Fukushima and the oceans: What do we know, five years on?

June 30, 2016, Goldschmidt Conference

A major international review of the state of the oceans 5 years after the Fukushima disaster shows that radiation levels are decreasing rapidly except in the harbour area close to the nuclear plant itself where ongoing releases remain a concern. At the same time, the review's lead author expresses concern at the lack of ongoing support to continue the radiation assessment, which he says is vital to understand how the risks are changing.

These are the conclusions of a major 5 year review, with multi-international authors who are all working together as part of a Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) Working Group. The report is being presented at the Goldschmidt geochemistry conference in Japan. The review paper is also published in Annual Review of Marine Science. The main points made by the report are:

  • The accident. The Tohoku earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011 led to the loss of power and overheating at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plants (FDNPP), causing extensive releases of radioactive gases, volatiles and liquids, in particularly to the coastal ocean. The radioactive fall-out on land is well-documented, but the distribution of radioactivity in the seas and onto the wider oceans is much more difficult to quantify, due to variability in the ocean currents and greater difficulty in sampling.
  • Initial release of radioactive material. Although the FDNPP accident was one of the largest nuclear accidents and unprecedented for the ocean, the amount of 137Cs released was around 1/50th of that released by the fall out of nuclear weapons and 1/5th that released at Chernobyl. It is similar in magnitude to the intentional discharges of 137Cs from the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant Sellafield.
  • Initial fallout. The main release of radioactive material was the initial venting to the atmosphere. Models suggest that around 80% of the fallout fell on the ocean, the majority close to the FDNPP. There was some runoff from the land, peaking around 6 April 2011. There is a range of estimates of the total amount of 137Cs release into the ocean, with estimates clustering around 15-25 PBq (PetaBecquerel, which is 1015 Becquerel. One Becquerel is one nuclear decay per second). Other radioisotopes were also released, but the focus has been on radioactive forms of Cs given their longer half-lives for radioactive decay (134Cs = 2 yrs; 137Cs = 30 yrs) and high abundance in the FDNPP source.
  • Distribution in water. Cs is very soluble, so it was rapidly dispersed in the ocean. Prevailing sea currents meant that some areas received more fall-out than others due to ocean mixing processes. At its peak in 2011, the 137Cs signal right at the FDNPP was tens of millions of times higher than prior to the accident. Over time, and with distance from Japan, levels decrease significantly. By 2014 the 137Cs signal 2000km North of Hawaii was equivalent to around six times that remaining from fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests from the 1960's, and about 2-3 times higher than prior fallout levels along the west coast of N. America. Most of the fallout is concentrated in the top few hundred metres of the sea. It is likely that maximum will be attained off the North American coast in the 2015-16 period, before declining to 1-2 Bq per cubic metre (around the level associated with background nuclear weapon testing) by 2020. Sea-floor sediments contain less than 1% of the 137Cs released by the FDNPP, although the sea-floor contamination is still high close to the FDNPP. The redistribution of sediments by bottom-feeding organisms (more common near the coast) and storms is complex.
  • Uptake by marine life. In 2011, around half the fish samples in coastal waters off Fukushima had radiocesium levels above the Japanese 100Bq/kg limit, but by 2015 this had dropped to less than 1% above the limit. High levels are still found in fish around the FDNPP port. High levels of 131I were measured in fish in April 2011, but as this has a short radioactive half-life, it is now below detection levels. Generally, with the exception of species close to the FDNPP, there seem to be little long-term measurable effects on marine life.
  • Risk to Humans. The radiation risk to human life is comparatively modest in comparison to the 15,000 lives were lost as a result to the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. So far, there have been no direct radiation deaths. The most exposed FDNPP evacuees received a total dose of 70 mSv, which (if they are representative of the general population) would increase their lifetime fatal cancer risk from 24% to 24.4%. However, there are still over 100,000 evacuees from the Fukushima area, and many industries such as fishing and tourism have been badly hit.

Lead author, Dr. Ken Buesseler (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA) said: "This report pulls together much of the academic, industry and government studies to form a more complete picture of the amount of radioactivity released, its fate and transport in the ocean, whether we should be worried or not, and what can be predicted for the future. Overall, the results show a trend of decreasing radiation risk in oceans themselves and to marine life. This is generally true, except for the harbour at Fukushima NPP. The highest remaining oceanic contamination remains in seafloor sediments off coast of Japan.

Despite this, we are still concerned that there is little support to continue assessments as time goes by, in particular from the US federal agencies which have not supported any ocean studies. This is not good, as public concern is ongoing, and we can learn a lot even when levels go down in the environment, and are no longer of immediate health concern".

Prof. Bernd Grambow, Director of SUBATECH laboratory, Nantes, France and leader of the research group on interfacial reaction field chemistry of the ASRC/JAEA, Tokai, Japan, commented: "This report is an excellent summary of the impact and the fate of the release of radioactive substances to the ocean. While the distribution and impact of radioactive material becomes clearer with time, a lot of work still needs to be done. Discharge flux rates of Cs-137 to the ocean continue to be in the range of some TBq/yr. Forest and soil bound Cs-137 is only slowly being washed away, with waste piles accumulating in many places

The evolution of transfer mechanisms and the flux of radioactive material through soils, plants and food chain from land to ocean are still insufficiently understood and still deserve close attention of the international scientific community."

Explore further: Radioactive cesium fallout on Tokyo from Fukushima concentrated in glass microparticles

More information: "Fukushima and the Ocean- Five Years Later" by Dr Ken Buesseler, to be presented at the Goldschmidt conference: Theme 15b: Room 501, Friday July 1, 2016, 15:30.

Related Stories

Higher levels of Fukushima cesium detected offshore

December 3, 2015

Scientists monitoring the spread of radiation in the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear accident report finding an increased number of sites off the US West Coast showing signs of contamination from Fukushima. This includes ...

Examining the fate of Fukushima contaminants

August 18, 2015

An international research team reports results of a three-year study of sediment samples collected offshore from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in a new paper published August 18, 2015, in the American Chemical ...

Recommended for you

13 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

theredemperoremail
2.8 / 5 (8) Jun 30, 2016
Last time I checked Ocean Woods was measuring cesium at 10 bg in Pacific Ocean Water. Can you explain to us non physicist why would you expect radiation levels to go down when Tepco every day continues to discharge over 400 tons of radioactive waste into the ocean ever day and will continue to do so for the considerable future. Also there will be continuous discharge or radiation from the rivers in Japan forever considering that plutonium has a half life of 28,000 years and Uranium 238 has a half life of 3.4 billion years.
Otto_Szucks
3 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2016
Anyone in Japan glowing in the dark yet?
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2016
Why are the corporate officers not in prison?
WillieWard
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2016
"The radiation risk to human life is comparatively modest in comparison to the 15,000 lives were lost as a result to the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. So far, there have been no direct radiation deaths."
In prison should be fear-mongers and sensationalist publishers who have induced much more deaths(abortions, heart-attacks, suicides) than radiation by spreading misinformation among civilians.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2016
Sorry, Willie, but none of their gas or coal plants caused those terrible problems, did they? Do you understand how much deadly radiation was put into our environment, from which we get our food?

Willie, what they did was a capital crime.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2016
what they did was a capital crime
Indeed, what scaremongers did was a capital crime.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2016
none of their gas or coal plants caused those terrible problems
Coal and natural gas/fracking are essential to smooth fluctuation of intermittent wind/solar and emit deadlier radiation per unit of energy produced than nuclear power.
"Fracking Creates Massive Radioactive Waste Problem"
http://www.greenm...htmare-1
http://ecowatch.c...g-waste/
"Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste"
http://www.scient...r-waste/
Roderick
5 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2016
Gkam,

The report directly contradicts your hysteria. Best estimate is that thousands of death are caused by coal power plants but zero due to nuclear reactors. Until your side can provide a plausible source of base power that does not generate CO2, nuclear is still best the solution.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2016
Last time I checked Ocean Woods was measuring cesium at 10 bg in Pacific Ocean Water.
I assume you mean "Bq/m³." Let's keep a couple things in mind here:
1. 1 Bq = 1 decay/s.
2. 1 m³ of water weighs just about a tonne (a US long ton, more or less).

So you're talking about ten decays per second in a ton of water; that's less than background. In fact it's less than 1/3 of the background in seawater due to natural uranium alone, and less than 1/5 of the background in all natural radionuclides. Source: http://www.physic...ural.htm

Can you explain to us non physicist why would you expect radiation levels to go down when Tepco every day continues to discharge over 400 tons of radioactive waste into the ocean ever day and will continue to do so for the considerable future.
Sure. First referring to it as "400 tons of radioactive waste" is comparing apples to oranges. It's on the order of one to ten TBq/year.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2016
[contd]
Second it's not Tepco (i.e. waste from the plant) direct discharge, most of it is previously deposited radionuclides on topsoil being washed into the ocean. You give the incorrect impression that they're pumping contaminated water out of the plant and use an incorrect figure that can't be compared to reliable figures from real measurements. This looks deceptive.

Third, the total amount of actual radioactive material (as opposed to waste containing radioactive material) is on the close order of tens to scores of kilograms. Source: https://en.wikipe...releases says 8.4 kg of Cs.

Also there will be continuous discharge or radiation from the rivers in Japan forever considering that plutonium has a half life of 28,000 years and Uranium 238 has a half life of 3.4 billion years.
First, there wasn't a lot of Pu or U released.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2016
[contd]
Second all rivers have some radionuclides in them. How about you provide some facts and figures, not to mention some sources for them. If we're just talking in generalities then we're not quantifying; and if we're not quantifying, we're doing politics, not physics, and you asked for physics.

Your questions are worth asking, but seem a bit biased in their outlook, and seem a lot more about politics than science. This is, after all, a science forum.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jul 02, 2016
Hey, it's good for you.

Quit whining and keep working.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2016
Hey, it's good for you.

Quit whining and keep working.


Well I for one am pleased to see someone who wants to discuss the issues and science without all the sniping. I sure was getting tired of all the tweeter stuffs. Good job glam-Skippy keep up the good work.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.