanese government has recently released tritiated water into the nearby coastal area and has plans to recommence operations at a nuclear reprocessing facility in 2024. (19) This data will be pivotal for evaluating the potential contamination of groundwater and tap water by both tritiated water and other sources of radionuclides.

We measured concentrations and conducted a dose assessment of ²²²Rn (a natural radionuclide), ¹³⁷Cs (an artificial radionuclide), and ³H (both a natural and artificial radionuclide) in tap and groundwater in several areas (Figure 1) where evacuation order was issued due to the release of radioactive materials from the FDNPP in 2011. As mentioned, naturally occurring radionuclides like radon, can accumulate in water sources, posing potential health risks upon inhalation or ingestion. Various methods, such as boiling, have been proposed to mitigate radon levels in water. However, there is limited data on the effectiveness of these methods, particularly in terms of their efficiency in reducing radon concentrations under different conditions. To address this, an additional experiment was conducted to evaluate the reduction of ²²²Rn, aiming to provide insights into optimizing radon mitigation strategies in water sources...

Uh, oh. Sounds bad, doesn't it?

I'll cut right to the data tables in a few moments, to show what the authors found in comparison to other areas in Japan and on the planet as a whole, but first let me describe, in case one doesn't know, what the unit Becquerel (abbreviated Bq) is. A Becquerel is a physical unit meaning one nuclear decay per second. For perspective, potassium is an essential element - without it in your body you would die within seconds, which contains the radioactive isotope ⁴⁰K, which occurs naturally, as it has a half-life of 1.227 billion years. Life evolved in the presence of this isotope, which is currently present at 0.0117%, the lowest concentration since the Earth formed. It can be shown (cf. Emsley, John, The Elements, 3rd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998) that a healthy 70 kg human being will typically have between 4,000 and 5,000 Beq of potassium.

Let me first show a graphic of the sampling points, with the important point of the geology of the sampling sites (i.e. sandstone or granite) relevant to the findings.



The caption:

Figure 1. Sampling points of drinking tap and groundwater in Fukushima Prefecture and geological information. Black circles indicate tap water, black crosses indicate groundwater, and black triangles indicate locations where both tap and groundwater samples were taken. The blue star represents the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Map created by editing the seamless digital geological map of Japan. (20)

Table one, the data found:



Apparently in the first years after the Earthquake destroyed a coastal city - no one is interested in banning coastal cities as a result - including some nuclear reactors there because the diesel back up cooling was located in the basement of the reactors rather than on a higher ground, in some drinking water, at the upper limit, as much as 1.52 Bq of ¹³⁷Cs was found by one team in 2014, although other teams, presumably at different sampling points found values as low as 0.002 Bq, meaning that one would need to wait 500 seconds, 8 or 9 minutes, to observe a decay in a liter of water. (By comparison, human flesh is smoking.)

The authors observe that the 222Rn, a member of the decay series of ²³⁸ found in granite and basalt, probably occurs in their readings from natural sources:

Although artificial radionuclides have been effectively diluted in the water system over time, natural radionuclides persist due to contributions from the granite rock formations in the region. These results offer crucial insights for comparing artificial radionuclides against natural ones, which can play a significant role in risk communication for residents, especially those considering returning to their hometowns. However, it is important to recognize that residents may approach risk in different ways, with some focusing on promoting safety and others prioritizing risk prevention. Effective risk communication should consider these varying perspectives to ensure that the information resonates with all community members, regardless of their positions...

... Concentrations of dissolved radon in drinking groundwater were significantly higher compared to ¹³⁷Cs or ³H, making a substantial contribution to the annual effective dose, especially when compared to these artificial radionuclides. However, it is also important to note that other naturally occurring radionuclides, such as ²¹⁰Po, ²¹⁰Pb, ²²⁶Ra, ²²⁸Ra, and ²³⁴U, could be significant contributors to the ingestion dose from radioactivity in drinking water. In this study, we focused on ²²²HRn. While these other radionuclides were not measured in this study, their presence in drinking water could also contribute to the overall ingestion dose, and their concentrations may vary depending on the local geological conditions.

By the way, the number of people killed by exposure to radiation, if not zero - there is little evidence of it being higher - is close to zero. The number of people killed by fear or radiation, evacuations of elderly people, is not zero.

Source: Comparison of mortality patterns after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant radiation disaster and during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Motohiro Tsuboi et al 2022 J. Radiol. Prot. 42 031502)

An excerpt:

However, in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant(FDNPP) accident, no direct health hazards due to radiation, such as acute radiation injury, were observed, while various indirect health effects were reported even in the acute phase [2, 3]. Major health effects are attributed to the initial emergency evacuation and displacement, deterioration of the shelter environment, evacuation from nursing homes, and psychological and social health effects. In addition, there were also the effects of medical collapse, where lives that could normally be saved by medical care could not be saved due to a lack of medical resources [4, 5]. It is known that these effects are particularly susceptible to the socially vulnerable [6].

.

I added the bold.

Oh well.

According to the authors, living in wooden houses reduces exposure to natural radon. I live in a wooden house, and I do have naturally occurring radon in my house because I apparently live on a uranium formation. I measured it when I moved in, but haven't done so for many years. It appears I'm still alive.

I now return this forum to efforts to rebrand fossil fuels as "hydrogen," noting that the fossil fuel salespeople here have expressed excitement about tritium, but they don't give a fuck about carbon dioxide releases to generate hydrogen with exergy destruction.

Fossil fuel people sure don't like nuclear energy.

Have a nice day tomorrow.

[John ONeill]

1. Spent fuel

Minor spat on what used to be called Twitter between Dr Chris Keefer, and Nick Touran (of 'What is Nuclear ?' website), on the one side, and Isaiah Taylor, founder of Valar Atomics. The latter has apparently joined in a lawsuit against the NRC, on the grounds that the small test reactor they want to build, to prove out their prototype, should be exempted from needing NRC licencing as the source term is so low as to be harmless. I think VA only want to run to about 2 megawatt-days; they claim you could hold the resultant used fuel. Drs Touran and Keefer say it would kill you (well, not do you any good), and nuclear apologists shouldn't overstate their case. Taylor's an interesting guy - self educated, but the grandson of an Oak Ridge Manhattan Project scientist who grew up determined to make nuclear great again (so to speak.) He wants to build hundreds of gas-cooled reactors on the same site, to ease permitting , drive down manufacturing costs, and produce zero-fossil hydrocarbons cheaper than they cost to drill. That way grid connection and power purchase agreements are not a constraint, and there's a huge market. I think he has funding, and a contract in the Phillipines, but it's a steep track to climb - Moltex Energy in Canada just went into receivership.

[NNadir]

2. It sounds as if the Moltex technology will hopefully be sold.

From what little I've seen of it, it's interesting.

I do think we need to consider regulations built around the LNT. When I first began considering nuclear issues some 40 years ago, after Chernobyl, I was one of those "there is no safe level of radioactivity" morons. It took many years of study to cause me to change my mind.

I know I have some ideas of which Nick Touran might not approve, but let me be clear that I respect him enormously.

This said I think that the risk of not using radioactive materials to address profound environmental issues outside of nuclear issues, justifies the risk that nuclear materials may escape and cause harm. I want environmental matrices, water, air, and soils,with attached chemical toxic or mechanical toxicology issues to be exposed in continuous flow technology.