Fukushima Daiichi

Comments

Transcription

Fukushima Daiichi
June 2012
Volume 8, Number 3
ISSN 1811-5209
Fukushima
Daiichi
Takashi Murakami and Rodney C. Ewing, Guest Editors
More than One Year Later
The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake
Examining the Nuclear Accident
Land-Surface Contamination
Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition
of Radionuclides
Oceanic Dispersion Simulations of
137Cs
Interactions between
Nuclear Fuel and Water
Elements is published jointly by the Mineralogical
Society of America, the Mineralogical Society
of Great Britain and Ireland, the Mineralogical
Association of Canada, the Geochemical Society,
The Clay Minerals Society, the European
Association of Geochemistry, the Inter­national
Association of GeoChemistry, the Société
Française de Minéralogie et de Cristallographie,
the Association of Applied Geochemists,
the Deutsche Mineralogische Gesellschaft,
the Società Italiana di Mineralogia e Petrologia,
the International Association of Geoanalysts,
the Polskie Towarzystwo Mineralogiczne
(Mineralogical Society of Poland), the Sociedad
Española de Mineralogía, the Swiss Society of
Mineralogy and Petrology, the Meteoritical
Society, and the Japan Association of Mineralogical
Sciences. It is provided as a benefit to members
of these societies.
Elements is published six times a year. Individuals
are encouraged to join any one of the partici­
pating societies to receive Elements. Institutional
subscribers to any of the following journals
—American Mineralogist, Clay Minerals, Clays and
Clay Minerals, Mineralogical Magazine, and The
Canadian Miner­alogist—also receive one copy
of Elements as part of their 2012 subscription.
Institu­tional subscriptions are available for
US$160 (US$175 non-US addresses) a year in
2012. Contact the managing editor ([email protected]
ete.inrs.ca) for information.
Copyright 2012 by the Mineralogical Society
of America
All rights reserved. Reproduction in any form,
including translation to other languages, or by
any means—graphic, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying or information storage
and retrieval systems—without written permission
from the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.
Publications mail agreement no. 40037944
Printed in USA
ISSN 1811-5209 (print)
ISSN 1811-5217 (online)
Volume 8, Number 3 • June 2012
Fukushima Daiichi
Guest Editors: Takashi Murakami and Rodney C. Ewing
181
Fukushima Daiichi:
More than One Year Later
Rodney C. Ewing and Takashi Murakami
A bout the Cover : Aerial photo
taken by a small unmanned
drone on March 20, 2011,
showing the crippled
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant in Fukushima
Prefecture, northern Japan.
From top to bottom: Unit 1,
Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4.
Photo courtesy of A ir Photo
Service Co. Ltd., Japan
183
The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake
189
Examining the Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Daiichi
195
Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition of
Radionuclides from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant Accident
Jeroen Ritsema, Thorne Lay, and Hiroo Kanamari
Edward D. Blandford and Joonhong Ahn
Anne Mathieu, Irène Korsakissok, Denis Quélo, and others
201
Land-Surface Contamination by Radionuclides from
the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident
Naohiro Yoshida and Yoshio Takahashi
207
Oceanic Dispersion Simulations of 137Cs Released from
the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
Yukio Masumoto, Yasumasa Miyazawa, Daisuke Tsumune, and others
213
Interactions between Nuclear Fuel and Water
at the Fukushima Daiichi Reactors
Bernd Grambow and Christophe Poinssot
D e pa r t m e n t s
www.elementsmagazine.org
www.elements.
geoscienceworld.org
Editorial – Breaking Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
From the Editors – Elements Makes a Splash. . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Triple Point – Disconnect between Geology
and Nuclear Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
People in the News – Norman, Dauphas, AGU Fellows . . . . 166
Perspectives – Fukushima Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Travelogue – Field Research in the Evacuation Zone . . . . . . . 172
CosmoElements – Allende Meteorite, Tissint Meteorite . . . . . 174
Meet the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Society News
Société Française de Minéralogie et de Cristallographie . . . 221
Mineralogical Society of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
European Association of Geochemistry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Geochemical Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Meteoritical Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
The Clay Minerals Society. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
International Association of GeoChemistry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland . . . . . . . . 229
Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences. . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Deutsche Mineralogische Gesellschaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Mineralogical Association of Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Sociedad Española de Mineralogía. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
International Association for the Study of Clays . . . . . . . . . . 235
Meeting Reports – Gordon Research Conference on Isotopes
Journée G. Pédro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Book Reviews – Nature’s Nanostructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Advertisers in This Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Parting Shots – A Ruin and Two Earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . 240
161
PARTICIPATING SOCIETIES
The Mineralogical
Society of America is
composed of indivi­duals
interested in mineralogy,
crystallography, petrology,
and geochemistry. Founded
in 1919, the Society promotes,
through education and research, the under­
standing and application of mineralogy by
industry, universities, government, and the
public. Membership benefits include special
subscription rates for American Mineralogist
as well as other journals, a 25% discount on
Reviews in Mineralogy & Geochemistry
series and Mono­graphs, Elements, reduced
registration fees for MSA meetings and short
courses, and participation in a society that
supports the many facets of mineralogy.
Society News Editor: Andrea Koziol
([email protected])
The Mineralogical
Society of Great Britain
and Ireland is an inter­
national society for all
those working in the
mineral sciences. The
Society aims to advance the
knowledge of the science of miner­alogy and
its application to other subjects, including
crystallography, geochemistry, petrology,
environmental science and economic
geology. The Society furthers its aims
through scientific meetings and the publica­
tion of scientific journals, books and mono­
graphs. The Society publishes Mineralogical
Magazine and Clay Minerals. Students receive
the first year of membership free of charge.
All members receive Elements.
Society News Editor: Kevin Murphy
([email protected])
The Mineralogical Society
12 Baylis Mews, Amyand Park Road
Twickenham, Middlesex TW1 3HQ, UK
Tel.: +44 (0)20 8891 6600
Fax: +44 (0)20 8891 6599
[email protected]
www.minersoc.org
The Mineralogical
­ ssociation of Canada
A
was incorpor­ated in 1955
to promote and advance
the knowledge of miner­
alogy and the related disci­
plines of crystal­lography,
petrol­ogy, geochemistry, and economic
geology. Any person engaged or inter­ested
in these fields may become a member of the
Association. Membership benefits include a
subscrip­tion to Elements, reduced cost for
sub­scribing to The Canadian Mineralogist, a
20% discount on short course volumes and
special publica­tions, and a discount on the
registration fee for annual meetings.
Society News Editor: Pierrette Tremblay
([email protected])
Mineralogical Association of Canada
490, de la Couronne
Québec, QC G1K 9A9, Canada
Tel.: 418-653-0333; fax: 418-653-0777
[email protected]
www.mineralogicalassociation.ca
The Clay Minerals
Society (CMS) began as the
Clay Minerals Committee
of the US National Academy
of Sciences – National
Research Council in 1952.
In 1962, the CMS was
incorporated with the primary purpose of
stimu­lating research and disseminating
information relating to all aspects of clay
science and technology. The CMS holds an
annual meeting, workshop, and field trips,
and publishes Clays and Clay Minerals and
the CMS Workshop Lectures series. Member­
ship benefits include reduced registration fees
to the annual meeting, discounts on the
CMS Workshop Lectures, and Elements.
The Clay Minerals Society
3635 Concorde Pkwy Ste 500
Chantilly, VA 20151-1110, USA
Tel.: 703-652-9960; fax: 703-652-9951
[email protected]
www.clays.org
Association of Applied Geochemists P.O. Box 26099 Nepean, ON K2H 9R0, Canada Tel.: 613-828-0199; fax: 613-828-9288 [email protected]
www.appliedgeochemists.org
Society News Editor: Seth Davis
([email protected])
Mineralogical Society of America
3635 Concorde Pkwy Ste 500
Chantilly, VA 20151-1110, USA
Tel.: 703-652-9950; fax: 703-652-9951
[email protected]
www.minsocam.org
Society News Editor: Jeffery Greathouse
([email protected])
Society News Editor: Patrice de Caritat
([email protected])
The Geochemical Society
(GS) is an international
organization founded in
1955 for students and
scientists involved in the
practice, study and teaching
of geochemistry. Our
programs include co-hosting the annual
Goldschmidt ConferenceTM, editorial over­
sight of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
(GCA), supporting geochemical symposia
through our Meeting Assistance Program,
and supporting student development
through our Student Travel Grant Program.
GS annually recognizes excellence in
geochemistry through its medals, lectures,
and awards. Members receive a subscription
to Elements, special member rates for GCA
and G-cubed, and publication and confer­
ence discounts.
Geochemical Society
Washington University
Earth & Planetary Sciences
One Brookings Drive, Campus Box #1169
St. Louis, MO 63130-4899, USA
Tel.: 314-935-4131; fax: 314-935-4121
[email protected]
Explore GS online at www.geochemsoc.org
The European ­Association
of Geochemistry was
founded in 1985 to promote
geochemical research and
study in Europe. It is now
recognized as the premiere
geochemical organi­zation
in Europe encouraging interaction between
geoche­mists and researchers in asso­cia­ted
fields, and promoting research and teaching
in the public and private sectors.
Society News Editor: Liane G. Benning
([email protected])
Membership information:
www.eag.eu.com/membership
IAGC Business Office
275 Mendenhall Laboratory
125 South Oval Mall
Columbus, OH 43210, USA
Tel.: 614-688-7400; fax: 614-292-7688
www.iagc-society.org
The Société Française
de Minéralogie et de
Cristallographie, the
French Mineralogy and
Crystallography Society,
was founded on March 21,
1878. The purpose of the
Society is to promote mineralogy and
­crystallography. Member­ship benefits include
the “bulletin de liaison” (in French), the
European Journal of Miner­alogy, Elements, and
reduced registration fees for SFMC meetings.
Society News Editor: Anne-Marie Boullier
([email protected])
SFMC
Campus Boucicaut, Bâtiment 7
140 rue de Lourmel
75015 Paris, France
www.sfmc-fr.org
The Association of
Applied ­Geochemists is
an international organiza­
tion founded in 1970 that
specializes in the field of
applied geochemistry. It
aims to advance the science
of geochem­istry as it relates to exploration
and the environment, further the common
interests of exploration geochemists, facili­
tate the acquisition and distribution of
scientific knowledge, promote the exchange
of information, and encourage research and
development. AAG membership includes
the AAG journal, Geochemistry: Exploration,
Environment, ­Analysis; the AAG newsletter,
EXPLORE; and Elements.
E lements
Society News Editor: Michael Burchard
([email protected])
Deutsche Mineralogische Gesellschaft
[email protected]
www.dmg-home.de
The Società Italiana
di Mineralogia e
­Petrologia (Italian Society
of Mineralogy and Petro­
logy), established in 1940,
is the national body repre­
senting all researchers deal­
ing with mineralogy, petrology, and related
disciplines. Membership benefits include
receiving the European Journal of Mineralogy,
Plinius, and Elements, and a reduced registra­
tion fee for the annual meeting.
Society News Editor: Marco Pasero
([email protected])
The International
­Association of
GeoChemistry (IAGC) has
been a pre-eminent inter­na­
tional geo­chemical organi­
zation for over 40 years. Its
principal objectives are to
foster cooperation in the advancement of
applied geochemistry by sponsoring specialist
scientific symposia and the activities organized
by its working groups and by support­ing its
journal, Applied Geochemistry. The adminis­tra­
tion and activities of IAGC are conducted by
its Council, comprising an Executive and ten
ordinary members. Day-to-day administration
is performed through the IAGC business office.
Society News Editor: Chris Gardner
([email protected])
The Deutsche
­ ineralogische
M
­Gesellschaft (German
Mineralogical Society)
was founded in 1908 to
“promote miner­alogy and
all its subdisciplines in
teaching and research as well as the personal
relationships among all members.” Its great
tradition is reflected in the list of honorary
fellows, who include M. v. Laue, G. v.
Tschermak, P. Eskola, C.W. Correns, P.
Ramdohr, and H. Strunz. Today, the Society
especially tries to support young researchers,
e.g. to attend conferences and short courses.
Membership benefits include the European
Journal of Mineralogy, the DMG Forum, GMit,
and Elements.
Società Italiana di Mineralogia e ­Petrologia Dip. di Scienze della Terra
Università di Pisa, Via S. Maria 53
I-56126 Pisa, Italy
Tel.: +39 050 2215704 Fax: +39 050 2215830
[email protected]
www.socminpet.it
The International Association of Geoanalysts is
a worldwide organization
supporting the profes­sional
interests of those involved
in the analysis of geological
and environmental mate­
rials. Activities include the management of
proficiency testing programmes for bulk rock
and micro-analytical methods, the production
and certification of reference materials and
the publication of the Association’s journal,
Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research.
Society News Editor: Michael Wiedenbeck
([email protected])
International Association of Geoanalysts­
Ms. Jennifer Cook, Hon. Sec.
British Geological Survey
Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GC, UK
http://geoanalyst.org
The Polskie
­ owarzystwo MineralT
ogiczne (Mineralogical
Society of Poland), founded
in 1969, draws together
professionals and amateurs
interested in mineralogy,
crystal­lography, petrology, geochemistry,
and economic geology. The Society promotes
links between mineralogical science and
education and technology through annual
conferences, field trips, invited lectures, and
publish­ing. Membership benefits include
subscriptions to Mineralogia and Elements.
Society News Editor: Zbigniew Sawłowicz
([email protected])
Mineralogical Society of Poland
Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland
Tel./fax: +48 12 6334330
[email protected]
www.ptmin.agh.edu.pl
The Sociedad Española
de Mineralogía (Spanish
­Mineralogical­­ Society) was
founded in 1975 to promote
research in mineralogy,
petrology, and geochem­
istry. The Society organizes
annual conferences and furthers the training
of young researchers via seminars and
special publications. The SEM Bulletin
published scientific papers from 1978 to
2003, the year the Society joined the European Journal of Mineralogy and launched
Macla, a new journal containing scientific
news, abstracts, and reviews. Membership
benefits include receiving the European
Journal of Mineralogy, Macla, and Elements.
Society News Editor: Juan Jimenez Millan
([email protected])
Sociedad Española de Mineralogía
[email protected]
www.ehu.es/sem
The Swiss Society of
Mineralogy and
Petrology was founded in
1924 by professionals from
academia and industry and
by amateurs to promote
knowledge in the fields of
mineralogy, petrology, and geochemistry
and to disseminate it to the scientific and
public communities. The Society coorganizes
the annual Swiss Geoscience Meeting and
publishes the Swiss Journal of Geosciences
jointly with the national geological and
paleontological societies.
Society News Editor: Urs Schaltegger
([email protected])
Swiss Society of Mineralogy and Petrology
Université de Fribourg, Département des
Géosciences
Chemin du Musée 6, Pérolles 1700
Fribourg, Switzerland
Tel. +41 26 300 89 36
fax: +41 26 300 97 65
http://ssmp.scnatweb.ch
The Meteoritical Society
is an international organi­
zation founded in 1933 for
scientists, collectors, and
educators to advance the
study of meteorites and
other extraterrestrial mate­
rials and their parent asteroids, comets, and
planets. Members receive our journal, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, reduced rates for
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, which we
cosponsor, the Meteoritical Bulletin, and
Elements. We organize annual meetings,
workshops, and field trips, and support
young planetary scientists worldwide.
Through our medals and awards, we recog­
nize excellence in meteoritics and allied
fields.
Society News Editor: Cari Corrigan
­([email protected])
Membership information:
http://meteoriticalsociety.org
The Japan Association
of Mineralogical
Sciences (JAMS) was
established in 2007 by
merging the Mineralogical
Society of Japan, founded
in 1955, and the Japanese
Association of Mineralogists, Petrologists,
and Economic Geologists, established in
1928. JAMS covers the wide field of mineral
sciences, geochemistry, and petrology.
Membership benefits include receiving the
Journal of Mineralogical Sciences (JMPS), the
Ganseki-Koubutsukagaku (GKK), and
Elements.
Society News Editor: Hiroyuki Kagi
([email protected])
Japan Association of Mineralogical
Sciences
c/o Graduate School of Science, Tohoku
University
Aoba, Sendai, 980-8578, Japan
Tel./Fax: 81-22-224-3852
[email protected]
http://jams.la.coocan.jp
Affiliated Societies
The International Mineralogical Association,
the European Mineralogical Union, and the
International Association for the Study of Clays are
affiliated societies of Elements. The affiliated status
is reserved for those organizations that serve as an “umbrella” for other groups in the
fields of min­e r­a logy, geochemistry, and petrology, but that do not themselves have
a membership base.
162
J une 2012
EDITORIAL
Breaking Boundaries
principal editors
James I. Drever, University of Wyoming, USA
([email protected])
Georges Calas, IMPMC, France
([email protected])
John W. Valley, University of Wisconsin,
USA ([email protected])
Advisory Board 2012
John Brodholt, University College London, UK
Norbert Clauer, CNRS/UdS, Université de
Strasbourg, France
Will P. Gates, SmecTech Research
Consulting, Australia
George E. Harlow, American Museum
of Natural History, USA
Janusz Janeczek, University of Silesia, Poland
Hans Keppler, Bayerisches Geoinstitut,
Germany
David R. Lentz, University of New Brunswick,
Canada
Anhuai Lu, Peking University, China
Robert W. Luth, University of Alberta, Canada
David W. Mogk, Montana State University, USA
Takashi Murakami, University of Tokyo, Japan
Roberta Oberti, CNR Istituto di Geoscienze
e Georisorse, Pavia, Italy
Terry Plank, Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory, USA
Xavier Querol, Spanish Research Council, Spain
Mauro Rosi, University of Pisa, Italy
Barbara Sherwood Lollar, University of
Toronto, Canada
Torsten Vennemann, Université de
Lausanne, Switzerland
Olivier Vidal, Université J. Fourier, France
Meenakshi Wadhwa, Arizona State
University, USA
Bernard Wood, University of Oxford, UK
Jon Woodhead, University of Melbourne,
Australia
Executive Committee
Carlos Ayora IbáÑez, Sociedad Española
di Mineralogía
Liane G. Benning, European Association
of Geochemistry
Thomas D. Bullen, International Association
of GeoChemistry
Peter C. Burns, Mineralogical Association
of Canada
Bernardo Cesare, Società Italiana di
Mineralogia e Petrologia
Barbara L. Dutrow, Mineralogical
Society of America, Chair
W. Crawford Elliott, The Clay Minerals Society
Monica M. Grady, The Meteoritical Society
Bernard Grobéty, Swiss Society of
Mineralogy and Petrology
Guy Libourel, Société Française
de Minéralogie et de Cristallographie
Marek Michalik, Mineralogical Society
of Poland
Eiji Ohtani, Japan Association of
Mineralogical Sciences
Edwin A. Schauble, Geochemical Society
clifford r. stanley, Association
of Applied Geochemists
Peter Treloar, Mineralogical Society
of Great Britain and Ireland
Friedhelm von Blanckenburg, Deutsche Mineralogische Gesellschaft
Michael Wiedenbeck, International
Association of Geoanalysts
Managing Editor
Pierrette Tremblay, [email protected]
Editorial office
490, rue de la Couronne
Québec (Québec) G1K 9A9, Canada
Tel.: 418-654-2606 Fax: 418-653-0777
Layout: Pouliot Guay graphistes
Copy editor: Thomas Clark
Proofreaders: Thomas Clark
and Dolores Durant
Printer: Allen Press
The publishers assume no responsibility for
any statement of fact or opinion expressed
in the published material. The appearance of
advertising in this magazine does not constitute
endorsement or approval of the quality or value
of the products or of claims made for them.
www.elementsmagazine.org
E lements
Fifteen
m o n t h s logical/environmental science and materials sci­
have passed since a ence, as both domains become more and more
gigantic earthquake interlinked on topics of mutual interest. The
and resulting tsu­ successful “Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste
nami hit the Japanese Management” symposia and proceedings of the
islands on March 11, Materials Research Society have, for the past 35
2011, resulting in years, been a forum involving mineralogists and
some 20,000 people geochemists, together with materials scientists,
killed or missing. and have resulted in original contributions to
Subsequent flooding this area of research. But breaking boundaries
of the Fukushima between mineralogy and materials science and
Daiichi nuclear power sharing time and effort between both fields is
Georges Calas
plant led to a major sometimes not easy, as is often the case in mul­
crisis, with radioactive contamination developing tidisciplinary science. In fact, the extraordinary
in the ensuing days and creating public fear and effort required to do research across disciplinary
confusion. As observed in many countries, this boundaries may have the effect of making min­
accident may have superseded concerns of how eralogy seem less relevant, because little credit is
Japan had been severely affected by the mega­ given for this effort as soon as it leaves the Earth
tsunami and, to a lesser extent,
science sphere. Ironically, the
the earthquake of March 11. The
broader application of mineralogy
We must develop
nuclear side of these catastrophic
robust, scientifically and geochemistry to societal prob­
events is the subject of this issue
lems may have planted the seeds
based predictive
of Elements, which is unusual in
for their demise in some traditional
its presentation due to the topic
models to properly Earth science departments.
treated. With six review articles,
react to unusual
Breaking the “boundary” between
and also the Triple Point and
“applied” and “fundamental” sci­
situations.
Perspectives sections, this Elements
ence is also needed: on which side
issue presents a large variety of
of the boundary are topics such as
factual descriptions and opinions. Indeed, it is
radiation-induced
damage in minerals and mate­
expected that the Fukushima Daiichi accident
will not only severely affect the continental and rials, the thermodynamic properties of actinide
coastal environment of this part of Japan, it will systems, or the trapping of fission products and
also have consequences for future technological actinides at mineral–water interfaces? Perhaps
choices worldwide. As expressed by Koji Omi in there will be a proper answer in the time we have
Science on March 9, 2012, “There are important left to answer this question: the longer the time
lessons to be learned as Japan faces critical deci­ left to research, the more the fundamental aspects
sions not only about rebuilding but also in plan­ may be explored. But the Fukushima Daiichi
ning for the nation’s future energy needs—lessons accident reminds us that expertise is sometimes
that are also relevant to many other countries.” needed on a very short timescale for decisions to
Among these lessons, the contribution of nuclear be taken in a few days and for a technological
energy to the global energy supply mix is now solution to be immediately made available.
under reevaluation in some countries, despite the Facing the consequences of a major nuclear
fact that nuclear energy contributes to limiting disaster is clearly a global issue, despite the fact
greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating global that the management of a nuclear reactor is local.
climate change.
This is evident because the terrestrial fluid enve­
Nuclear energy–related topics are familiar to lopes—the atmosphere and ocean—are stirred by
Elements readers: the December 2006 issue, edited global circulation and so have worldwide effects.
by Rod Ewing, was devoted to the environmental International cooperation needs to be exemplary
aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, and this topic in urgent situations, and here too it is a matter of
was also included in the June 2007 issue on breaking boundaries to provide the most useful
energy. Also, American Mineralogist has a virtual expertise from all nations. Many countries have
special issue on the topic “Mineralogy and the been and still are currently involved with damage
Nuclear Industry.” Nuclear energy–related activi­ evaluation in Fukushima, decontamination pro­
ties may be accidentally impacting our environ­ cedures, and engineering assessment, and many
ment at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, of us have colleagues involved in this activity.
and we must develop robust, scientifically based A direct result of this work will be learning the
predictive models to properly react to unusual response of these environments to such extreme
situations. Geoscientists bring a unique point forcing conditions. This will help us to design
of view to this effort, using their expertise on efficient remediation and reclamation procedures.
how complex biogeochemical systems interact
with external forces and their ability to model
and anticipate long-term effects. Issues raised by
uranium exploration and exploitation and by
the management of nuclear waste, including its
disposal in geological repositories, are the main
domains of the nuclear cycle in which mineralo­
gists and geochemists are usually involved. Many
research activities are then shared between geo­
163
This issue of Elements has been organized and
edited by Takashi Murakami and Rod Ewing
in an unusually short time, due to the urgency
of the events. We expect it will provide a large
audience with advanced scientific information on
this “hot” topic. Indeed, technical, ­political, and
Cont’d on page 164
J une 2012
FROM THE EDITORS
This Issue
UPCOMING EDITOR
A little more than one year after the Fukushima tragedy, this issue of
We are delighted that Patricia (Trish) Dove of Virginia Tech has accepted
our invitation to join the editorial team. She will replace Tim Drever,
whose term ends in December 2012. We will formally introduce Trish
in the first issue of 2013.
Elements provides a summary of the nuclear accident as it has been
reconstructed and the lessons that other facilities can take from it, and
it gives an overview of the resulting contamination in the air, soils,
and ocean. The Perspectives section provides six different points of
view on the future of nuclear power in the aftermath of Fukushima.
And Travelogue offers an account of a scientist’s visit to the evacua­
tion zone. These articles reveal that behind the human tragedy, a large
number of scientists are working hard to provide the data necessary to
understand the accident and find solutions.
Kudos to guest editors Takashi Murakami and Rod Ewing who accepted
the challenge of assembling this issue of Elements under a much acceler­
ated schedule: the first invitations to authors were sent out at the end
of August 2011. Our gratitude also goes to the authors, who accepted
the challenge of writing review articles while so much data are still
being amassed—like trying to hit a moving target.
At Goldschmidt 2010, I was impressed by the argument Tennessee
Senator Lamar Alexander made in favor of nuclear power as the energy
of the future. In his keynote presentation, he reviewed all the energy
sources in terms of the land used to produce the energy. For example,
the land occupied by one nuclear plant producing enough power for
90,000 homes is one square mile. To produce the same amount of
energy, solar power requires 15 square miles, petroleum 18. But the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident reminds us that when
something goes wrong in this industry, a huge territory can be impacted
and the economic costs of bringing an accident under control are stag­
gering. This does not include the suffering of people who have been
displaced from their homes and face an uncertain future. About 90,000
persons who lived in the evacuation zone near the plant have not been
able to return to their homes. We dedicate this issue to them, and also
to the 20,000 persons who died in the aftermath of the earthquake
and tsunami.
About Duplicate Copies – Part 2
From time to time, we receive inquiries regarding the management of
subscriptions, such as these:“I joined society X and am also member of
society Y but I am still receiving only one copy of Elements. I would like
this second copy to be shipped to a colleague in Estonia!” “I would be
happy to only have online access to Elements and save you the mailing
costs.” “My husband and I both receive Elements. We only need one
copy; please eliminate mine.”
As explained in the April issue (8: 84), Elements’ financial model requires
that we eliminate duplicate mailings. This reduces printing and mailing
costs, and these savings are passed on to the participating societies in
the form of lower subscription rates. So even if you belong to more
than one society, you should only receive one copy of Elements. We
ask our readers to encourage colleagues who are interested in receiving
Elements to join one of the participating societies.
Although granting requests like online access only might seem like a
good idea, it could end up being expensive, as managing these requests
would be very time consuming and might necessitate the hiring of a
subscription manager, thus erasing any saving and probably increasing
costs, which would then have to be passed on to the societies. Put your
unneeded paper copy of Elements to good use: depending on the topic,
send it to your dean, give it to a student, a colleague, or a neighbor.
Earth scientists are providing the scientific basis for addressing critical
questions, such as when it will be safe to return to the contaminated
areas. This requires multidisciplinary teams that need to avoid being
made irrelevant by answering, “We need to do more work.” Answers are
needed now and have to be clearly communicated to decision makers.
EDITORIAL Cont’d from page 163
s­ ocietal aspects are interlinked in nuclear activities, due to a general atti­
tude of fear towards nuclear power. Better relations between technology
and society rely on improved and deepened scientific knowledge and
on complete disclosure of the available data. The Fukushima disaster
illustrated public suspicion towards the various authorities and com­
pany representatives, and even towards the technological and scientific
information provided by the organizations and institutions working on
the site. Scientists must regain public confidence by clearly communi­
cating in-depth and rigorous studies of the impacts of radioactivity on
the various environments and ecosystems. An optimistic vision is that
by improving the information available to the public, we will reinforce
the need for our authorities to explain the scientific grounds for their
political decisions, helping balanced choices to be made.
Georges Calas ([email protected])
University Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris
E lements
164
Pierrette Tremblay, Managing Editor
Elements makes a splash in Natural History
W
ith its timely and societally relevant topics, Elements has
effectively permeated the mineralogy, geochemistry, and
petrology community and has even reached other interested sci­
entists and administrators. When geoscientists have the chance
to reach out to the general public, it is important that they make
the effort to do so. Such an opportunity occurred recently when
the editor-in-chief of Natural History magazine, Vittorio Maestro,
contacted Barb Dutrow and Darrell Henry, guest editors of the
October 2011 Elements issue on tourmaline, about writing an
article for his magazine. Associated with the American Museum
of Natural History, Natural History’s mission is to promote public
understanding and appreciation of nature and science. Maestro had
read the Tourmaline issue and felt it would draw the interest of his
readers. Not since a 2004 article on zircon
had Natural History focused an
article exclusively on a mineral.
Working with Vittorio Maestro,
Barb and Darrell reconfigured
and condensed the six papers
from the Elements issue into
a single article that is visu­
ally exciting, scientifically
correct, and accessible
to the curious public.
The article entitled “The
Tourmaline Diaries: An EyeCatching Mineral and Its Many
Facets” appeared in the March 2012
issue of Natural History. Natural History
has a circulation of about 50,000, with
1900 libraries and an audience of nearly 200,000.
Barb Dutrow, Louisiana State University
J une 2012
TRIPLE POINT
Fukushima Lessons:
The Disconnect between Geology
and Nuclear Engineering
Recently, several seismic events at nuclear
power plants exceeded the plants’ “design
bases” for ground motions. On 16 July 2007,
a magnitude 6.8 earthquake damaged the
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in western
Japan; the 11 March 2011 magnitude 9.0
quake and attendant tsunami caused mul­
tiple meltdowns at the Fukushima plant in
northeastern Japan; and on 23 August 2011,
a magnitude 5.8 earthquake caused minor
damage at the North Anna nuclear plant in
Allison Macfarlane
Virginia, USA. These accidents have exposed
a disturbing disconnect between the knowl­
edge needed by nuclear engineers to build safe nuclear power plants
and the knowledge that geoscientists can provide to them.
Some nuclear engineers have claimed that reactors can be made
“earthquake-proof,” and, according to Scott Burnell of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, “they [reactors] are designed to withstand just
about everything short of a meteor strike” (Cyranoski 2007). Many in
the nuclear industry claimed that the source of the Fukushima acci­
dent was the tsunami, not the earthquake (World Nuclear Association
2011), though the jury is still out on earthquake damage to the reactors
and will be until they can be examined in detail. But the question is:
can and do nuclear engineers integrate knowledge of Earth processes
adequately so that reactors can be designed to withstand all that the
Earth can throw at them?
The seismic design basis for a nuclear reactor is usually determined
by the potential for ground motions at the site, which are estimated
using historical data. This primary assumption is, in itself, problematic,
because the historical period represents such a small slice of the pos­
sible geologic processes that could occur at a given location. To assure
safety, nuclear engineers add an unspecified “safety margin” to their
designs. Geologists are comfortable working with the concept of “deep
time,” and thus the use of historical data to guide predictions of future
seismic events is inconsistent with geologic thinking. Nuclear engineers,
on the other hand, design reactors that operate for 40 to 60 years, a
timescale completely at odds with the geologic one.
Another source of disconnect between nuclear engineers and geologists
is in their abilities to make accurate predictions. Nuclear engineers
base many of their analyses on probabilistic performance assessments.
Geology, on the other hand, is a retrodictive science, precise about the
past but qualitative, at best, when predicting the future. Earth systems
are complex and many of the processes and boundary conditions are
not known or not well understood. They are thermodynamically open
systems with processes that occur over very long timescales, making
models of them difficult to validate or verify (Oreskes et al. 1994).
For instance, what matters during an earthquake at a reactor is the
frequency of shaking and the acceleration of the ground. These ground
motions depend on a variety of factors that go far beyond the simple
energy released from the quake as indicated by magnitude measure­
ments. Ground motions vary depending on the seismic source and the
factors affecting wave propagation. Unique to the seismic source is the
direction of wave propagation and the amount and type of slip on the
fault. The factors affecting wave propagation include the rock and soil
types along the wave path; the presence of mountains, basins, seas,
and fault zones along the path; the age of the rock; and other aspects
of the geologic environment. As a result, prediction of potential ground
motions is a complex and difficult task.
Like Earth itself, geologic knowledge is dynamic and always in a state
of flux. The nuclear industry sometimes treats this knowledge as static,
not updating seismic hazard analyses for many years, for instance.
Moreover, geology and its subdisciplines have experienced significant
E lements
Triple Point raises issues of broad interest to the readers of Elements
and explores different aspects of our science (teaching, publishing,
historical aspects, etc.), our societies, funding, policy, and political
issues. Contact Bruce Yardley (B.W.D. [email protected]) if you
have an idea for a future topic.
paradigm shifts over the past decades. The theory of plate tectonics only
became fully integrated into geoscience in the 1970s, a period just prior
to the time when many nuclear reactors were designed and constructed.
Paradigms continue to shift. Prior to the 2004 Sumatra earthquake, mag­
nitude 9.3, seismologists generally thought that megaquakes occured
only along certain subduction zones (Ruff and Kanamori 1980). After
this quake, it became clear that megaquakes could happen along any
subduction zone of sufficient length (McCaffrey 2007). Similarly, little
evidence for large tsunamis was known from the area near Fukushima
until a 2001 study of the 869 AD Jogan tsunami (Minouri et al. 2001)
Geologists are certainly not all-knowing, either. The occurrence of
intraplate earthquakes, like the one at Mineral, Virginia, in August 2011,
is a case in point. The geology of that section of the United States and
the mechanisms that cause intraplate quakes are not well understood.
Likewise, many faults, especially those that are not exposed at the sur­
face, have not been identified. For instance, the fault that slipped and
caused earthquake damage to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power
plant in Japan in 2007 was not known to exist prior to the plant’s
construction.
Geologists make it hard for nuclear engineers because they often dis­
agree about Earth processes. During a recent trip to Japan by the author,
a number of Japanese nuclear industry colleagues pointed out that
because the Jogan tsunami data were actively debated, they felt they
could not act on them and increase the size of the protective seawalls.
The disconnect that exists between the geologic and nuclear engi­
neering communities reflects their different approaches: geologists try
to understand a dynamic, complex Earth with all its attendant pro­
cesses, while engineers consider a given system over a specified period
of time—but one that must work within that complex Earth system.
Given the scale of the disconnect, is there a way to make nuclear reac­
tors safer?
Clearly, a requirement to revisit seismic hazards on a regular basis (every
few years) and include in the analysis societal impacts as they change
over time would be valuable. Less reliance on probabilistic performance
assessments when considering complex Earth system behavior would
be a significant advance. Performance assessment allows some processes
that otherwise might be important to be overlooked, as the Fukushima
accident has shown. Complex Earth systems must be evaluated on a
more qualitative basis, using a methodology termed a “safety case,”
which gathers all relevant quantitative and qualitative analysis together
to predict future behavior (Ewing 2011).
Finally, we must recognize there are limitations to what we can do
when interacting with Nature. Perhaps some places are simply not suit­
able for technologies such as nuclear power, the safety of which relies
heavily on the stability of the Earth. Some parts of the Earth may be
too dynamic for risky technologies.
Allison Macfarlane
Allison Macfarlane is an associate professor of environmental science and
policy at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. She received her
PhD in geology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1992. She
was recently a member of the White House’s Blue Ribbon Commission on
America’s Nuclear Future. In 2006 MIT Press published her coedited book,
Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation’s High-Level Nuclear
Waste. She was nominated by President Obama as the next chair of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
References
Cyranoski D (2007) Quake shuts the world’s largest nuclear plant. Nature 448:
392-393
McCaffrey R (2007) The next great earthquake. Science 315: 1675-1676
165
Cont’d on page 166
J une 2012
PEOPLE IN THE NEWS
Marc Norman Incoming Executive Editor of GCA
On 17 April 2012, Marc Norman was appointed
as new executive editor of Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta by the publisher, Elsevier. After
a careful search, Marc was recommended by the
Joint Publications Committee of the Meteoritical
Society and the Geochemical Society and then
nominated by the societies to Elsevier. In his
e-mail greeting to the associate editors, Marc
wrote, “My primary goal as executive editor will
be to ensure that GCA maintains its standing as
the premier journal for geochemistry.”
Since 2001, Marc has been at the Research School of Earth Sciences of
the Australian National University, Canberra, where he holds the posi­
tion of Senior Fellow. His research interests span both terrestrial and
extraterrestrial topics. Six are currently listed on his home page (http://
people.rses.anu.edu.au/norman_m/): magmatic systems and related ore
deposits; NiS, PGE black shales, sedimentary geochemistry; laser abla­
tion ICPMS; solution ICPMS; radiogenic isotopes (Sr, Pb, Nd, Os); and
MC-ICPMS, TIMS. At the 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference
in Houston this year, he reported on the ages of lunar spherules, melt
breccias, and zircons.
Goldschmidt Conference in Melbourne and is now chair of the Program
Committee for the 2012 Meteoritical Society meeting in Cairns. In
2011 he organized a thematic issue of the Australian Journal of Earth
sciences, which will be published in early 2012. From 2008 to 2011, he
served on the Steering Committee for the first Australian Academy of
Science Decadal Plan for Space Science, and he chaired the planetary
science working group for the National Committee for Space Sciences
within that effort.
His prior experience in the editorial area includes service on the edito­
rial boards of the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (2009–present), pub­
lished by the Geological Society of Australia, and the Open Mineralogy
Journal (2008–2010).
James B. Macelwane Medal
to Nicolas Dauphas
Marc has been a councillor, associate treasurer, and a member of
the Publications Committee of the Meteoritical Society. In 2006 he
cochaired the Cosmochemistry Task Group (with Herbert Palme) for the
Nicolas Dauphas was awarded the 2011 James B.
Macelwane Medal of the American Geophysical
Union. The medal recognizes significant contribu­
tions to the geophysical sciences by an out­
standing young scientist. His citationist writes
that his “contributions to geochemistry and cos­
mochemistry are remarkable for their breadth and
depth, covering geochemical processes at all scales
and times, from the age of the galaxy to the evolu­
tion of ancient and modern igneous rocks.”
2011 AGU Fellows
Among the scientists elected as Fellows of the
American Geophysical Union in 2011, we high­
light those who have a primary affiliation with
the Volcanology, Geochemistry, and Petrology
Division or are members of one of Elements’s
participating societies. Congratulations to all!
Don E. Canfield
For his outstanding
contributions to under­
standing the biogeo­
chemical cycling of
sulfur and the oxy­
genation of Earth’s
atmosphere
Oliver Chadwick
For his novel applica­
tion of geographic and
geochemical tools to
advance understanding
of how soils develop and
interact with other parts
of the Earth system
Catherine Chauvel
For key contributions to
understanding mantle
evolution through iso­
tope studies of oceanic
basalts and linking sub­
ducted sediments to arc
magmas
Mark M. Hirschmann
For his exceptional work
on igneous phase equi­
libria, illuminating the
simplicity underlying
experimental results
on complicated natural
solutions
Craig E. Manning
For his peerless experi­
ments on the solubility
of minerals in aqueous
fluids at high tem­
perature and pressure,
a unique combination
of rigor and realism,
yielding timeless data
and timely applications
William F.
McDonough
For his major contri­
butions to our under­
standing of the geochem­
istry of Earth’s interior
Suzanne Mahlburg
Kay
For her contributions
to understanding the
growth and evolution of
continental crust in sub­
duction zones
William M. Seyfried Jr.
For making major con­
tributions to our knowl­
edge of the chemistry
of aqueous fluids and
processes that take place
near mid-ocean ridges
Triple Point Cont’d from page 165
Minoura K, Imamura F, Sugawara D, Kono Y,
Iwashita T (2001) The 869 Jogan tsunami deposit
and recurrence interval of large-scale tsunami
on the Pacific coast of northeast Japan. Journal
of Natural Disaster Science 23: 83-88
Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994)
Verification, validation, and confirmation of
nuclear models in the Earth sciences. Science
263: 641-646
Ruff L, Kanamori H (1980) Seismicity and the
subduction process. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors 23: 240-252
E lements
Kevin J. Zahnle
For advancing under­
standing of how plane­
tary-scale physical and
chemical processes affect
the evolution of planets
and life on them
World Nuclear Association (2011) Fukushima
Accident 2011, 22 December 2011, www.worldnuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.
html
Ewing R (2011) Standards and Regulations for the
Geological Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and
High Level Waste. Prepared for the Blue Ribbon
Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, March
4, 2011, www.brc.gov/library/commissioned_
papers/EWING%20BRC%20white%20paper%20
FINAL.pdf
166
J une 2012
PERSPECTIVES
Fukushima Daiichi: Lessons Learned
Note from the editors: Six prominent scholars,
politicians, and policy makers were asked the
question “What has been learned from the Fukishima
Daiichi event and how will this impact the future
of nuclear power?”
The Importance of Clear Communication
Ian G. McKinley1
The damage to the Fukushima reactors provided
frightening images that shook confidence in
nuclear power around the world. It is easy to
forget that, as yet, there is no indication of radio­
logical harm to the general public. Confusing
and incorrect comparisons with the completely
different situation in Chernobyl highlight a
major lesson to be learned from this incident:
the importance of clear communication.
Communication failed at every level. Known tsunami risks were not
communicated to those charged with assessing natural hazards to
nuclear facilities. The developing situation in the damaged units after
the tsunami was poorly communicated to both the government and
the general public, delaying decisions that could have limited the con­
sequences and helped avoid unnecessary panic. Tools that could have
been used to help plan the response to releases of radioactivity were
introduced too late, and their output was presented in a way that only
increased confusion and public concern. It should be emphasized that
this was not simply a result of the chaos immediately after a major
disaster nor was it limited to Japan—9 months after the Fukushima
event, newspaper, TV, and Internet articles continued to sow confusion
around the world.
At the Daiichi site, contamination levels are high and remediation will
be a major challenge. Although hotspots and increased radiation levels
exist off-site, health hazards from the radiocesium isotopes that now
dominate activity levels are very small. Nevertheless, demonstration
cleanup projects have been initiated and regional remediation will
follow. A rich country like Japan can justify such actions, even if the
health benefit is marginal compared to the effort invested. Such an
objective perspective on the risks involved should, however, be clearly
explained in order to reassure local residents and involve them in deci­
sions about the actions that need to be taken.
Poor communication has also meant that, so far, potential options for
optimizing the remediation work are being missed. Major efforts are
being invested to manage lightly contaminated soil; however, this soil
could be better utilized as ground cover on the more highly contami­
nated reactor site, providing radiation shielding and reducing doses
to workers.
The communication problem extends to wider, international issues
resulting from this incident. In several cases, knee-jerk reactions from
poorly informed politicians have resulted in moves away from nuclear
power, without any balanced consideration of the potentially larger
environmental and public health hazards of the fossil fuel alternatives
that would be introduced in its place. More seriously, the fact that two
1 Ian G. McKinley ([email protected]) is a technical consultant
at MCM, Baden, Switzerland, and, since December 2011, a visiting professor at
Okayama University, Japan. He was initially involved in the synthesis of relevant
international experience to help plan on-site and off-site remediation. Currently
he is supporting assessment of the first demonstration remediation projects and
planning subsequent regional cleanup actions.
E lements
recent devastating tsunamis have resulted from megathrust earthquakes
has focused risk assessment on this particular hazard combination—
without considering that the historical record shows much larger tsu­
namis from other sources, such as volcanoes and landslides. Indeed,
much of the infrastructure that supports our high population densities
is located in areas where a natural catastrophe in coming decades is
not just possible, it is inevitable. As was the case before Fukushima,
the technology exists to assess such hazards and, to a certain degree,
minimize consequences or prepare responses. Unless the existence and
usefulness of such technology is effectively communicated to decision
makers, however, these lessons will have to be relearned after the next
natural catastrophe.
Further background information
The Fukushima Daiichi incident in context:
McKinley IG, Grogan HA, McKinley LE (2011) Fukushima: Overview of
relevant international experience. Journal of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and
Environment 18: 89-99
Tsunami risk overview:
McKinley IG, Alexander WR, Kawamura H (2011) Assessing and managing
tsunami risks. Nuclear Engineering International 56 (687): 14-17
Improving International Cooperation
Catherine Cesarsky2
The Fukushima Daiichi accident undoubtedly
has shaken the world of nuclear power in a very
serious way and will leave indelible marks. Even
after the release of the preliminary report by the
Japanese investigation committee chaired by
Yotaro Hatamura, not everything is known of
the sequence of events and of their final
consequence.
Main Lessons for Present Reactors
A first lesson from Fukushima is that very unlikely events may com­
bine with each other in unanticipated ways, so the concept of “emer­
gency preparedness” will have to be revisited. The main cause of the
Fukushima accident was the tsunami, which resulted in the loss of
the cooling capabilities and the internal electrical supply, including
some of the emergency batteries. The design of the plant was highly
resistant to earthquakes but had a limited protection against floods.
Thus, in addition to a well-defined design basis, a nuclear plant must
have some potential to resist external hazards that are “beyond design.”
Most operating light water reactors already have dedicated systems
to cope with severe-accident conditions. For example, in France, pas­
sive hydrogen recombiners to protect against hydrogen accumulation
were installed years ago. France will also be putting in place a rapid
intervention force with off-site power supplies and cooling capabili­
ties. Also, it has been proposed to identify an ultimate set of systems
(“hard core”) and to have them available in bunkers at the site in case
of extreme conditions.
At Fukushima, for a few days after the tsunami and under very dif­
ficult conditions, the decay heat removal was maintained using onsite water reservoirs and pumping systems requiring no AC electrical
supply. Thus a large early release of radioactive material was avoided,
2 Catherine Cesarsky is the High Commissioner for Atomic Energy in France and
advisor to the French government on science and energy issues. She holds a
physics degree from the University of Buenos Aires and a PhD in astronomy from
Harvard University (1971). She is a member of the French Académie des Sciences
and a foreign member of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), the Royal
Society (UK), and the Swedish Academy of Sciences. She was visiting the Rokkasho
nuclear reprocessing plant in Japan on March 11, when the earthquake and
tsunami struck Japan.
168
J une 2012
PERSPECTIVES
A Japanese Perspective
Atsuyuki Suzuki3
and the Japanese government was able to evacuate people in time.
The Hatamura ­committee argues that these systems could have been
operated in a better way. The necessity for superior preparation and
training of the plant staff is therefore another key lesson.
In terms of accident progression, a significant part of the radioactive
inventory has been retained in the reactor containers, and it appears
that the three coriums are trapped in the concrete basements of the
reactors. For present reactors, in-depth studies of the physics and chem­
istry of severe accidents will have to be carried out. This knowledge
is essential for defining management procedures and for developing
severe-accident simulators devoted to operator training. Resistant
instrumentation will also be required for ascertaining, as far as pos­
sible, the plant condition during an accident.
Future of Nuclear Power
For most countries involved, nuclear energy will likely remain an
essential component of the low-carbon energy mix. The Fukushima
accident has demonstrated the appropriateness of the safety objectives
assigned to the new generation of reactors (generation III), which fea­
ture additional systems dedicated to severe-accident mitigation (e.g.
corium retention, hydrogen explosions).
After more than thirty years of cooperation following the Three Mile
Island (USA) accident, Fukushima also raises doubts about the efficiency
of international cooperation. After Fukushima, improvements should
be actively sought in:
• Speeding up current initiatives for harmonizing safety requirements,
crucial to assessing the full compliance of commercial projects to
internationally agreed-upon safety criteria for generation III reactors
• Progressing towards better harmonized safety regulations and sharing
of best practices
• Developing international training
• Enhancing international cooperation in regulatory research, safety,
and radiation protection
• Generalizing periodic nuclear power plant “stress tests” followed by
peer reviews (as done in the European Union)
• Studying concrete measures to provide mutual assistance to operators
in case of severe accidents, an issue especially important for small- and
medium-sized electric utilities
After Fukushima, nuclear energy will have to regain public and political
acceptance. A rational and consensual determination of all the conse­
quences of the Fukushima accident and a “dynamic safety” approach
with full use of lessons learned from the accident and stress tests will
contribute to this challenging objective.
The massive earthquake and immense tsunami
on March 11, 2011, raise a fundamental ques­
tion: Are human beings capable of managing
unprecedented natural disasters? The question
is also begged by the great 1755 Lisbon earth­
quake, which profoundly shocked Europeans.
This event compelled a number of philosophers,
including Immanuel Kant, to alter their thoughts
drastically. As far as the Fukushima nuclear accident is concerned, my
answer is “yes.” My optimism is based on the performance of the
nuclear power plants located in the coastal areas of northeastern Japan,
where no serious consequences were experienced, even though these
areas were subjected to a nearly equal-magnitude tsunami.
As an example, consider reactors #5 and #6 at Fukushima Daiichi. One
of the three emergency diesel generators installed at Unit 6 remained
available, and operators were able to successfully connect it to both
units and provide sufficient power for accident management at these
units. This surviving generator was air-cooled, not water-cooled, and it
was installed at an elevation high enough to avoid the tsunami. This
is an example of a defense-in-depth safety concept, where a diversity of
designs offers the greatest resilience to an extraordinarily unlikely event.
In addition to diversity in design, we have learned the usefulness of
prudent conservatism when considering natural phenomena that are
conceivably always associated with the unknown. One of the issues
that Japan’s nuclear industry missed was to take into account the his­
torical tsunami records in the analysis of reactor safety. The scientific
knowledge obtained in recent years had indicated that a tsunami of
a magnitude similar to that of the March 2011 event occurred in 869
AD in these areas; this fact was not known in the late 1960s and early
1970s, when the construction permits were granted. Unfortunately,
no action was taken to reflect the new knowledge in order to enhance
reactor safety. Thus, an overridingly important point raised by the
accident is that new scientific findings should be adopted promptly
and properly in order to improve nuclear safety. This is particularly
true if the new information is related to extreme natural events that
are difficult to predict.
After the accident, nuclear policy in Japan was placed under review.
Priority was given to the environmental remediation of contaminated
off-site areas and to implementing the dismantlement of the damaged
reactors. These tasks will require patience, as well as substantial expen­
ditures. The future of the nuclear power industry in Japan rests heavily
on the successful achievement of off-site environmental remediation
and the removal of nuclear material from the damaged reactors.
In the aftermath of the accident, however, there are countries that
have not changed their policy, but continue to pursue their plans for
reactor construction, and the Japanese government has expressed its
readiness to be actively committed to the international nuclear busi­
ness. Worldwide, energy security is critical. The political situation in
the Middle East, for instance, underscores the inherently fragile nature
of the international oil market, which can potentially affect the world
economy. Naturally, the future of global nuclear power depends on
such international energy circumstances, and my perception is that
the global impacts of the accident will gradually disappear, as more
realistic assessments are made.
3 Atsuyuki Suzuki is the president of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and
a professor emeritus of nuclear engineering at the University of Tokyo. Currently
he leads the special task force at JAEA specifically dedicated to the partnership
programs dealing with Fukushima matters, including environmental remediation of
off-site areas as well as postaccident management of the nuclear power plants and
environmental restoration of on-site areas.
E lements
169
J une 2012
PERSPECTIVES
Environmental Remediation, Waste Management,
and the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
The Post-Fukushima Nuclear Industry
in Mongolia
Joonhong Ahn4
Undraa Agvaanluvsan5
The Japanese government has promised to make
every effort to limit the dose rate in air in areas
contaminated by the Fukushima accident to below
1 millisievert (mSv) per year (typical background
exposures in Japan are 1 mSv per year). It has been
estimated that decontaminating the highly con­
taminated areas (i.e. >1 megabecquerel/m2 will
generate an estimated 24 million m3 of contami­
nated material. The estimated cost of disposal of the wastes from highly
contaminated areas is a few trillion yen (one trillion yen ≈ 8 billion US
dollars). If areas with lower contamination by radioactivity are also
included in the cleanup, the total volume of waste material and the associ­
ated cost will be much greater; however, the health risks in areas of low
contamination have been judged to be insignificant. Thus, considering
the potential scale of the cleanup effort, the question “how clean is clean
enough?” has emerged as a much-debated issue involving the convergence
of technical, political, and societal concerns.
The history of nuclear activities in Mongolia
offers a good example of the development of
nuclear capabilities in a developing country.
Mongolia, once Communist, was closely linked
to the former Soviet Union. The training of
nuclear scientists began in the early 1960s, and
most Mongolian scientists received their post­
graduate degrees and research experience in
nuclear physics at the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia.
Over the past decade, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization
(NUMO) of Japan has been responsible for the process of public par­
ticipation in the siting of a geological repository for high-level and
long-lived radioactive wastes. However, no municipality has yet to vol­
unteer to host such a site on its territory. Now, a siting process that was
deadlocked before the accident has become even more difficult. The
realization of the amount of material that will result from decontami­
nation related to the Fukushima accident and the necessity of moving
forward with a solution have delayed the siting process for a repository
for high-level radioactive waste. On the other hand, this delay may
be a valuable opportunity for developing trust and new approaches
for decision making that could lead to a break in the deadlock over
selecting a site for a geologic repository.
Public discussion has also extended to a reconsideration of Japan’s
nuclear fuel cycle policy, particularly at the back end, that is, interim
storage, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and final geological disposal.
Japan is the only non–nuclear weapons country with an industrial-scale
capability for uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing that
has been approved by the international community. The motivation
for developing a full-fledged, complete fuel cycle capability has been a
national policy of energy security and independence. Plutonium gen­
erated in light water reactors and future fast breeder reactors has been
considered to be a semi-indigenous resource. Because of the sodium
leak in the Monju fast breeder reactor in 1995 and the technical dif­
ficulties with the vitrification process at the Rokkasho reprocessing
plant, there was already growing public skepticism about the current
nuclear fuel cycle strategy.
Due to the events at Fukushima, public agreement and perceptions
concerning the development of nuclear power in Japan have changed
significantly, and there is much discussion about whether the current
nuclear fuel cycle policy should be revised. In any conceivable future
scenario, including phasing-out nuclear power or abandoning the recy­
cling of plutonium, the transition will require at least a generation. To
successfully manage this transition period, interim storage of spent
fuel will be essential. The protection of long-term storage facilities
from natural disasters and terrorism will be a crucial technical and
societal issue. The fate of accumulated plutonium should also be clearly
accounted for, especially in the phase-out scenarios. New fuel cycle
policies should be established from the viewpoint of making spent
fuel more robust against accidents and disasters and reducing the risk
of proliferating weapons-usable materials.
4 Joonhong Ahn is a professor in the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the
University of California, Berkeley. He has led numerous joint research projects
involving institutions in Japan, South Korea, and the United States, and the IAEA.
He is currently conducting a joint research project with the Japan Atomic Energy
Agency, in which criticality safety is being analyzed for geological disposal of
molten nuclear fuel in the Fukushima reactors.
E lements
Though nuclear power was held in high esteem, there was also a strong
fear of nuclear activities. This was due to the dual nature of nuclear
technology. The two blocs in the Cold War, one led by the United States
and Europe the other led by the Soviet Union, were in a nuclear arms
race. As nuclear weapons were being tested, both sides claimed that the
other was an “evil” force pursuing the development of an “evil” weapon.
At the same time, both sides argued that they needed nuclear weapons
for their defense. In order to sustain this policy, nuclear weapons were
viewed as a necessary evil. The combined feeling of fear and allure
was quite widespread among the Mongolian people, and this paradox
was only enhanced by the fear engendered by the Chernobyl accident
in 1986 and the hope created by the Democratic Revolution in 1990.
The Democratic Revolution brought Mongolia the freedom to adopt
an independent nuclear policy. The anti–nuclear weapons senti­
ment is reflected by Mongolia’s declaration that it would be a nuclear
weapons–free country. Nuclear policy making remained mostly dor­
mant until 2009, when Parliament approved the historic Nuclear Energy
Law and Nuclear Energy Policy. With some of the world’s largest and
least explored uranium reserves, Mongolia knew that it needed a new
policy in order to become a supplier of uranium for nuclear fuel. Thus,
Mongolia joined the “nuclear renaissance,” as did more than 30 other
countries that were considering building nuclear power plants. During
this time, support for the nuclear industry among the Mongolian public
and political leaders was strong.
The situation changed after Fukushima. Rumors that the Mongolian
government was considering building a nuclear-waste-disposal site
caused much anxiety and opposition among the people. Although the
government refuted the accusations, opposition groups formed against
the government. The public, taking advantage of the new social media
technologies, was not convinced by the government. This was mainly
because the Mongolian government could not articulate its position
and strategy for nuclear development. The rumors and discussion only
ceased with a presidential decree in 2011, which stipulated that there
would be no contract negotiations or cooperation in the nuclear arena
without the approval of the National Security Council of Mongolia.
Mongolia does not yet have a nuclear power plant, nor is there a
national consensus on how its extensive uranium reserves should be
developed. Mongolia is an example of how difficult it is to develop a
national nuclear policy in the post-Fukushima environment.
5 Undraa Agvaanluvsan, a nuclear physicist by training, is a former ambassador at
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Mongolia, where she was in charge of
nuclear energy and security issues at the time of the Fukushima event. Her expertise
in nuclear science at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and in policy research
at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University,
combined with her experience in nuclear-policy practice in the Mongolian foreign
service, provides her with a unique and useful perspective on current concerns.
The views expressed here are the author’s personal opinions and in no way express an
official policy of the Mongolian government.
170
J une 2012
PERSPECTIVES
Making Nuclear Power Safer
and Less Proliferative after Fukushima
Frank N. von Hippel6
The Fukushima disaster made obvious some of
the safety weaknesses of the General Electric
boiling water reactors, including their smallvolume containments. This was understood in
1972 within the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC), before Fukushima Daiichi Units 2 and 3
were licensed for operation and before the con­
struction of Fukushima Unit 4 had even begun.
A deputy director of the AEC’s Directorate of
Licensing warned, however, that questioning this design “could well
be the end of nuclear power. It would throw into question the opera­
tion of licensed plants [and] would make unlicensable the…plants now
under review.” He was later appointed chairman of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). Even today, the majority of the political
leadership of the NRC is still reluctant to revisit past decisions.
A potentially more serious consequence of poor design is the way
in which current nuclear fuel cycle arrangements, which legitimize
national enrichment and reprocessing plants, spread the bomb while
spreading nuclear power. As former International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) Secretary General Mohamed ElBaradei argued in 2003,
we should move toward at least multinational control of such facilities.
6 Frank von Hippel is a nuclear physicist and a professor of public and international
affairs at Princeton University, where he cofounded, in 1975, Princeton’s Program
on Science and Global Security; in 1989, the journal Science & Global Security; and,
in 2006, the International Panel on Fissile Materials. In the decades before the
Fukushima Daiichi accident, von Hippel and coauthors spotlighted and suggested
remedies to the dangers of reactor containment overpressure during an accident
and the practice of dense-packing spent fuel pools.
E lements
If nuclear power is to have a future, it must be made safer and less
proliferative. But even if this can be accomplished, the role of nuclear
power will be limited during the next few crucial decades, as we try
to cap and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, unless we get much more
serious about energy efficiency. Global growth of electric-power demand
is literally outrunning our ability to build non–fossil fuel capacity,
even in China and India where the growth of both total electricity
consumption and nuclear power are most dramatic.
In 2008, nuclear power accounted for 13.6 percent of global electric
power, down from a peak of about 17 percent in 1999. The IAEA’s pro­
jections of nuclear power have historically far exceeded reality, but in
its 2011 projection, the IAEA predicts that nuclear power will account
for only 6.2 to 13.5 percent of global electric power in 2050. Because of
the rapid growth of demand, even this contribution will require global
nuclear generating capacity to increase by 50–225 percent. The contri­
bution of renewable energy— still mostly traditional hydropower—also
declined between 1999 and 2008, by one percent to 19 percent, despite
the rapid growth of wind and biomass energy.
The IAEA projections are based on its survey of national projections
for the future of nuclear power, which, in aggregate, have declined
by only about 5 percent since the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Many
governments still believe in a future for nuclear energy, but it is no
longer the dominant future many expected in the 1960s and 1970s.
If nuclear and other nonfossil sources of electric power are to play a
more important role in limiting climate change, we must work on the
demand as well as the supply side of the energy problem. Our new
refrigerators and compact fluorescent bulbs consume one quarter as
much power as the devices they replace, but much more is both pos­
sible and necessary.
171
J une 2012
Tr avelogue
Field Research inside the
Fukushima Restricted Area
Satoshi Utsunomiya1
On March 16, 2012, Ohkuma town, where the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant is located, stood quietly and peacefully, except
for workers in tyvex uniforms conducting remediation work and aban­
doned cows migrating along unused roads. The town appeared the
same as usual, except for the absence of residents, some earthquake
damage, and high beeping sounds from our survey dosimeter indicating
maximum radiation readings greater than 30 μSv/h, even inside our
vehicle. I was there with colleagues for a collaborative field study with
Japan Atomic Energy Agency and Fukushima University.
Ohkuma town and vicinity are located in the restricted area, that is,
within a perimeter of 20 km from the nuclear power plant (Fig. 1). By
law, no one is allowed to enter the area without governmental per­
mission. Security checkpoints have been set up on all roads into the
area. A total of 78,200 residents were evacuated from the restricted
area. Outside the restricted area, a “deliberate evacuation area” was
designated, covering mainly Iitate village and Namie town, based on
the area of contaminant distribution elongated toward the northwest;
10,550 residents were evacuated. The deliberate evacuation area was
established by the government for those areas where the accumulated
dose rate was estimated to be >20 mSv/year (Figs. 1, 2). People are not
allowed to live in this area or to enter the area except for a quick return
home, vehicle transit, or a short-term visit for public services or for
business purposes. Although the extent of these areas was revised in
April 2012 (Fig. 1), most remain deserted.
A dosimeter stands in the playground of the Tsushima elementary
school in Namie town within the deliberate evacuation area. The few
parked cars are the property of refugees. People were first evacuated to this
elementary school located outside the restricted area; however, they were forced to
evacuate again, after the town was included in the deliberate evacuation area.
Figure 2
Satoshi Utsunomiya
sampling soil in a rice
field in Iitate village within the
deliberate evacuation area. The snow
covering the field decreased the dose
to some extent.
Figure 3
The scientific challenges at Fukushima include the very low concentra­
tions of radionuclides that must be detected (e.g. even 160,000 Bq/kg of
137Cs is only equivalent to ~50 parts per trillion), the characterization
of the phases associated with each radionuclide, the heterogeneous size
distribution of these phases in soils, the large area of contaminated
land, and the wide variety of vegetation.
It is sometimes difficult to see how scientific studies can contribute
to the mitigation of disastrous and tragic events. Mounting problems
sometimes overwhelm us and obscure the scientific goals, but basic
science will definitely be important to the strategies developed for
restoration at Fukushima. Our group is contributing to the effort by
carrying out Cs and Pu analyses in the contaminated area.
(A) A prediction of the
accumulated
radioactivity between March 11, 2011,
and March 11, 2012, with the outlines
of four designated areas. (B) A map of
the predicted annual dose in the area
of Ohkuma and Futaba towns. Both
maps modified after the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and Technology, Japan
Figure 1
Within the restricted area, especially within 3 km of the power plant,
the radiation dose increases dramatically. After a few hours of field
work in Ohkuma (Fig. 3), the dosimeters on our chests read >90 μSv,
which is about one-tenth of the annual dose limit for public expo­
sure, 1 mSv/y, recommended by the International Commission on
Radiological Protection. During our field work, the dose rate about 3
km south of the plant was as high as 60 μSv/h at 1 m above the ground.
The highest dose rate measured was 630 μSv/h beneath a rainwater pipe
at point 1 in Figure 1. Such spotty occurrences of high radioactivity
have been recognized at many contaminated sites, but they do not
appear on the large-scale maps of contamination.
1 Satoshi Utsunomiya has been an associate professor in the Department of
Chemistry, Kyushu University, since 2007. He received a PhD from the University
of Tokyo in 2000 and worked for the University of Michigan prior to his current
position. As a mineralogist and geochemist, he has been studying the migration
of radionuclides in the subsurface and other geochemical problems using various
nanocharacterization techniques.
E lements
From left to right: Professors Nanba (Fukushima University), Kaneko
(Kyushu University), and Utsunomiya (Kyushu University), Mr. Suenaga
(Ohkuma municipal government), Mr. Saito (Ohkuma municipal government), and
Mr. Iwata (Kyushu University). The photo was taken by Professor Kawatsu in front of the
main building of the Ohkuma municipal government, located within the restricted area.
Figure 4
Finally, I express my greatest appreciation to Professors Nanba and
Kawatsu of Fukushima University and to Messrs. Saito and Suenaga
of the Ohkuma municipal government for transporting us to the area
near the Fukushima power plant, as they exposed themselves to the
same radiation dose as we did (Fig. 4).
172
J une 2012
A hypothetical question of
course! But even if we could
ask them, the SPECTRO MS
makes the question redundant.
This novel ICP mass
spectrometer analyzes the
entire relevant mass spectrum
completely simultaneously;
faster and more precisely to
boot.
SPECTRO MS
- Double focusing sector field mass
spectrometer with newly developed
ion optic and pioneering detector
technology
- Simultaneous measurement of
more than 75 elements with
210 isotopes for improved
precision together with highest
sample throughput
- Fast fingerprinting, internal
standardization in real time and the
measurement of transient signals,
isotope ratios and isotope dilution
- Compatible with EPA, FDA, CLP
and 21 CFR Part 11 as well as
additional standards and
guidelines
Do You Think Ions
Like Queuing Up?
Find out more about
the new SPECTRO MS at
[email protected]
Tel +49.2821.892-2102
http://ms.spectro.com
SPECTRO MS: A New Era in ICP Mass Spectrometry
2011
CosmoElements
The Enduring Legacy of the Allende Meteorite
Steven B. Simon*
The Earth is a very geologically active planet.
Rocks are recycled through erosion, burial, and
melting, which makes it difficult to learn about
the origin of the Solar System by analyzing
samples from Earth. In order to understand the
earliest processes in the Solar System, we have
to study meteorites—specifically, chondrites,
which are over 4.5 billion years old and con­
tain the first solids to have formed in the Solar
System. The Solar System formed from a cloud
of gas and dust called the solar nebula, and its
bulk chemical composition is known because
about 99.8% of the mass of the solar nebula
ended up in the Sun and we know the Sun’s
composition from spectroscopic analysis of
its light. From this composition, the sequence
of minerals that should form by gas-to-solid
condensation at high temperatures from the
cooling solar nebula can be predicted. These
very minerals, Ca–Al-rich oxides and silicates,
can be found in refractory inclusions within
carbonaceous chondrites. However, this was
scarcely appreciated until the fall of the
Allende meteorite in Mexico on February 8,
1969, because until then very little material
had been available for study.
Within a few months of the fall, two tons
of specimens of the Allende meteorite were
recovered from a 50 km long strewnfield, and
many specimens were distributed for study.
Preliminary reports were published within
a year of the fall (e.g. King et al. 1969), and
an extensive report on the fall, recovery, and
classification was published within two years
(Clarke et al. 1970). A view of a slab surface of
Allende (Fig. 1) shows that, typical of CV-type
carbonaceous chondrites, the meteorite is a
jumble of refractory Ca–Al-rich inclusions
(CAIs) and round objects called chondrules
set in a dark, carbonaceous matrix. The chon­
drules and inclusions are not related to each
other. Before becoming enclosed in the matrix,
they formed individually as discrete objects
in space. They have been preserved since the
formation of the Solar System because they
were incorporated into a parent body that was
too small to have a geologically active surface.
View of a sawn and polished slice of the
Allende meteorite, showing numerous
white Ca–Al-rich refractory inclusions (CAIs) and round
chondrules in a dark, carbonaceous matrix. Field of view
is about 8 cm across. Photo by Linda Welzenbach, courtesy
of the Smithsonian Institution
Figure 1
terrestrial fractionation line (Clayton et al.
1977). Allende’s inclusions (e .g. Fig. 2) were
found to have an average enrichment factor
among the refractory elements of 17.5 relative
to bulk Solar System abundances (Grossman et
al. 1977), strong evidence for their formation
at high temperatures.
The first refractory inclusions shown to have
excess 26Mg due to the decay of 26Al (Gray and
Compston 1974; Lee et al. 1976) were from
Allende, and the first studies of the distinctive
rim layer sequences on refractory inclusions
(Wark and Lovering 1977), indicative of pro­
cessing in the nebula after they formed and
before they were enclosed in the meteorite
matrix, were also based on Allende samples.
In addition, the first report of trivalent Ti in a
refractory inclusion was based on the analysis
of Ti–Al-rich pyroxene from Allende by Dowty
and Clark (1973), who termed the phase “fas­
saite”; the presence of Ti3+ is strong evidence for
formation under very oxygen-poor (reducing)
conditions, as would be expected for a system
of solar composition. Note that all of these
major breakthroughs in the understanding
of refractory inclusions occurred within ten
years of the fall of the Allende meteorite. In
following years it was shown that CAIs were
not simply condensates but that some had
been molten at least once (MacPherson and
Grossman 1981; MacPherson et al. 1984) or
even twice (Simon et al. 2005). The study of
At a time when geochemical laboratories were
being modernized and equipped in anticipa­
tion of the first return of lunar samples, sci­
entists suddenly had several tons of unique,
extraterrestrial material to study. Allende
provided the material for several important
advances, including a classification scheme
for refractory inclusions in Type 3 carbona­
ceous chondrites (Grossman 1975), which is
still in use today, and the discovery that the
oxygen isotope compositions of refractory
inclusions are 16O-rich and do not fall on the
* Department of the Geophysical Sciences,
The University of Chicago
5734 S. Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
E lements
Two views of one of the most-studied refractory inclusions from Allende, Type B1 inclusion TS34.
Transmitted light, crossed polars (left), backscattered electron image (right). Lines point to the same
melilite and fassaite grains in both views.
Figure 2
Cont’d on page 176
174
J une 2012
A member of
Come s
e
Goldsch e us at
midt 2
Montre 012,
al
Stand 3
11
Providing for the world’s leading Earth Scientists
Isoprime is solely dedicated to stable isotope ratio mass
spectrometry and provides market leading instruments
to the world’s leading earth scientists. Utilising our
comprehensive suite of high performance preparation
systems and with complete support from our experienced
IRMS scientists and engineers, our customers are conducting
exceptional research to further our understanding of the
intricate mechanisms that keep our planet alive.
To find out how exploiting Earth’s stable isotopes can
push your research even further, visit www.isoprime.co.uk
CosmoElements
Allende meteorite Cont’d from page 174
THE NEW TISSINT METEORITE
Allende still results in discoveries; through work done at high magni­
fication, nine new minerals have been found in Allende by C. Ma and
coworkers since 2007 (Table 1). Allende was also the source of the first
presolar diamonds to be identified (Lewis et al. 1987).
It’s a well-known secret that meteorites fall to Earth all the time, but
rarely does such an event happen in a place where people see the
fireball and then find space rocks on the ground. July 18, 2011, marks
a remarkable event, rare even among meteorite falls—for only the
fifth time, a piece of Mars was witnessed to fall to Earth. The fireball
and associated sonic booms that marked the rock’s atmospheric entry
occurred in Morocco, a fortuitous coincidence for two reasons: many
people in Morocco are experienced meteorite hunters, and the arid
environment makes it one of the best places on Earth for the preserva­
tion of meteorites. Beginning in October, nomads began to find fresh,
fusion-crusted stones in a remote area about 48 km from Tissint vil­
lage, and over 10 kg have been recovered thus far. The meteorite was
classified as a shergottite by Tony Irving and Scott Kuehner (University
of Washington, Seattle), and its name, Tissint, was approved by the
Nomenclature Committee on January 17, 2012 (search “Tissint” at
www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/index.php).
Table 1
Minerals discovered in Allende since 2007
Mineral name
Formula
Allendeite
Sc4Zr3O12
Hexamolybdenum
Mo,Ru,Fe alloy
Monipite
MoNiP
Tistarite
Ti2O3
Davisite
CaScAlSiO6
Grossmanite
CaTi3+AlSiO6
Hibonite-(Fe)
(Fe,Mg)Al12O19
Panguite
(Ti,Al,Sc,Mg,Zr,Ca)1.8O3
Kangite
(Sc,Ti,Al,Zr,Mg,Ca,[])2O3
The research that has been done on Allende is far too vast and varied
to be adequately summarized in this brief article. Suffice it to say that
this meteorite has been a valuable source of pieces to the puzzle of the
formation of the Solar System, and it will continue to be one for the
foreseeable future.
REFERENCES
Clarke RS Jr, Jarosewich E, Mason B, Nelen J, Gomez M, Hyde JR (1970) The
Allende, Mexico meteorite shower. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth
Sciences 5: 1-53
Clayton RN, Onuma N, Grossman L, Mayeda TK (1977) Distribution of the
pre-solar component in Allende and other carbonaceous chondrites. Earth
and Planetary Science Letters 34: 209-224
Dowty E, Clark JR (1973) Crystal structure refinement and optical properties
of a Ti3+ fassaite from the Allende meteorite. American Mineralogist 58:
230-242
Gray CM, Compston W (1974) Excess
251: 495-497
26Mg
in the Allende meteorite. Nature
Grossman L (1975) Petrography and mineral chemistry of Ca-rich inclusions
in the Allende meteorite. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 39: 433-454
58 g Tissint specimen from the University of Alberta Meteorite Collection, Department
of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Edmonton, Canada
Grossman L, Ganapathy R, Davis AM (1977) Trace elements in the Allende
meteorite–III. Coarse-grained inclusions revisited. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 41: 1647-1664
King EA Jr, Schonfeld E, Richardson KA, Eldridge JS (1969) Meteorite fall at
Pueblito de Allende, Chihuahua, Mexico: Preliminary information. Science
163: 928-929
Lee T, Papanastassiou DA, Wasserburg GJ (1976) Demonstration of 26Mg excess
in Allende and evidence for 26Al. Geophysical Research Letters 3: 109-112
Lewis RS, Ming T, Wacker JF, Anders E, Steel E (1987) Interstellar diamonds in
meteorites. Nature 326: 160-162
MacPherson GJ, Boss A (2011) Cosmochemical evidence for astrophysical pro­
cesses during the formation of our solar system. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 108: 19152-19158
MacPherson GJ, Grossman L (1981) A once-molten, coarse-grained, Ca-rich
inclusion in Allende. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 52: 16-24
MacPherson GJ, Paque JM, Stolper E, Grossman L (1984) The origin and signif­
icance of reverse zoning in melilite from Allende Type B inclusions. Journal
of Geology 92: 289-305
Simon SB, Grossman L, Davis AM (2005) A unique type B inclusion from
Allende with evidence for multiple stages of melting. Meteoritics & Planetary
Science 40: 461-475
As the freshest fall of a Martian meteorite since 1962, Tissint is currently
the subject of intense scientific scrutiny: it is a typical Martian basalt,
consisting of olivine phenocrysts in a pyroxene–plagioclase ground­
mass, with accessory oxides, sulfides, and phosphates. Many (if not
all) specimens are crosscut by glassy veins and pockets that formed
as a result of shock during an impact on Mars, likely the impact that
lofted the meteoroid from the surface of Mars. The shock melt pockets
are similar to those in another famous Martian meteorite, Elephant
Moraine 79001, in which trapped Martian atmosphere was found, pro­
viding the crucial piece of evidence for a Martian origin. But beyond
the insights that will be gained into Martian igneous and shock pro­
cesses, Tissint represents a unique opportunity to test curation and
handling methods for future sample return (from Mars or elsewhere).
Analyses to determine what contaminants the meteorite picked up in
the Moroccan desert are underway, in order to establish a baseline to
test whether Tissint preserves any Martian organic matter. Regardless of
the outcome, Tissint is sure to become one of the most studied Martian
meteorites—at least until the next one falls!
Wark DA, Lovering JF (1977) Marker events in the early evolution of the solar
system: Evidence from rims on Ca-Al-rich inclusions in carbonaceous chon­
drites. Proceedings of the 8th Lunar Science Conference: 95-112
E lements
Chris Herd, University of Alberta
176
J une 2012
Irène Korsakissok did her PhD thesis in the field
of air-quality modeling. Her thesis dealt with mul­
tiscale modeling and uncertainties in atmospheric
dispersion models. Two years ago, she joined the
Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire
(IRSN), where she is in charge of the local-scale
atmospheric dispersion model used for operational
purposes. She also works on local-scale meteoro­
logical preprocessors and model uncertainties.
Joonhong Ahn received doctoral degrees from the
University of California, Berkeley (PhD, 1988) and
the University of Tokyo (D Eng, 1989). He joined
the faculty of UC Berkeley in 1995. His research
deals with the performance assessment of advanced
nuclear fuel cycles and the geological disposal of
radioactive wastes. He led numerous joint research
projects with institutions in Japan, South Korea,
and the United States, and with the IAEA. He is currently conducting
a joint research project with the Japan Atomic Energy Agency involving
the analysis of criticality safety for the geological disposal of molten
nuclear fuel in the Fukushima reactors.
Edward D. Blandford is a Stanton Nuclear Security
Fellow at the Center for International Security and
Cooperation at Stanford University and an adjunct
research assistant professor in the Chemical and
Nuclear Engineering Department at the University
of New Mexico. His research interests include
nuclear reactor thermal hydraulics, probabilistic
risk assessment, performance-based regulation,
and best-estimate code verification and validation. He received his MS
(2008) and his PhD (2010) in nuclear engineering from the University
of California, Berkeley. Prior to his graduate studies, he worked at the
Electric Power Research Institute overseeing steam generator thermal
hydraulics research and development activities.
Rodney C. Ewing is the Edward H. Kraus
Distinguished University Professor in the
Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences at
the University of Michigan. He is also a professor
in the Departments of Nuclear Engineering &
Radiological Sciences and Materials Science &
Engineering. Ewing’s research focuses on radiation
effects in minerals, ion beam modification of mate­
rials, the crystal chemistry of actinide minerals and compounds, and
the “back-end” of the nuclear fuel cycle. He is the past president of the
Mineralogical Society of America and the International Union of
Materials Research Societies. He was recently appointed by President
Obama to serve on the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
Bernd Grambow is a Professor of Excellence at
the École des Mines de Nantes, France, where he
holds the chair on nuclear waste disposal. He is
head of the Subatech laboratory on high-energy
nuclear physics, reactor physics and radiochem­
istry, a joint research unit at the IN2P3/CNRS, the
Ecole des Mines of Nantes, and the University of
Nantes. He is also director of the new French
national CNRS-academic/industrial research network NEEDS (nuclear:
environment, energy, waste, society). His scientific expertise is in radio­
chemistry, nuclear waste disposal science, geochemical modeling, radio­
nuclide migration in the environment, chemical thermodynamics, and
the dynamics of solid/liquid interfaces.
Hiroo Kanamori is the John E. and Hazel S. Smits
Professor of Geophysics, Emeritus at the California
Institute of Technology. He received his PhD in
1964 at Tokyo University. He works on the physics
of earthquakes and its application to hazard miti­
gation through real-time technology.
E lements
Thorne Lay is Distinguished Professor of Earth
and Planetary Sciences at the University of
California, Santa Cruz. He received his PhD at the
California Institute of Technology in 1983. He
studies earthquake rupture processes, deep-Earth
structure, and seismic wave propagation.
Yukio Masumoto is a principal scientist at the
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and
Technology in Yokohama, Japan. He received a
master’s degree at Kyushu University and a PhD
from the University of Tokyo on climate variations
and large-scale air–sea interactions in the western
tropical Pacific Ocean. After working at the
University of Tokyo, he moved to the Japan Agency
for Marine-Earth Science and Technology in 2010. His current research
topics include climate variation modes in the tropics and their influ­
ences on global and regional climate systems, basin-scale and regional
ocean circulation, and the prediction and predictability of these ocean/
climate variations.
Anne Mathieu has been a research engineer at
the IRSN for six years. After a PhD on the dynamics
of the atmospheric boundary layer, she became an
assistant professor at the Université Saint-Quentin
en Yvelines. She joined the IRSN to work on localand large-scale atmospheric dispersion during acci­
dental releases. Her current work focuses on the
development of methods for the reconstruction of
accidental releases using environmental observations.
Takashi Murakami is a professor in the Department
of Earth and Planetary Science at the University
of Tokyo. His current research focuses on mineral–
water–atmosphere interactions, including atmo­
spheric evolution in the Precambrian, dissolution
and weathering of minerals, and the formation
and transformation of nanominerals and their
effects on element transport. He has worked for
the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, the University of New
Mexico, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation,
and Ehime University. He is the past editor-in-chief of the Journal of
Mineralogical and Petrological Sciences and is a vice-president of the Japan
Association of Mineralogical Sciences.
177
J une 2012
Yasumasa Miyazawa is a senior scientist at the
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and
Technology in Yokohama, Japan. He received a
master’s degree at Kyoto University and a PhD from
the University of Tokyo on the predictability of
the Kuroshio variations and mesoscale eddy activi­
ties around Japan. After working with a private
company, he moved to the Japan Agency for
Marine-Earth Science and Technology in 2004. His current research
topics include numerical modeling of tide–wave–current interactions
in the ocean, the implementation of data assimilation in numerical
ocean models, and the utilization of simulated data products in societal
applications.
Christophe Poinssot is the director of the
RadioChemistry & Processes Department in the
French Nuclear and Alternative Energies
Commission (CEA). He was also appointed as a
professor in nuclear chemistry at the French
National Institute of Nuclear Science and
Techniques and, from 2012, as a visiting professor
in actinide materials at the University of Sheffield.
After his PhD in material science from the Ecole Normale Supérieure
of Paris, he joined CEA Saclay in 1999, where he launched and coordi­
nated the research program on the long-term storage and disposal evo­
lution of spent fuel. His main interests are the improvement of nuclear
energy sustainability and the geochemistry of uranium minerals.
Denis Quélo has been a research engineer at the
IRSN for five years. After a PhD in data assimilation
of atmospheric chemistry, he joined the IRSN to
develop an operational, large-scale atmosphericdispersion model. His current work centers on
impact studies related to accidental releases from
nuclear facilities.
Jeroen Ritsema is the Henry N. Pollack Associate
Professor at the University of Michigan. He received
his PhD in 1995 at the University of California,
Santa Cruz. His research is focused on the seismic
imaging of Earth’s interior, computational seis­
mology, and Earth dynamics.
Yoshio Takahashi is a professor of environmental
geochemistry at Hiroshima University, Japan. In
1997, he received his PhD in environmental radio­
chemistry from the University of Tokyo. He then
became a research associate in the Department of
Earth and Planetary Systems Science at Hiroshima
University and became a full professor in that
department in 2009. His research interest is pri­
marily in speciation studies applied to environmental chemistry and
geochemistry to understand the fates of contaminants, geochemical
cycles, and the evolution of the Earth. He is currently participating in
a project on the migration of radionuclides emitted during the accident
at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Daisuke Tsumune is a senior research scientist at
the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power
Industry, Japan. He received a master’s degree and
a PhD from Tohoku University, the latter on oce­
anic transport processes of artificial radionuclides
originating from global fallout due to atmospheric
weapons testing. His current research interests
include tracer distribution and the transport mech­
anism of tracers, such as carbon, in the ocean; iron as a micronutrient;
and artificial radionuclides originating from global fallout and from
the Fukushima Daiichi accident. His goal is a better understanding of
the role of oceans on climate and an assessment of oceanic pollution
at the global scale.
Naohiro Yoshida is a professor in the Department
of Environmental Chemistry and Engineering, a
v ice- d irec tor of t he Inter-Depa r t menta l
Organization for Environment and Energy, and an
assistant vice-president at the Tokyo Institute of
Technology. He is also the president of the
Geochemical Society of Japan. He introduced the
use of isotopomers, isotopic substituted molecules,
as powerful tracers in the study of the cycles of materials of biogeo­
chemical interest from the early Earth to present and future global
change, life and biomedical diagnosis. He is currently involved in an
intensive survey of radionuclide dispersal from the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant.
D2 PHASER
XRD wherever you need it
www.bruker.com/d2phaser
E lements
178
J une 2012
P u blicity
WDXRF as an Investigative and Analytical Tool
Using Small Spot/Mapping and UniQuant™
Process control, failure troubleshooting,
and in situ identification are all now pos­
sible using a standard laboratory wavelength
dispersive X-ray fluorescence (WDXRF) with
the advent of small spot/mapping capability.
Narrowing a sample surface-analysis area
down to 0.5 mm to obtain the chemistry of
an inclusion or irregularity has helped many
a scientist solve problems that could only
be solved through more complex techniques
previously. The test results provided below
were performed using the Thermo Scientific
ARL PERFORM’X WDXRF.
A surface stain or inclusion on a material
can quickly be targeted and elementally
defined, showing where it originated in the
process. Minerals can be both identified and
chemically imaged in 2- and 3-dimensional
displays. Homogeneity testing of a coating
over a large or small area, forensics testing
on minute samples or scattered residue…
the list goes on and on.
Elemental distribution for the examples
mentioned above is easily displayed in an
intensity format, and normally this would
provide the required answer to the common
question, “What is it?” But if concentration
resolution is required, the operator may run
into some trouble. How do you calibrate
for a stain? What reference materials are
readily available for a metal inclusion in a
wire? How do you quantify components on
a circuit board without removing them? This
is where the second step to total small-spot
analysis comes into play—UniQuant.
Small Spot/Mapping Description
Small-spot analysis is a rather easy concept
to describe. The first step is for the XRF
unit to image the sample surface. From this
image it is possible, using the mouse, to click
on areas of interest for analysis. For map­
ping, the operator selects one of a number
of “shapes” and enlarges or contracts it to a
size that best contains the area of interest.
The sample is excited through the use of a
primary X-ray beam. The secondary X-rays
emitted are collimated through a 0.5 mm
aperture. Small-spot analysis is a selection
of one or more unique and individual points
on a sample surface, each one producing a
singular analytical result, whereas mapping
is the joining of these individual points into
a unified pattern to produce a 2- or 3-dimen­
sional presentation along with intensity/con­
centration results for the selected area.
UniQuant Description
UniQuant uses the original factory cali­
bration to determine concentrations in
completely unknown samples. UniQuant
is unique in its method of intensity mea­
surements. Unlike other semiquantitative
software programs, UniQuant uses a method
E lements
known as
peak hop­
ping, instead
of a con­
tinuous scan
technique,
to acquire
the intensi­
ties for all
measurable
elements. The procedure of peak hopping
allows for faster analysis by not wasting
measurement time on any location where an
element peak will not be found. UniQuant
will measure every theoretical 2-theta angle
for each element, including alternative
lines for some heavier elements and back­
ground positions. By focusing the elemental
counting times on peak locations only,
UniQuant is able to provide more accurate
results and lower detection limits com­
pared to other scan-based semiquantitative
methods. An interesting feature is that the
counting time for each analytical line can be
defined separately depending on the main
interest of the analyst.
Mapping Example: Mapped Elements
in a Geological Sample
Mapping imaging is a helpful way of better
understanding a problem. The 2-D images
can be viewed as individual element dis­
tributions or overlaid to give a more com­
prehensive correlation of the elements as a
group. The 3-D images are single-element
displays and can be rotated for a full 360degree visualization or even a birds-eye
view. While most maps are collected as
intensity-only images, empirical calibra­
tions can also be used to fully quantify
the result. Geological samples can offer the
most interesting and informative mapping
images. In this example, one can see that
the material is mostly Mn due to its uni­
form base and strong intensity response, but
other elements are also present, with a large
concentration of Si off to one side and the
179
possible presence of a vein containing Ca,
S, and P running through the center of the
sampled area.
Conclusion
The examples presented here are only a
fraction of the applications that many ana­
lysts are using today. The investigative capa­
bilities of WDXRF have been shown to save
thousands of dollars in process monitoring.
With UniQuant, small samples are no longer
a hindrance due to their size and a lack of
calibrating materials. It is now possible to
review coating thickness across a surface
without the need of specialized instrumenta­
tion. Quantification using empirical calibra­
tions on undersized or irregularly shaped
materials is possible through the use of a
standard laboratory WDXRF, even in situ.
Mapping/small-spot analysis brings many
benefits especially when combined with a
standardless routine such as UniQuant.
Al Martin, Thermo Fisher Scientific
Senior XRF Applications Specialist
[email protected]
Read the full article on
www.thermoscientific.com/mapping
Learn more on Thermo Scientific X-ray products:
www.thermoscientific.com/xray
Learn more on Thermo Scientific ARL PERFORM’X:
www.thermoscientific.com/performx
To be informed about our latest developments
and special offers, subscribe to our MATERIALS
ANALYST e-newsletter at
www.thermoscientific.com/siregister
J une 2012
Inc.
Image courtesy of Dr Hanna Horsch and Roland Schmidt, Hazen Research,
Mapping the world ... one micron at a time
ultrafast contextural quantitative
SEM-based Petrographic Analyzers
www.fei-natural-resources.com
Uranium ore from the Schwarzwalder Mine, in Ralston Buttes district, Jefferson County,
Colorado, USA, mapped by QEMSCAN®. The image shows an atoll-like texture with veins
mineralized by uranium-thorium (red), and lead (green) bearing phases.
Fukushima Daiichi
More Than One Year Later
Rodney C. Ewing1 and Takashi Murakami2
1811-5209/12/0008-0181$2.50 DOI: 10.2113/gselements.8.3.181
T
his thematic issue of Elements describes
the events at the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011,
and the aftermath.
Keywords : Tohoku earthquake, tsunami, nuclear power
plant, meltdown, radioactivity
In the wake of a rare 9.0-magnitude earthquake, a devastating tsunami, and the partial meltdown of the cores of
the three nuclear reactors then operating, there were some
300,000 refugees displaced from their homes, fully onethird of whom were in the 20 km radius evacuation zone
around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The
three nuclear reactors have been stabilized and cooling
reestablished, but huge volumes of water, contaminated by
radioactivity, require treatment and disposal. In the
absence of domestic sources of fossil fuels, Japan has relied
on substantial imports of coal and natural gas to generate
electricity. Prior to March 11, the 54 operating nuclear
reactors provided approximately one-quarter of Japan’s
electricity. Following the events at Fukushima Daiichi,
more than half of Japan’s nuclear reactors were shut down
due to safety or service concerns, and all were subjected
to government-mandated stress tests. However, it has
proven difficult, due to public and political objections, to
bring the reactors back on line, and in May 2012, the last
operating nuclear reactor, located at the Tomari plant in
northern Japan, was shut down for a scheduled inspection.
For the first time since 1966, Japan is not producing electricity from nuclear power plants as it enters a period of
peak demand for electricity. There has also been a major
review of the wisdom and cost of the Japanese closed fuel
cycle, which embraces reprocessing, and it now appears
that direct disposal of spent fuel in a geologic repository
may be considerably cheaper. The great Tohoku earthquake
has certainly shifted the ground under the future of nuclear
energy in Japan, and the seismic waves of change have
spread across the globe.
This issue of Elements arrives on your desk some months
past the first-year anniversary, March 11, a date of
thoughtful remembrance for those who lost their lives. The
anniversary was also the occasion for many magazine and
journal “special” issues that looked back at the details of
the accident at the nuclear power plant. We have moved
this issue of Elements beyond the clatter and noise of the
first anniversary, because in this issue we summarize the
impact of the accident on the environment, and this
impact will stretch far into the future, well beyond many
anniversaries. This issue begins with two papers that set
the stage. The first is on the natural disaster of the earthquake and tsunami, and the second is on the technological
disaster of the meltdowns at the three nuclear reactors
operating at the time. The next four articles deal successively with the dispersion of radioactivity into the atmosphere, the contamination of the surrounding countryside,
the release of radioactivity to the ocean, and finally, the
interactions of the damaged and melted fuel with water
and the long-term release of radioactivity. We have also
added an expanded Perspectives section, in which a diverse
group of scientists and engineers with some connection to
the event and its aftermath discuss the impact of this accident on the future of nuclear power. Two “boxes” provide
basic information on the properties of spent fuel (Box 1)
and units of radioactivity (Box 2).
As we reviewed the papers for this issue, one word, “accident,” caused us to pause and wonder if “accident” was the
term for this “Black Swan”* event, a rare, unanticipated event
of high consequence. In what sense was the natural disaster
and catastrophic failure at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power station an “accident”? Certainly, it was the forces of
nature, the one-two punch of an earthquake and tsunami,
that damaged the nuclear power plant, leading to loss of
cooling and the subsequent meltdown of the nuclear reactors. But was this an accident? An accident is an “unexpected” event or “unfortunate occurrence or mishap.”
Certainly, the tsunami was “unexpected” and “unfortunate,” but was it just bad luck that the seawall was too low
or that the risk analysis failed to anticipate the size of a
potential tsunami? Who bears the responsibility for failing
to anticipate the scale and impact of this natural disaster?
We now know that a tsunami of such size is rare, but it
should not have been unanticipated. In fact, Japanese
geoscientists warned of such a possibility in a paper
published in 2001 in the Journal of Natural Disaster Science,
and they pointed to a similar tsunami event—the Jogan
tsunami of 869—that inundated the low-lying coast of
northeastern Japan. We do not think we should find any
solace in calling the March 11 event an accident, because
in doing so, we relieve scientists and engineers of their
responsibility to raise the appropriate warnings and absolve
regulatory agencies for not listening to those warnings. A
better word for the event of March 11 one year ago is
“tragedy,” as in a Greek drama—a drama in which our
hubris leads to a loss of contact with reality and to overconfidence in our competence and capabilities. A less confident person would have built a higher seawall.
1 Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1005, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
2 Department of Earth and Planetary Science The University of Tokyo
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
E-mail: [email protected]
E lements , V ol . 8,
pp.
181–182
* Nassim Nicholas Taleb (2010) The Black Swan – The Impact of the
Highly Improbable, 2nd Edition. Random House, 444 pages
181
J une 2012
Box 1
Radionuclide Release
during a Nuclear Accident
Rodney C. Ewing
The amount of released radioactivity during a nuclear accident depends on the type of nuclear fuel, the burnup or
the extent to which the 235U has fissioned, the chemical
properties of the radionuclide-forming compounds in the
fuel, and the maximum temperatures reached during the
accident. The melting of the fuel in an operating or recently
shut down nuclear reactor is due to a failure in the ability
to cool the reactor core. Immediately after removal from
a reactor core, fuel still generates several megawatts of
power per tonne of fuel. Even after the fission process in
the core is stopped by the insertion of neutron-absorbing
control rods, radioactive decay of fission product elements
continues to generate substantial amounts of heat. The
decay heat can drive the temperature to well above the
melting points of the metallic zircaloy cladding and the
UO2 fuel pellets, creating a corium magma.
At the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the fuel
was dominantly UO2 enriched to about 3 to 5% in the
fissile nuclide 235U. There was a limited amount of mixedoxide fuel (MOX), which is a mixture of UO2 fuel and ~6%
PuO2 . The 32 MOX fuel assemblies in Unit 3 represented
only ~6% of its core loading. In the reactor, the fission of
235U and 239Pu leads to a bimodal distribution of hundreds
of fission product elements, e.g. 90 Sr and 137Cs, from the
“split” uranium atoms. In contrast, the more stable 238U
captures neutrons and, with subsequent decay, creates
heavier, transuranium elements, such as 239Pu, 239Np, and
minor amounts of Am and Cm isotopes. The concentration
of plutonium in UO2 fuel typically reaches a value of
approximately 1% Pu for average burnups. Thus, most of
the Pu present at the Fukushima Daiichi plant was in the
normal UO2 fuel in the reactors and spent fuel storage
pools, as compared with the amount of Pu in MOX.
UO2 structure. The distribution of the radionuclides is not
uniform because of the steep thermal gradient (~1000 °C)
between the center of the fuel pellet and its edge, a distance
of some 5 mm. The volatile elements are driven down the
thermal gradient to grain boundaries and the “gap”
between the fuel cladding and the fuel pellet. Noble gases
form bubbles that decorate the surfaces of the grain boundaries and occupy the cladding gap. When there is a breach
of the fuel cladding at high temperature, there is an instantaneous release of the noble gases (Xe and Kr) and more
volatile elements (I and Cs). The transuranium elements,
mainly Pu, are released much more slowly, because they
are incorporated into the fuel. However the distribution
of Pu is not uniform within the fuel pellet, the Pu being
more concentrated at the edge of the pellet due to enhanced
neutron capture in this region.
Based on experiments and the examination of damaged
core material from nuclear accidents, such as the Three
Mile Island meltdown, the early release of the noble gases
Xe and Kr is high (~90%), of I is high (50 to 100 %), of Cs
is moderate (10 to 50%), of Sr and Ba is much lower (<10%),
and of the transuranium elements very low (<0.01%). Of
course, a catastrophic explosion can lead to substantially
higher releases due to atmospheric distribution of particulate fuel. In the case of Chernobyl, these “hot particles”
spread across Europe. The hydrogen explosions at
Fukushima Daiichi apparently did not release particles of
the fuel. During a nuclear accident and immediately afterwards, the radionuclides of greatest interest are the shortlived isotopes of Xe, Kr, I, and Cs. However, the much
longer-term environmental impact and cumulative human
exposure will depend on the fate of longer-lived nuclides,
such as 129I and 135Cs, long after the decay of shorter-lived
131I and 137Cs.
Box 2
fission
235U
+ 1no ---> 2–3 neutrons (1–2 MeV) + energy
neutron capture and subsequent decay
238U
+ 1no ---->
239U
---->
239Np
---->
239Pu
Although hundreds of radioactive isotopes are created by
the fission process, most have extremely short half-lives.
The isotopes of greatest interest are those that are most
quickly released and have half-lives of days to years, as
they will be responsible for the immediate doses to
surrounding populations: 131I (half-life = 8 days), 134Cs
(2 years), 137Cs (30 years), and 90 Sr (29 years). Longer-term
environmental effects will be determined by radionuclides
with much longer half-lives, but with correspondingly
lower specific activities (the specific activity is inversely
proportional to the half-life): 129I (15.7 million years) and
135
Cs (2.3 million years). Other isotopes and their ratios
provide the forensic evidence of what is happening in the
core of the reactor. The 134Cs/137Cs ratio can be used to
estimate the fuel burnup. Other radionuclides, such as
selected isotopes of the noble gases Xe and Kr with very
short half-lives of a few days or, in the case of 85Kr, 11 years,
are monitored carefully because they provide information
on the state of the reactor core, such as whether recriticality
has occurred. The fission product gases, such as Xe and Kr,
and more volatile elements, such as Cs and I, provide a
measure of the extent of the early release of radioactivity.
The chemical form of the fission product elements in the
fuel will determine the ease and extent of their release.
The fission product elements may be grouped into four
broad types of materials: volatile elements, metallic alloys,
oxide precipitates, and radionuclides incorporated into the
E lements
Units of Radioactivity, dose and regulatory limits
Unit*
Symbol
Conversion factors
Becquerel (SI)
Bq
1 disintegration/s = 2.7 × 10 -11 Ci
Curie
Ci
3.7 × 1010 disintegrations/s
Gray (SI)
Gy
1 J/kg = 100 rads
Rad
rad
0.01 Gy = 100 erg/g
Sievert (SI)
Sv
Rem
rem
1 J/kg = 100 rem
0.01 Sv
U.S. regulations (National Research Council 1995)
Indoor radon
4 pCi/L (= 0.1 Bq/L)
High-level nuclear waste standard
15 mrem/y (= 0.15 mSv/y)
Emissions standards for air pollutants
10 mrem/y (= 0.1 mSv/y)
Water protection standards
4 mrem/y (0.04 mSv/y)
Average amount of ionizing radiation exposure to a typical person: 3 to 3.5 mSv/y (over half of which is from radon exposure)
Gray is a unit (J/kg) of absorbed dose. Sievert is a unit of equivalent dose that
considers the type and effect of the radiation exposure. Equivalent dose equals
absorbed dose times Q, a quality factor (e.g. Q = 1 for X-rays and Q = 20 for alpha
particles).
Unit prefixes: kilo (k) = 103; milli (m) = 10 -3; pico (p) = 10 -12
* International units are designated SI
Bibliography
(in order of increasing detail)
Bruno J, Ewing RC (2006) Spent nuclear fuel. Elements 2: 343-349
Burns PC, Ewing RC, Navrotsky A (2012) Nuclear fuel in a
reactor accident. Science 335: 1184-1188
Lewis BJ, Thompson WT, Iglesias FC (2012) Fission product
chemistry in oxide fuels. In: Comprehensive Nuclear Materials,
volume 2. Elsevier Ltd., Amsterdam, pp 515-546
182
J une 2012
The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake
The Tohoku earthquake
in Iwate © Yoshiyuki
K aneko | D reamstime.com
Jeroen Ritsema1, Thorne Lay2, and Hiroo Kanamori3
1811-5209/12/0008-0183$2.50 DOI: 10.2113/gselements.8.3.183
R
apid seismological analyses, carried out within minutes of the March 11,
2011, Tohoku earthquake, were crucial in providing an earthquake
ground shaking and tsunami early warning and in hastening the evacuation of the population along Japan’s northeastern coast. By 20 to 30 minutes
after fault rupture began, these analyses had established that the event had
a moment magnitude of M w = 9 and involved shallow thrust faulting on the
plate boundary megathrust. Preparation for future large earthquakes on
megathrusts in Japan and elsewhere should include onshore and offshore
geodetic monitoring of strain accumulation, implementation of rapid earthquake and tsunami warning systems, and public training and education for
shaking and tsunami response.
was prepared for such a large
tsunami, and few warnings were
issued, even for regions where the
tsunami did not arrive until
several hours after the earthquake.
In contrast, seismological analysis
of the 2011 Tohoku event
commenced only seconds after the
first ground vibrations were
recorded at stations in Japan and
around the world. While the
rupture was still expanding (it
took about 150 seconds for fault
motions to complete), preliminary
seismic wave analyses in an early
Keywords : Japan earthquake, megathrust, tsunami, earthquake early warning,
warning system had established
rupture process
that a great earthquake of magnitude ~8 had occurred offshore
from Honshu. Much of the wellIntroduction
prepared
population
began
to evacuate after the initial
The March 11, 2011, earthquake offshore from the Tohoku
tsunami warnings were issued. Predictions of potential
region of Japan ruptured a 300 km long by 200 km wide
portion of the subduction zone megathrust fault at the tsunami run-up height (the maximum onshore water
height) along the coast ranged up to 6 m, much lower than
boundary of the Pacific plate (Fig. 1). It was the fourththe actual values of up to 40 m, but the early tsunami
largest recorded earthquake. The seafloor movement caused
warning broadcasts likely saved many lives.
by the faulting generated a huge tsunami that devastated
communities along the entire northeastern coast of Japan.
Unprecedented video footage documented the imposing
power of the ocean waves as they overtopped tsunami walls
and coastal barriers, sweeping away entire towns. Flooding
of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant led to a
nuclear crisis that is still unfolding. The Tohoku earthquake
and tsunami claimed some 20,000 lives. Many more lost
their homes and livelihood, and economic losses are
expected to reach $300 billion.
While devastating, the Tohoku earthquake resulted in societal impacts and a scientific response that were much
different from those of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. The Sumatra-Andaman earthquake had a moment
magnitude, Mw, of 9.2 and was due to the rupture of the
subduction zone megathrust in southeastern Asia. It generated a massive tsunami that struck Sumatra, Sri Lanka,
India, and Thailand, taking over ten times more lives than
the Tohoku tsunami. No country around the Indian Ocean
1 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
2 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences University of California Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
3 Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91107, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
E lements , V ol . 8,
pp.
183–188
By the time the tsunami hit the shores of northern Honshu
about 15–30 minutes after the faulting began, the earthquake size had been estimated at Mw = 8.8 by the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) and Mw = 9.0 by
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake
Information Center (NEIC) from analysis of seismic recordings in the western Pacific region. The fault geometry solutions clearly indicated that the Tohoku earthquake had
occurred on the plate boundary megathrust and that a
potentially devastating tsunami had likely formed. On the
basis of rapid earthquake quantification, the PTWC issued
accurate warnings for Pacific nations to be alert for significant tsunami waves over the next 24 hours.
The rapid earthquake analyses in Japan were enabled by
the substantial investments in infrastructure for earthquake monitoring that followed the destructive 1995 Kobe
earthquake. An extensive network of recently deployed
geophysical instruments recorded the Tohoku earthquake
both onshore and offshore. This network includes 1200
continuously recording GPS sensors in Japan (Sagiya et al.
2000; Ozawa et al. 2011), several dozen tide gauges and
seafloor pressure sensors around Japan (Sato et al. 2011),
NOAA’s DART buoy network in the Pacific (expanded after
the 2004 tsunami), and thousands of seismometers in
regional and global seismic networks. Near real-time telemetry of the seismic and ocean-wave data was essential for
the rapid determination of the location and magnitude of
the Tohoku earthquake and for direct measurements of the
183
J une 2012
tsunami amplitudes near Japan and across the Pacific.
Indeed, the Tohoku earthquake is by far the best scientifically recorded great earthquake to date, and it will be the
best studied. A number of expert reports and over 100
reviewed scientific publications on the Tohoku earthquake
have already appeared in major journals, including special
issues of Earth, Planets and Space and Geophysical Research
Letters.
Several agencies conduct seismological analysis to report
earthquake epicenters, depths, and magnitudes in near
real-time. In Japan, earthquake early warning (EEW) is one
of the main responsibilities of the Japan Meteorological
Agency (JMA). The aim of EEW is to rapidly locate earthquakes and estimate magnitudes using 1100 stations in the
JMA seismic network and stations from the Hi-net network
of the Japan National Research Institute for Earth Science
and Disaster Prevention. On the basis of the analysis, the
JMA is mandated to warn the public of the potential for
strong ground shaking and tsunami.
The USGS NEIC is mandated to rapidly evaluate all significant global earthquakes (Hayes et al. 2011). The PTWC is
responsible for issuing tsunami warnings after major earthquakes have occurred in the Pacific Ocean. Coordination
among the JMA, PTWC, and NEIC is intended to ensure
that consistent information is released to emergency
responders. A timeline of the response to the Tohoku earthquake by these agencies is summarized in Table 1.
Map of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake region. The map
shows aftershocks from the NEIC catalog, with depth
less than 50 km, that occurred between March 11, 2011, and March
31, 2011. The three green contours indicate the 2011 rupture zone,
with fault slip exceeding 1 m, 10 m, and 20 m, respectively (Yue
and Lay 2011). The yellow and red patches indicate rupture zones
related to previous large earthquakes. There is uncertain earthquake
potential in the region outlined by purple dots (the possible “slip
deficit zone”). The arrow indicates the direction of movement of
the Pacific plate. Prefecture names are shown along the right side of
the map, opposite their actual locations. M = magnitude
Figure 1
Hoshiba et al. (2011) and Ozaki (2011) describe the EEW
sequence following the Tohoku earthquake. The EEW
system was triggered at 14:46:40.2 Japan Standard Time
when the primary (P) wave was recorded by the closest
seismograph. Fifteen “forecasts” followed with updated
information. After 5.4 seconds, the magnitude was estimated to be only 4.3, which is consistent with later determinations that the Tohoku earthquake began as a small,
magnitude 4.9 earthquake (Chu et al. 2011). About 8
seconds after the trigger, the magnitude was updated to
7.2, and seismic intensity was predicted to be “5-lower” for
the central Miyagi prefecture. In the fifteenth update, 116.8
seconds after the trigger, the EEW magnitude was estimated
to be 8.1. This magnitude is at the upper limit of the JMA
EEW magnitude scale because the short-period seismic
instrumentation that the JMA relies on had gone off-scale.
Nevertheless, within two minutes after the main trigger,
it was clear that a major earthquake had occurred off the
Pacific coast of Tohoku. Intensities of “6-upper” and
“6-lower,” which are equivalent to ground accelerations of
Table 1
Geophysical Investigations
of the Tohoku Earthquake
Analyses of the Tohoku earthquake had two key stages: (1)
near real-time analysis of seismograms for first-order earthquake parameters and (2) integrated investigations of all
geophysical recordings of the Tohoku earthquake and
tsunami, foreshock and aftershock sequences, and field
reconnaissance of ground shaking and tsunami impacts.
Real-Time Analysis and Earthquake Warning
Rapid seismic analysis is primarily based on automated
procedures that estimate the location of rupture initiation,
the earthquake magnitude, and the faulting mechanism.
The near real-time processing of information evolves as
the rupture grows, and frequent revisions are made as
recordings lengthen and new seismic data become available. Very rapid analysis of the earliest seismic arrivals is
crucial for immediate response to strong ground shaking
and tsunami danger.
E lements
The first hour
Time after
detection
Source
Magnitude
5.4 sec
JMA/EEW
4.3
8.6 sec
JMA/EEW
7.2
116.8 sec
JMA/EEW
8.1
Final update and tsunami
bulletin
2½ min
JMA (Mj)
7.9
The rapid JMA magnitude
Remarks
The first estimate
9 min
PTWC
8.1
First tsunami bulletin
19 min
NEIC
7.9
Coordinated with JMA
and PTWC
20 min
NEIC W-phase
9.0
Internal release only,
limited data
22 min
PTWC W-phase
8.8
First internal release;
assumed event depth of
84 km
33 min
rCMT (Polet and
Thio 2011)
9.0
Internal release only
38 min
NEIC/PTWC
8.8
Coordinated update,
public release
62 min
NEIC W-phase
8.9
Final automatic solution
JMA = Japan Meteorological Agency, EEW = earthquake early warning, PTWC =
Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre, NEIC = National Earthquake Information Center,
rCMT = rapid centroid-moment tensor
184
J une 2012
0.25–0.40 g, were observed over a 400 × 100 km2 area in
the Tohoku and Kanto districts. The JMA warned of possible
tsunami with run-up heights of 6 m in Miyagi and 3 m in
Fukushima and Iwate prefectures. Due to the high background noise from scattered waves and numerous aftershocks, the EEW system did not perform well for the next
several hours.
Accurate estimates of long-period seismic magnitude and
characterization of overall earthquake faulting require
analysis of on-scale ground-motion recordings with relatively low-frequency content. Several agencies and universities routinely analyze the magnitude and faulting
mechanisms of global earthquakes using seismograms from
the Federation of Digital Seismic Networks, which includes
the NSF/USGS Global Seismic Network real-time data
openly available online from the Incorporated Research
Institutions for Seismology data center. A variety of waveform analyses are routinely conducted for all earthquakes
larger than Mw 5.0. Many of these analyses involve variations of the centroid-moment tensor (CMT) method developed in the early 1980s (Dziewonski et al. 1981) and differ
primarily in the types of waveform data that are analyzed.
The CMT method relies on an initial estimate of the
earthquake origin time, location, and depth obtained
from, for example, the NEIC, PTWC, or JMA. The CMT
analysis yields a point-source moment tensor. Moment
tensor solutions for most earthquakes (including the
solution for the Tohoku earthquake) are consistent with
“double-couple faulting” in which the earthquake represents shear sliding along a planar fault. The moment tensor
indicates the orientation of the fault and the strength and
direction of shearing motion on the fault. The Tohoku
moment tensor solution (Fig. 2) is consistent with slip on
the interface between the subducting Pacific plate and the
Okhotsk plate. The size of the earthquake is quantified
by the seismic moment, M0, and the moment magnitude,
Mw [Mw = 2 /3 (log10 M0 – 9.1)]. The seismic moment, M0, of
the Tohoku earthquake is estimated to be 4.3 × 1022 N·m
(newton meter), which gives Mw = 9.0. The seismic moment
is indicative of the spatial extent and the amount of slip on
the fault plane (and hence the deformation of the seafloor).
The most rapidly produced long-period solution for the
2011 Japan event was based on analysis of the W phase
(Fig. 3), the earliest very long-period signal in a seismogram
(Kanamori 1993). Typically, the W phase has lower amplitude than the later surface-wave signals, but it is well
recorded for moderate and large (Mw > 6.5) earthquakes.
W phase analysis is particularly suited for rapid determination of the earthquake moment tensor because only a few
minutes of recording are needed. Moreover, the analysis
can be conducted automatically because the propagation
of the W phase is accurately modeled using standard
seismic models (Kanamori and Rivera 2008).
Automated W phase analysis was running at three institutions: (1) the USGS NEIC, (2) the NOAA PTWC, and (3)
the Institut de Physique du Globe de Strasbourg. A robust
W phase moment tensor for the Tohoku earthquake was
computed 22 minutes after the earthquake origin time
using the initial PTWC earthquake depth estimate and
waveform data for 29 channels (Duputel et al. 2011)
(Table 1). This solution provided an estimate of the moment
magnitude, Mw = 8.8. This was upgraded to Mw = 9.0 after
the source depth estimate was revised from 84 km to 24 km
and additional waveform channels became available.
Other rapidly available long-period solutions include the
rCMT solution (Polet and Thio 2011), which was determined 33 minutes after the Tohoku earthquake and was
E lements
A
B
(A) Sketch of the Japan–Pacific subduction zone and
the relative up-dip motion of the Okhotsk plate (in
which Japan is located) over the Pacific plate along a plateboundary fault plane (the megathrust) dipping ~12° to the WNW.
Note that the sketch is not to scale. Maximum slip near the Japan
trench was about 40–60 m, and the rupture extended down-dip
about 200 km. Towards the west, the dip angle of the subducting
Pacific plate increases; the fault is about 50 km deep beneath the
coast of Japan. The dotted line indicates the pre-earthquake, flexed
position of the upper plate, which abruptly shifted eastward and
upward during the earthquake to its final position. The displacement of ocean water generated the tsunami that spread away from
the region of ocean uplift. (B) Source mechanism from the W phase
analysis. The “beachball” graph on the left is a lower-hemisphere
projection of the compressional (yellow) and tensional (white)
quadrants of the focal sphere. The blue line corresponds to the
megathrust fault plane, which strikes at 196° and dips to the WNW
at an angle of 12°.
Figure 2
based on the analysis of slightly longer segments of longperiod seismograms. The Global CMT (gCMT) solution
(www.globalcmt.org) was published after analysis of
9-hour-long recordings of multiple-orbit surface waves.
The long-period seismic wave solutions indicated that the
Tohoku earthquake was a thrust earthquake at shallow
depth, with Mw = 8.8 to 9.1. Differences in estimated
moment magnitude are due to differences in the types of
seismic signals analyzed, the assumed earthquake depth,
and estimates of the fault dip angle (Kanamori and Given
1981). Nevertheless, all solutions are consistent with the
very first W phase solution, which had clearly established
the potential for a large tsunami.
Spatial Extent and Complexity
of the Tohoku Earthquake Rupture
In the days and weeks following the earthquake, geophysicists further used a variety of available data to develop
models of space–time slip on the fault plane that could be
compared to previous large earthquakes in the region. This
type of detailed earthquake rupture analysis advances our
understanding of earthquake processes and the influence
of prior ruptures. This contributes to the long-term assessment of the earthquake hazard in northeastern Japan and
to preparations for future large events.
Finite-fault analysis resolves the spatial extent of the earthquake rupture and the variable slip distribution on the
fault plane. Rapid analysis of finite faulting using seismic
and geodetic data is now common and was applied by
several groups to the Tohoku event (e.g. Hayes 2011; Lay
et al. 2011; Shao et al. 2011; Simons et al. 2011). Quickly
determined solutions are usually rather variable from
185
J une 2012
of ground deformation in Japan as recorded by high-resolution GPS recordings (Yue and Lay 2011). The models also
can account for large seafloor offsets measured by several
independent procedures. Koketsu et al. (2011) demonstrate
how many seismic and geodetic data can now be reconciled
with similar models.
Perspectives
Although Japan has a long and well-documented history
of large earthquakes and tsunamis, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake was much larger than any known earthquake during
the past 1100 years. Given the lack of historical earthquakes
of this size, the Mw 9 Tohoku earthquake caught most seismologists by surprise.
Earthquakes offshore from Honshu during the past century
had estimated seismic magnitudes lower than 8.5 (Fig. 1).
Among the largest earthquakes in the northern part of
Japan are the 1968 Tokachi-oki (off the Tokachi coast) and
1994 Sanriku-Haruka-oki earthquakes. Off the Sanriku
coast, the largest earthquakes occurred in 1896 and 1933
(Fig. 1). The 1896 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake (magnitude
8.2–8.5) was a thrust-faulting event at the northern end
of the Tohoku earthquake zone that ruptured the shallow
portion of the plate interface (Tanioka and Satake 1996).
This was a “tsunami” earthquake according to the definition of Kanamori (1972), with strong tsunami generation
as compared with the surface-wave seismic magnitude. The
1933 earthquake (magnitude ~8.3) involved extensional
faulting in the bending oceanic lithosphere (Kanamori
1971). An earlier, large, tsunami-generating event, the 1611
Keicho earthquake, has poorly constrained magnitude and
location, but appears to have been near the 1933 event.
Examples of well-matching recorded (black) and
predicted (red) W phase signals for the optimal source
mechanism at stations JOHN (Johnston Island, USA), CAN
(Canberra, Australia), GSC (Goldstone, USA), and KIEV (Kiev,
Ukraine) The signals are filtered between 1 and 5 mHz. The analysis
is applied to the W phase, which is the waveform segment between
the vertical bars. Subsequent arrivals (surface waves) are also
matched well. Station locations (triangles) are indicated on the
globes, shown on the right, with the star indicating the Tohoku
epicenter.
Figure 3
model to model, as they depend on data coverage and
modeling assumptions, and it often takes some time for a
consensus to develop on the best representation of the
rupture process of a great earthquake.
The main characteristics of the Tohoku rupture are now
similar in most published finite-source models (Fig. 4). The
rupture duration was about 150 s, which is relatively short
for an Mw 9 earthquake. The earthquake nucleated offshore
from the Miyagi-oki area and involved large slip in the
up-dip region near the trench and smaller slip in the
regions offshore from Fukushima, Ibaraki, and Sanriku.
Slip exceeded 1 m over a 300 × 200 km 2 region of the fault
plane, with average values of 15–20 m. The largest slip is
estimated to be 40–60 m, by far the largest earthquake slip
ever reported.
The slip on the fault plane was variable and accompanied
by differences in seismic radiation. Koper et al. (2011)
showed that high-frequency seismic waves were generated
in a region down-dip from the epicenter. Little-coherent,
short-period radiation came from the regions of largest slip
near the trench. The slip-distribution maps in Figure 4
provide a good match to the seismic, geodetic, and tsunami
data. In particular, large, shallow slip near the trench is
required by the arrival time and narrow pulse of the
tsunami at nearby deep-ocean pressure sensors (Fujii et al.
2011; Yamazaki et al. 2011) and by the timing of the onset
E lements
Before the Tohoku earthquake, the seismic risk in Japan
had been perceived as highest in the off-coast region of
Miyagi, south of Sanriku. Here, a number of earthquakes
with a magnitude of 7 or greater occurred in 1933, 1936,
1978, and 2005. The March 9, 2011, foreshock of the
Tohoku earthquake occurred seaward of this zone. The
roughly 30–40-year intervals separating these earthquakes
formed the basis for the proposed relatively high seismic
risk in the region, although it is not clear that these earthquakes are repeating events (Kanamori et al. 2006). The
869 Jogan earthquake is the oldest and largest earthquake
in the region. It left a record of tsunami deposits on the
Sendai Plain (Abe et al. 1990; Minoura et al. 2001; Sawai
et al. 2008). Numerical simulations of tsunami run-up and
inundation suggest that the 869 event had a magnitude of
~8.5 and that it was located up-dip from the Miyagi-oki
events, but possibly not extending all the way to the trench
(Satake et al. 2008). Known earthquakes with magnitudes
between 7.1 and 7.8 that occurred in 1938 offshore from
Fukushima and Ibaraki prefectures were studied by Abe
(1977). There is no tsunami or seismic record of earthquakes in the region prior to the 1938 sequence.
The Tohoku earthquake ruptured across almost the entire
width of the plate boundary megathrust, and the rupture
extended from north of the Miyagi-oki ruptures to south
of the Fukushima-oki region that ruptured in 1938 (Fig. 1).
The rupture encompassed the likely area of the 869 event,
but extended to the trench with large slip, similar to the
1896 rupture to the north. Thus it appears that the 2011
Tohoku event broke several adjacent portions of the megathrust that had previously failed in more localized ruptures
(Lay and Kanamori 2011).
The study of older earthquakes off Honshu is primarily
based on analyses of tsunami records and deposits. Such
analyses are uncertain and have tended to play a secondary
186
J une 2012
A
B
C
(C) regional tsunami height observations (Fujii et al. 2011). The
dotted line is the Japan trench. The numbered contours indicate
the amount of slip in meters. The arrows indicate the direction of
movement of the subducting Pacific plate.
Maps of the total amount of slip on the fault plane
(projected vertically on the surface) derived from the
analysis of (A) teleseismic broadband P waves (Lay et al. 2011),
(B) high-rate GPS waveforms in Japan (Yue and Lay 2011), and
Figure 4
role in assessing the seismic risk in the region. Nevertheless,
tsunami heights related to previous large earthquakes
provided valuable guidance on the potential inundation
and tsunami height of the Tohoku earthquake (Mori et al.
2011; EERI 2011), although the high run-up of the Tohoku
tsunami had a much wider spread (Fig. 5). The maximum
run-up height of the Tohoku tsunami was 39.7 m at Miyako.
The historical records of maximum run-up height are 38.2
m for the 1896 Meiji Sanriku tsunami and 28.7 m for the
1933 Showa Sanriku tsunami. Deposits of the Keicho
tsunami of 1611 have mostly been erased by human
activity, but Hatori (1975) suggested that 6 to 8 m high
tsunamis devastated the Sendai Plain and northern
Fukushima areas. Tsunami deposits in the Sendai Plain
associated with the 869 Jogan earthquake extend 1–3 km
inland (1 km from the present coast) (Abe et al. 1990;
Minoura et al. 2001).
There is no evidence that large earthquakes had occurred
prior to 1938 along the Japan Trench east of Fukushima
and Ibaraki prefectures. This region slipped in 2011, but
probably less than 10 m or so. Allowing for 8 cm/year of
convergence, there could be a significant “slip deficit” in
this region if no other earthquakes occurred in the past
1000 years (Fig. 1). There is thus some concern for another
large event in the future. The potential for this depends
on the nature of strain accumulation in the region. While
Japan has an extensive network of GPS ground-motion
instruments, and these revealed that strain was accumulating in the mainland in Fukushima, but less so near Boso
to the south (e.g. Suwa et al. 2006; Hashimoto et al. 2009),
it is unclear whether there is still earthquake potential in
this region. Japan has led the world in developing technology to monitor offshore deformation, and this will be
particularly valuable for assessing the nature of strain accumulation along the megathrust south of the region of large
slip in 2011. This is a costly and technically challenging
endeavor. However, the important observations of seafloor
deformation after the Tohoku earthquake in the Miyagi
region (Sato et al. 2011) motivate long-term data acquisition, as these would have helped to recognize the potential
for an earthquake as large as the Tohoku event.
E lements
Tsunami run-up heights for the 2011 Tohoku (grey);
1960 Chile (green); and 1933 (yellow), 1896 (red),
and 1611(blue) Sanriku earthquakes as a function of latitude along
Japan’s northeastern coast. Run-up measurements for the Tohoku
tsunami were not available in the 30 km long restricted area around
the Daiichi nuclear power plant, but direct observations indicate a
15 m run-up at the site. The names of prefectures are shown on
the right.
Figure 5
Earthquake risk assessment is notoriously complicated
because only a very short earthquake record is available.
The Tohoku earthquake experience shows how difficult it
is to anticipate infrequent, catastrophic events based on a
short recorded history. However, the event also
187
J une 2012
­ emonstrated the value of efforts to mitigate the effects of
d
earthquake shaking and tsunami; the high construction
standards in Japan appear to have limited loss from
shaking, and while the tsunami overtopped many tsunami
walls, rapid warning and public preparation for response
reduced the loss of lives, as compared with the 2004
Sumatra earthquake. The most promising technological
approach is to extend rapid warning and faulting-quantification procedures, exploiting both onshore and, ideally,
offshore measurements of ground motion to develop more
precise early estimates of faulting displacements and
tsunami heights. Duputel et al. (2011) have demonstrated
References
Abe K (1977) Tectonic implications of the
large Shioya-oki earthquakes of 1938.
Tectonophysics 41: 269-289
that a stable magnitude and fault-plane solution can be
determined by W phase inversion within 7 minutes after
the earthquake origin time using regional broadband
seismic and geodetic signals. Widespread use of the most
advanced capabilities to monitor the plate interface, with
real-time analysis of the data, can certainly speed up robust
tsunami warnings. To save lives, this technological capability needs to be coupled to emergency-response ­procedures
and to societal awareness and preparation. Japan has
learned this lesson; the rest of the world should do so
as well.
Kanamori H (1971) Seismological
evidence for a lithospheric normal
faulting; the Sanriku earthquake of
1933. Physics of the Earth and Planetary
Interiors 4: 289-300
Abe H, Sugeno Y, Chigama A (1990)
Estimation of the height of the Sanriku
Jogan 11 earthquake-tsunami (A.D. 869)
in the Sendai Plain. Journal of the
Seismological Society of Japan (Zishin)
43: 513-525
Kanamori H (1972) Mechanism of
tsunami earthquakes. Physics of the
Earth and Planetary Interiors 6: 346-359
Chu R, Wei S, Helmberger DV, Zhan Z,
Zhu L, Kanamori H (2011) Initiation of
the great Mw 9.0 Tohoku–Oki earthquake. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 308: 277-283
Kanamori H, Given JW (1981) Use of
long-period surface waves for rapid
determination of earthquake-source
parameters. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors 27: 8-31
Duputel Z, Rivera L, Kanamori H, Hayes
GP, Hirshorn B, Weinstein S (2011)
Real-time W phase inversion during the
2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku
Earthquake. Earth, Planets and Space
63: 535-539
Kanamori H, Rivera L (2008) Source
inversion of W phase: speeding up
tsunami warning. Geophysical Journal
International 175: 222-238
Dziewonski AM, Chou T, Woodhouse JH
(1981) Determination of earthquake
source parameters from waveform data
for studies of global and regional seismicity. Journal of Geophysical Research
86: 2825-2852
EERI (2011) The Japan Tohoku tsunami of
March 11, 2011. Special Earthquake
Report November 2011. Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute
Fujii Y, Satake K, Sakai S, Shinohara M,
Kanazawa T (2011) Tsunami source of
the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku
Earthquake. Earth, Planets and Space
63: 815-820
Hashimoto C, Noda A, Sagiya T,
Matsu’ura M (2009) Interplate seismogenic zones along the Kuril–Japan
trench inferred from GPS data inversion. Nature Geoscience 2: 141-144
Hatori T (1975) Scales and source areas of
Sanriku-oki historical earthquakes.
Bulletin of the Earthquake Research
Institute 50: 397-414
Hayes GP (2011) Rapid source characterization of the 2011 Mw 9.0 off the
Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake.
Earth, Planets and Space 63: 529-534
Hayes GP, Earle PS, Benz HM, Wald DJ,
Briggs RW, USGS/NEIC Earthquake
Response Team (2011) 88 hours:
The U.S. Geological Survey National
Earthquake Information Center
response to the 11 March 2011 Mw 9.0
Tohoku earthquake. Seismological
Research Letters 82: 481-493
Hoshiba M, Iwakiri K, Hayashimoto N,
Shimoyama T, Hirano K, Yamada Y,
Ishigaki Y, Kikuta H (2011) Outline of
the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku
Earthquake (Mw 9.0)—Earthquake Early
Warning and observed seismic intensity. Earth, Planets and Space 63:
547-551
E lements
Kanamori H (1993) W phase. Geophysical
Research Letters 20: 1691-1694
Kanamori H, Miyazawa M, Mori J (2006)
Investigation of the earthquake
sequence off Miyagi prefecture with
historical seismograms. Earth, Planets
and Space 58: 1533-1541
Koketsu K and 10 coauthors (2011) A
unified source model for the 2011
Tohoku earthquake. Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 310: 480-487
Koper KD, Hutko AR, Lay T, Ammon CJ,
Kanamori H (2011) Frequencydependent rupture process of the 2011
Mw 9.0 Tohoku Earthquake: Comparison
of short-period P wave backprojection
images and broadband seismic rupture
models. Earth, Planets and Space 63:
599-602
Lay T, Kanamori H (2011) Insights from
the great 2011 Japan earthquake.
Physics Today 64(12): 33-39
Lay T, Ammon CJ, Kanamori H, Xue L,
Kim MJ (2011) Possible large neartrench slip during the 2011 Mw 9.0 off
the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake.
Earth, Planets and Space 63: 687-692
Minoura K, Imamura F, Sugawara D, Kono
Y, Iwashita T (2001) The 869 Jogan
tsunami deposit and recurrence interval
of large-scale tsunami on the Pacific
coast of northeast Japan. Journal of
Natural Disaster Science: 23: 83-88
Mori N, Takahaski T, Yasuda T,
Yanagisawa H (2011) Survey of 2011
Tohoku earthquake tsunami inundation
and run-up. Geophysical Research
Letters 38: doi:10.1029/2011GL049210
Ozaki T (2011) Outline of the 2011 off
the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake
(Mw 9.0)—Tsunami warnings/advisories
and observations. Earth, Planets and
Space 63: 827-830
Ozawa S, Nishimura T, Suito H, Kobayashi
T, Tobita M, Imakiire T (2011) Coseismic
and postseismic slip of the 2011 magni-
188
tude-9 Tohoku-Oki earthquake. Nature
475: 373-376
Polet J, Thio HK (2011) Rapid calculation
of a Centroid Moment Tensor and waveheight predictions around the north
Pacific for the 2011 off the Pacific coast
of Tohoku Earthquake. Earth, Planets
and Space 63: 541-545
Sagiya T, Miyazaki S, Tada T (2000)
Continuous GPS array and present-day
crustal deformation of Japan. Pure and
Applied Geophysics 157: 2303-2322
Satake K, Namegaya Y, Yamaki S (2008)
Numerical simulation of the AD 869
Jogan tsunami in Ishinomaki and
Sendai plains. Annual Report on Active
Fault and Paleoearthquake Researches 8:
71-89
Sato M, Ishikawa T, Ujihara N, Yoshida S,
Fujita M, Mochizuki M, Asada A (2011)
Displacement above the hypocenter of
the 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake.
Science 332: 1395
Sawai Y, Shishikura M, Komatsubara J
(2008) A study on paleotsunami using
hand corer in Sendai plain (Sendai City,
Natori City, Iwanuma City, Watari
Town, Yamamoto Town) Miyagi, Japan.
Geological Survey of Japan 8: 17-70
Shao G, Li X, Ji C, Maeda T (2011) Focal
mechanism and slip history of the 2011
Mw 9.1 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku
Earthquake, constrained with teleseismic body and surface waves. Earth,
Planets and Space 63: 559-564
Simons M and 14 coauthors (2011) The
2011 magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake: mosaicking the megathrust from
seconds to centuries. Science 332:
1421-1425
Suwa Y, Miura S, Hasegawa A, Sato T,
Tachibana K (2006) Interplate coupling
beneath NE Japan inferred from threedimensional displacement field. Journal
of Geophysical Research 111: 1997-2002
Tanioka Y, Satake K (1996) Fault parameters of the 1896 Sanriku tsunami
earthquake estimated from tsunami
numerical modeling. Geophysical
Research Letters 23: 1549-1552
Yamazaki Y, Lay T, Cheung KF, Yue H,
Kanamori H (2011) Modeling near-field
tsunami observations to improve finitefault slip models for the 11 March 2011
Tohoku earthquake. Geophysical
Research Letters 38: doi:
10.1029/2011GL049130
Yue H, Lay T (2011) Inversion of high-rate
(1 sps) GPS data for rupture process of
the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake
(Mw 9.1). Geophysical Research Letters
38: doi:10.1029/2011GL048700
J une 2012
Examining the Nuclear Accident
at Fukushima Daiichi
Photo of two of the
units after hydrogen
explosions damaged the
roofing structure of the
reactor buildings. This
picture was taken on
March 15, 2011, four
days after the earthquake and tsunami.
Source : TEPCO website
Edward D. Blandford1 and Joonhong Ahn2
1811-5209/12/0008-0189$2.50 DOI: 10.2113/gselements.8.3.189
T
he major nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant
more than one year ago was the result of a combination of four interrelated factors: site selection, external hazard assessment and site
preparation, the utility’s approach to risk management, and fundamental
reactor design. The reactor accident was initiated by a magnitude 9 earthquake, followed by an even more damaging tsunami. An insufficient tsunami
defense-in-depth strategy led to significant core damage in three units and
radioactive release to the environment. This paper provides a summary of
the sequence of events that led to the accident and current efforts to contain
and manage the released radioactivity.
The Nuclear Reactors
The six Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
reactors were able to produce a
Keywords : Fukushima Daiichi, nuclear power, accident, radioactive release
total of 5480 megawatts of electricity (MWe) at full capacity,
Introduction
making it one of the largest nuclear power stations in the
In the early afternoon of March 11, 2011, Units 1, 2, and world. All units were General Electric (GE) boiling water
3 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (Fig. 1) reactors (BWR). Unit 1, the first one built, was a GE design,
were operating at full power, while Unit 4 was undergoing
BWR/3, with Mark I containment (Fig. 2). Units 2 through
fuel unloading and Units 5 and 6 were undergoing routine
5 were a later GE design, BWR/4, which still utilized
scheduled maintenance. A magnitude 9.0 earthquake
Mark I containment.
occurred off the eastern coast of Honshu at 2:46 pm. The
earthquake was the most powerful in the history of Japan. Unit 6, the youngest and largest reactor, was a GE design,
BWR/5, with Mark II containment. The plant was designed
The three operating units immediately shut down autosuch that all the units have some common facilities and
matically, as designed. Breakers and off-site power distribustructures, such as a conventional island housing the
tion towers failed due to the effects of the earthquake,
turbines (Fig. 3). Facilities for handling the used fuel after
causing a complete loss of power from the outside.
irradiation, such as spent fuel pools and dry-cask storage
Following the automatic shutdown of Units 1, 2, and 3,
facilities, were designed for use by all the units. Additionally,
backup emergency diesel generators immediately started,
Units 1 and 2 shared a control room, as did Units 3 and 4.
providing backup electric power to critical emergency
safety systems. Forty-one minutes after the earthquake and
thirty-eight minutes after a tsunami alert was issued, the
first of a series of seven tsunami waves arrived at the site.
The maximum wave height was 14–15 meters, well above the
5.7-meter seawall designed to protect the site (IAEA 2011).
All electric power was lost to Units 1 through 4 within
fifteen minutes after the first tsunami wave hit the station,
and this led to a station blackout condition, that is, the
complete loss of all sources of power. This paper is based
on a detailed timeline of events that was developed by the
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO 2011), which
derived much of its information from direct and indirect
interactions with the Tokyo Electric Power Company
(TEPCO), the owner and operator of the station.
1 Center for International Security and Cooperation
Stanford University
Encina Hall E210, Stanford, CA 94305-6165, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
2 Department of Nuclear Engineering University of California, Berkeley 4157 Etcheverry Hall MC 1730, Berkeley, CA 94720-1730, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
E lements , V ol . 8,
pp.
189–194
Aerial view of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
station before March 11, 2011. Unit 1 was the first one
built and started operation in 1971; it is the smallest, at 460 megawatt electrical (MWe). Units 2–5 each provided 784 MWe, and they
started operation during the 1970s. Unit 6 is the largest of the units
at 1100 MWe, and started operating in 1979. Source : TEPCO website
Figure 1
189
J une 2012
Nuclear Power Primer
T
he majority of nuclear power plants operating
around the world are light water reactors (LWRs),
which are either pressurized water reactors (PWRs) or
boiling water reactors (BWRs). A LWR produces heat
through controlled fission occurring in the fuel of the
reactor core, and steam is ultimately used to drive powergenerating turbines. In a BWR, steam is generated in the
core and used to directly drive turbines, while in a PWR,
a secondary loop is used to transfer the heat and ultimately drive the turbines. Both reactor types have been
built over a range of electrical power outputs, typically
ranging from several hundred megawatt electrical (MWe)
to well over a gigawatt electrical (GWe). LWR fuel uses
U-235 that has been enriched to roughly 3–5% (naturally
occurring uranium contains 0.71% U-235) and fabricated
into fuel rods that are approximately 1 cm in diameter
and 3 m long. These fuel rods are bundled into square
fuel assemblies that can be loaded into the reactor core.
The reactor cores at Fukushima Daiichi contained 400
fuel assemblies in Unit 1, 548 fuel assemblies in each of
Units 2–5, and 764 fuel assemblies in Unit 6. One of the
safety challenges with LWRs is that they produce decay
heat from the decay of fission products remaining in the
fuel after the reactor has been shut down. Due to the
decay heat, the reactor core requires continuous cooling
following shutdown. Spent fuel is stored in spent fuel
pools until it is cool enough for potential interim storage
in dry-cask storage. According to TEPCO, the Fukushima
Daiichi plant had a total of 1760 metric tons of fresh and
spent nuclear fuel (Marshall and Reardon 2011).
The Accident
All on-site power was lost 55 minutes after the earthquake
because many of the emergency diesel generators and
switchgear rooms were flooded by the tsunami. Of equal
importance, the seawater intake structure was destroyed
by the tsunami, compromising the ability to remove heat
from the shut-down reactors. Key plant equipment began
to fail as plant operators started to lose all lighting and
instrumentation due to damage and shorting in the DC
backup batteries. Only one of the five emergency diesel
generators in Units 5 and 6 continued to operate after the
tsunami. The air-cooled emergency diesel generator in Unit
6 continued to function and supply electrical power so
backup cooling systems could maintain functionality.
Nuclear power safety is rooted in a defense-in-depth philosophy that involves the use of multiple, independent, redundant, and diverse barriers to prevent problems and
accidents, together with corresponding emergency planning to address residual risks. However, it is shown in this
paper that the defense-in-depth approach for dealing with
tsunamis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant was insufficient.
Station Blackout
After losing all on-site AC power, plant personnel contacted
the Japanese government and requested backup electric
generators to restore critical safety equipment. Due to
severe damage from the tsunami, the transportation of
critical backup equipment to the site was delayed until
later that evening. Helicopter transport of backup diesel
generators was considered, but the weight of the generators
exceeded the helicopter’s lift capacity. Finally, in the
evening of March 11, backup, portable generators were put
in service. Restoring the backup on-site power was made
significantly more complicated by the fact that the tsunami
had damaged the station’s electrical distribution system.
The initial inspection of the station switchyard confirmed
that standby pumps for Unit 2 were functional, and therefore backup power efforts were directed towards Unit 2.
Massive, temporary power cables were laid by station
workers, and a connection was made to the associated
power panel at 3:30 pm on March 12. It took approximately
forty employees to lay the cable through the rubble and
flooded areas.
At 3:36 pm an explosion occurred in the Unit 1 reactor
building due to a buildup of hydrogen near the top of the
building. The hydrogen came from steam reactions with
overheated zirconium alloy fuel cladding, and was a result
of the inability to cool the reactor core. This explosion
distributed debris and damaged recently laid backup equipment, such as cables and portable generators. As a result
of the explosion, five workers were injured, and the safety
protocol for plant personnel was changed. Workers were
required to wear protective equipment. The initial hydrogen
explosion at Unit 1 certainly changed the nature of the
emergency response and added much to the confusion.
The site superintendent ordered personnel to proceed with
preparations for venting Unit 3 just after 8 am and Unit 2
just before 2 pm on March 13.
Reactor Core Cooling
Cutaway view of the General Electric boiling water
Figure 2 reactor with Mark I containment. The reactor pressure
vessel (depicted in red) ranged from 4.8 m to 6.4 m in length with
Unit 1 having the smallest reactor pressure vessel. The core
containing the fuel assemblies is located inside the reactor pressure
vessel. The Torus suppression chamber ranges from 18 to 25 m in
diameter and contains 1750 to 3200 lbs of water. Units 1–5 all had
Mark I containments, while Unit 6 had Mark II. Source : NRC and
G eneral Electric website
E lements
All nuclear power plants have some form of emergency
makeup system to ensure there is water available in the
event of a major pipe break. Heat in a BWR is removed
during normal operation by generating steam in the reactor
vessel, which then drives a turbine to generate electrical
energy. When a reactor shuts down, the decay heat generated in the core is removed by bypassing the turbine and
sending the steam directly to the condensers. When the
190
J une 2012
The physical arrangement of the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant. Some
of the buildings housed equipment
that was shared among the units.
A total of 6600 assemblies of spent
fuel were stored in the common
water pools, which had a capacity of
6840 assemblies. In the figure, the
height above sea level is indicated in
red and green and is relative to sea
level as measured at the port of
Onahama (O stands for Onahama;
P stands for Peil). Source : TEPCO
Figure 3
website
pressure in the reactor system drops to an acceptable point,
the residual-heat-removal system is used to finish cooling
down the reactor system (Fig. 4). In the event that the
normal supply of water to the reactor vessel is lost, an
isolation cooling system provides makeup water to the
reactor vessel. Unit 1 was the oldest unit and utilized an
isolation condenser (IC) to passively cool the core. The IC
works on the principle that the heated, two-phase mixture
of water and steam is buoyant, thus establishing a natural
circulation loop with large heat exchangers located above
the reactor for residual-heat removal. Units 2 and 3 utilized
a reactor core isolation cooling system (RCIC) instead of
an IC to cool the core in the case of an accident. The RCIC
performs a function similar to that of the IC. It consists of
a turbine-driven pump, associated piping, and required
valves, and is used to deliver water to the reactor vessel at
operating conditions. All of the units have an emergency
core-cooling system (ECCS) that is capable of providing
core cooling in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident. The
ECCS consists of two high-pressure and two low-pressure
systems. The high-pressure systems include the high-­
pressure coolant-injection (HPCI) system and the
­automatic-depressurization system (ADS), which is capable
of depressurizing the reactor in the event of HPCI system
unavailability. The low-pressure system in Unit 1 consists
of a core-spray (CS) system, while Units 2 and 3 also utilize
a low-pressure coolant-injection (LPCI) mode of the
residual-heat-removal system in addition to the CS system.
All of the units also have a borating system, which is used
to shut down the reactor in the event that reactivity cannot
be controlled. This system contains borated water, which
is an effective neutron absorber and is used to stop the
fission chain reaction in the core.
Immediately following the tsunami, all cooling and highpressure makeup water to the reactors was lost. Steamdriven injection pumps were used to activate the RCIC
E lements
system in Units 2 and 3; however, Unit 1 was unable to
reestablish cooling through the IC. In all three units, the
HPCI system was unavailable due to the absence of DC
power. The steam-driven pumps ultimately failed, and the
RCIC system stopped cooling Units 2 and 3. According to
TEPCO estimates (TEPCO 2011a), Unit 1 was left without
Notional diagram showing key safety cooling systems
and differences among the various units (not drawn to
scale). Systems are depicted by number: (1) residual-heat-removal
system, (2) low-pressure core spray, (3) high-pressure core injection, (4) reactor core isolation cooling (Units 2, 3), (5) isolation
condenser (only Unit 1), and (6) borating system. A dapted from
U. Stoll, ENEF Special R isk Working G roup on Safety of N uclear
Facilities, B russels, March 24, 2011
191
Figure 4
J une 2012
any water injection for 14 hours and 9 minutes following
the station blackout. Units 2 and 3 were able to maintain
adequate cooling for nearly 70 hours after the reactor shutdown and they eventually lost cooling capabilities for
approximately 6 and a half hours. Because of this long
period with no core cooling, substantial core damage
occurred in Units 1, 2, and 3. “Core damage” refers to a
core condition during a severe accident where the fuel can
no longer maintain a geometry capable of allowing cooling
and where temperatures exceed the melting point
(~2800 °C) of the fuel. Boiling water reactors have a number
of connections that penetrate the bottom of the reactor
pressure vessel for core instrumentation and control rods.
These penetrations provide potential pathways for leakage
from the reactor pressure vessel. Interested readers should
consult a recently released report from the United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC 2012), which
discusses a research effort, initiated long before the
Fukushima accident, to realistically estimate the outcomes
of postulated severe-accident scenarios.
Core cooling was finally reestablished once the pressure in
the primary system dropped enough to allow fire engines
to inject seawater, and later freshwater; but by then it was
too late, as substantial core damage had occurred. According
to INPO (2011), core damage in Unit 1 most likely started
within an hour and a half of the tsunami. Conservative
estimates indicate that the cores in both Units 2 and 3
most likely melted and might have slumped approximately
a meter to the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel. The
full state of the damaged cores is not well known, and it
will likely take many years before we fully understand the
extent of fuel damage. It took nearly 4 years to assess the
extent of damage to the fuel at Three Mile Island (NRC
1994) after the accident in 1979.
Containment Venting
The reactor containment structure is designed to prevent
the release of radioactive material to the immediate environment. During severe accidents, the pressure inside the
containment structure can be controlled through monitored venting in order to release stored energy. However,
when venting occurs after damage to the core, the possibility of releasing radioactive material is much increased.
At Fukushima Daiichi, safety procedures required venting
when the operating pressure reached nearly double the
maximum operating pressure. According to TEPCO severeaccident procedures, the chief of the Emergency Response
Center, the site superintendent, is solely charged with
determining whether to vent, but he can solicit input from
other management personnel at the station. According to
Japanese law, TEPCO did not need government permission
to vent; however, government concurrence is preferable
(INPO 2011).
For Unit 1, the site superintendent informed the government that he intended to vent the containment structure
in order to reduce pressure. The government concurred; a
press statement was issued just after midnight on the first
day of the accident, and immediate evacuation measures
were initiated in the nearby communities for those who
remained. Shortly after the evacuations were completed,
the procedure for venting the containment structure began
just after 9 am on the morning of March 12. Five and a
half hours passed before the containment structure was
vented successfully due to the complexity of the operation.
The radiation-exposure dose to workers had to be limited
to no more than 300 mSv/h, with an additional limit of
no more than 100 mSv in 17 minutes (for reference, the
global average background dose for a human is approximately 3 mSv/y). Additionally, a lack of contingency proceE lements
dures for venting containment under severe-accident
conditions hindered progress (INPO 2011). These delays
were the major factors involved in holding up the injection
of water into the core of Unit 1, and they ultimately
contributed to the severity of the accident.
As with Unit 1, a series of hydrogen explosions occurred
in Units 3 and 4 several hours following the venting of
units 2 and 3. The source of the released hydrogen was,
again, exothermic reactions occurring at the exposed zirconium fuel cladding. While the pressure in the containment
structure was increasing, the most likely source of hydrogen
outside of containment was by leakage through the drywell
head, which is used to access the drywell during maintenance ( see Fig. 2). The hydrogen explosion in Unit 3
occurred just after 11 am on March 14 and significantly
damaged secondary containment equipment and injured
eleven workers. Finally, a hydrogen explosion occurred in
the shut-down Unit 4 on March 15, the day after the explosion in Unit 3. The explosion at Unit 4 was peculiar since
the plant was shut down; thus the hydrogen must have
come from another unit. Currently, the most accepted
explanation is that containment vent exhaust from Unit
3 circulated into Unit 4 through the shared standby gastreatment system (SGTS).
Spent Fuel Pool Status
The status of the spent fuel pools was of considerable
concern as the events of the accident unfolded. The location of the spent fuel pools in the older-generation BWR
designs with Mark I containment is particularly vulnerable
during a severe accident because the pools are located at
the top of the reactor building and in close proximity to
the reactor pressure vessel (see Fig. 2). This design was originally to make fuel offloading easier by minimizing the
distance the fuel had to move during refueling. With the
exact source of the hydrogen and key spent fuel pool diagnostics unknown, there was early speculation that the
pools had been compromised and that water might have
been lost from at least one of the pools.
Spent fuel at Fukushima Daiichi is stored in each unit’s
own spent fuel pool, as well as in a common pool and in
on-site dry-cask storage. Once the station was under
blackout conditions, all cooling capabilities for the unit
spent fuel pools were lost, but this situation was not of
immediate concern once emergency diesel generators were
started. Water in the spent fuel pools experienced some
“sloshing,” similar to the estimated minimal release of a
few cubic meters of water from the pool at the KashiwazakiKariwa plant after a magnitude 6.6 earthquake in 2007
(NISA 2009). Visual inspections using robots and analyses
of the isotopic composition of the water in the spent fuel
pools a month after the accident indicated that there was
no serious damage to spent fuel in any of the pools or to
the pools themselves. Any potential damage to the spent
fuel was caused by flying debris from the hydrogen explosions. TEPCO inspections of the dry-cask storage building
showed negligible damage.
Reactor Stabilization
and Decontamination Efforts
As soon as the core coolant capability was restored by using
the fire engine pumps, first with seawater and later with
freshwater, another serious problem developed. Injected
water that came in contact with the damaged fuel became
highly contaminated with radioactivity. Because coolant
circulation was not possible, the discharged water had to
be stored separately. Soon, the floors of the turbine and
reactor buildings were covered by highly radioactive water,
192
J une 2012
indicating that injected water was leaking from the reactor
containment vessels. According to a TEPCO report (2011b)
written two months after the accident, the concentrations
of Cs isotopes (Cs-137 and 134) as of March 27, 2011, were
about 3 million Bq/cm3 for each of them. The contaminated water soon started to overflow from the trench that
connects buildings underground. This presented a very
difficult situation. Water had to be injected into the cores
to cool them, but this created the possibility of release of
radioactivity to the seacoast environment by overflow of
contaminated water. Due to the limited storage capacity,
TEPCO had to release into the sea, with government
approval, ~9000 m3 of contaminated water (6.3 Bq/cm3)
kept in the storage facility in the centralized waste-treatment building. With the approach of the rainy season in
June and July, it was urgently necessary to secure space for
this contaminated water and to establish coolant circulation systems with a decontamination capability. As of the
end of May 2011, the total volume of contaminated water
was estimated to be 105,000 m 3, containing about
7 × 1017 Bq of radioactivity; the volume would have been
expected to reach 200,000 m3 by the end of 2011 if no
treatment and circulation had been established.
The contaminated water contained high concentrations of
Na, K, Mg, Ca, Sr (nonradiogenic), and Cl, which originated
from the seawater, as well as radioactive Sr, Cs, and I, which
came from the damaged fuel. The major element composition of the seawater was the main difference between the
wastewater at Fukushima and the wastewater generated in
the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, where there was
no injection of seawater. The treatment system for the
contaminated water had specific requirements. First, the
system had to be simple, so that it could be operated
without remote handling. Second, the system had to be
immediately available, which excluded options that
required additional research. Third, the processing material
had to be durable in a radiation field, and this excluded
organic solvents and synthesized resins. Fourth, the system
had to achieve sufficiently high decontamination factors,
particularly for Cs, under high-salinity conditions, in order
to eliminate the need for a secondary separation process.
TEPCO started operating the treatment system (Fig. 5) on
June 17, 2011. This was important, because contaminated
water in the trench was expected to overflow into the sea
on June 20. At that time, there was 99,900 m3 of contami-
nated water in the reactor and turbine buildings of Units
1 through 4. Additionally, 21,700 m3 of contaminated water
were stored in the centralized waste-treatment building,
whose capacity was only 30,000 m3. Approximately 400
m3 per day of freshwater were required for cooling the
three crippled reactors.
The treatment system consists of four parts: (1) An oil separator. (2) A Cs-adsorption system, developed by the US
company Kurion, which consists of three subparts: (i) a
pretreatment column packed with the sorbent SMZ, a
surfactant modified zeolite, for removal of remaining oil
and technetium; (ii) four parallel columns of the sorbent
herschelite, for removal of Cs; and (iii) a column packed
with the sorbent Ag-impregnated herschelite (AGH), for
removal of iodine. The Kurion Cs-adsorption system was
used in the water-treatment process at Three Mile Island.
(3) A system for removing the remaining Cs, provided by
the French company Areva, in which precipitation and
coagulation are used. The decontamination factors for
these processes have been relatively constant and high.
The Kurion system has achieved decontamination factors
for Cs ranging between 100 and 1000. The Areva system
has achieved decontamination factors of 1000 to 10,000.
Thus, an overall decontamination factor of 10,000 to
1,000,000 has been achieved for Cs. (4) On August 19, a
second line, called Sarry, was added in parallel to the
Kurion-Areva line. Developed by Toshiba-Shaw, this line
uses Cs adsorption by titanates, and it has achieved about
the same level of decontamination as the Kurion-Areva line.
Desalination by reverse osmosis and by evaporation was
added on June 24 and August 7, respectively. The total
throughput of the system from the oil separation stage
through desalination was designed to be 1200 metric tons
per day, and to generate 480 tons of freshwater a day. Thus,
circulation of coolant water was begun on June 24.
Since implementation, the system has operated relatively
free of difficulty. As of November 30, 2011, more than
175,000 m3 of contaminated water had been processed by
this system. The volume of contaminated water stored in
the reactor and turbine buildings has been reduced to
77,000 m3 from the initial 100,000 m3 in June. The volume
of contaminated water stored in the centralized wastetreatment building has decreased from 22,000 m 3 to
12,000 m3. In turn, 581 m3 of sludge containing Cs and
Process diagram
for the wastewater treatment system at
Fukushima Daiichi. Source:
TEPCO website, www.tepco.co.jp/
cc/ press / betu11 _ j /
images /110609g .pdf
Figure 5
E lements
193
J une 2012
298 vessels of wastes have been generated by the wastewater
treatment system. After desalination, a total of 85,000 m3
of salt water, which still requires treatment, has been generated and accumulated. Since the addition of the evaporation process in August 2011, condensation and volume
reduction have been ongoing. With the successful and
stable operation of the contaminated-water treatment
system, cooling of the reactor cores has also been attained.
On December 16, 2011, the Japanese government
announced that the three crippled reactors were in a cold
shutdown state.
However, final disposal of used adsorbent containing high
concentrations of Cs will be an important issue as site
cleanup, remediation, and decommissioning move forward.
One important issue involving this spent adsorbent is
hydrogen generation by radiolysis, as this process is
enhanced by the presence of seawater, because hydrogen
reoxidation reactions are hindered (Kumagai et al. 2011).
Summary
The fuel in Unit 1 began to fail only a few hours after the
station blackout caused by the tsunami. The fuel structurally failed and slumped to the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel as a melt. Reports from TEPCO have indicated
that 0.7 m of the concrete below the reactor pressure vessel
in Unit 1 was eroded by the molten corium interacting
with the concrete (corium refers to the molten mixture of
melted reactor-core constituents that exists during a severe
accident). There are just over 10 m of additional reinforced
concrete and steel protecting the environment below the
damaged concrete. The cores melted in Units 2 and 3 as
well; however, there is no evidence to date that there has
been any basemat erosion in their respective drywells.
The sequence of events in Japan led to one of the most
unsafe plant states for a light water reactor—a complete
loss of on-site and off-site power, known as a station
blackout. Insufficient defensive actions and an inadequate
accident-mitigation response led directly to the overheating
of three cores and resulted ultimately in controlled radionuclide release to the nearby environment. The true failure
at Fukushima Daiichi was the result of a completely inadequate defense-in-depth approach against a tsunami event.
Defense-in-depth is a strong tool to utilize when dealing
References
IAEA (2011) IAEA International Fact
Finding Expert Mission of the
Fukushima Dai-Ichi NPP Accident
Following the Great East Japanese
Earthquake and Tsunami, 160 pp,
www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/meetings/
pdfplus/2011/cn200/documentation/
cn200_final-fukushima-mission_report.
pdf
INPO (2011) Special Report on the
Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Institute
of Nuclear Power Operations INPO
11-005, 97 pp, www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/safetyandsecurity/reports/special-report-on-the-nuclearaccident-at-the-fukushima-daiichinuclear-power-station
Kumagai Y, Nagaishi R, Kimura A,
Taguchi M, Nishihara K, Yamagishi I,
Ogawa T (2011) Measurement and evaluation of hydrogen production from
E lements
Diagram illustrating the concept of defense-in-depth.
The events at Fukushima following flooding by the
tsunami were a direct consequence of insufficient tsunami defensein-depth. Please note the barriers depicted are notional. G raphical
concept adapted from Managing the R isk of O rganizational A ccidents, by
James R eason (1997)
Figure 6
with unusually large events; however, it is not failure proof.
All barriers ultimately have “holes,” such as the states of
systems, equipment failure, human error, and equipment
being in maintenance or out-of-service (Reason 1997).
Figure 6 illustrates the concept of defense-in-depth, where
the ideal implementation of defense-in-depth differs from
the actual implementation. The events at Fukushima
following the tsunami were a direct consequence of an
insufficient tsunami defense-in-depth approach. An
obvious example of this at Fukushima was not placing
critical backup equipment in waterproof vaults or at high
enough elevations so as to provide accident mitigation in
the event that the seawall was compromised or insufficient.
The defense-in-depth philosophy can fail when the “holes”
in the barriers are aligned (notional barriers are given for
illustration). This figure illustrates why one cannot assume
the accident was due only to an inadequately sized seawall.
The events at Fukushima Daiichi were due to a series of
failures, including failures in plant defensive actions, mitigation efforts, and emergency response.
mixtures of seawater and zeolite in
decontamination of radioactive water.
Journal of Atomic Energy Society of
Japan 10: 235-239
Marshall E, Reardon S (2011) How much
fuel is at risk at Fukushima? Science
Insider. http://news.sciencemag.org/
scienceinsider/2011/03/how-much-fuelis-at-risk-at-fukushima.html
NISA (2009) Measures taken by the
Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency
concerning the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa
Nuclear Power Station, affected by the
Niigataken Chuetsu-oki earthquake
(2nd Interim Report). Nuclear and
Industrial Safety Agency, pp 11-12,
www.nisa.meti.go.jp/genshiryoku/
doukou/files/090629eiyaku02.pdf
NRC (1994) TMI-2 Vessel Investigation
Project Integration. United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report
NUREG/CR-6197
194
NRC (2012) State-of-the-Art Reactor
Consequence Analyses (SOARCA).
United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Report NUREG-1935, 101
pp, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/
ML1202/ML120250406.pdf
Reason J (1997) Managing the Risks of
Organizational Accidents. Ashgate
England, pp 11-13
TEPCO (2011a) The Great East Japan
Earthquake and Current Status of
Nuclear Power Stations Public
Presentation, www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/
fukushima-np/f1/images/f12npgaiyou_e.pdf
TEPCO (2011b) Results of Analysis for
Water in the Turbine Buildings by JAEA,
released on May 22, 2011, www.tepco.
co.jp/nu/fukushima-np/images/
handouts_110522_04-j.pdf
J une 2012
Atmospheric Dispersion and
Deposition of Radionuclides from
the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant Accident
Anne Mathieu, Irène Korsakissok, Denis Quélo, Jérôme Groëll,
Marilyne Tombette, Damien Didier, Emmanuel Quentric, Olivier Saunier,
Jean-Pierre Benoit, and Olivier Isnard*
1811-5209/12/0008-0195$2.50 DOI: 10.2113/gselements.8.3.195
O
n March 11, 2011, an earthquake and tsunami hit the northeast coast
of Japan and damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant,
leading to the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere.
We trace the evolution of radioactivity release to the atmosphere and subsequent dispersion as simulated by models, and we compare these to actual
measurements. Four main release periods are highlighted. The first event
had limited consequences to the north of the power plant along the coast;
the second had no impact on Japanese territory because the plumes travelled
toward the Pacific Ocean; the third was responsible for significant and longterm impact, especially northwest of the plant; and the last had consequences
of lesser impact on the Tokyo area.
Keywords : Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, nuclear accident,
contamination, atmospheric dispersion models, radioactive release
Introduction
The recent disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant
was the most serious nuclear accident since Chernobyl in
1986. To accurately assess its impact on human health, an
evaluation of the exposure due to radioactive materials
dispersed in plumes and deposited on the ground is necessary. This objective was partly achieved by direct measurements. First, ground deposition was measured during and
after the accident. In the early phase of the crisis, airborne
measurements were made by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE 2011). Moreover, since April 2011, a comprehensive and systematic survey of the environment based
on soil samples has been completed by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of
Japan (MEXT) and a group of Japanese researchers (e.g.
Yoshida and Takahashi 2012 this issue). Using both sources
of data, maps of ground contamination due to mediumand long-lived radionuclides (especially 134Cs and 137Cs)
have been created. However, many uncertainties remain
regarding the ground contamination due to short-lived
radionuclides, such as 131I and 132 I, which are major
contributors to the gamma dose rate [gamma energy
absorbed by the material per unit of mass and time (Gy/h)].
Second, from the beginning of the crisis, Japanese networks
of measurement devices provided gamma dose rates and
concentration measurements. About 80 stations showed
significant gamma dose rates. Half the stations are located
in Ibaraki Prefecture and the other half mainly in
Fukushima, Kanagawa and Tokyo prefectures. However,
many devices were not functioning because of earthquake
and tsunami damage. Thus, the spatial coverage provided
by the network was too limited to document in time and
space the evolution of the plumes
and their changing composition.
Because the observational data are
not sufficient, models of release,
dispersion and deposition are
required in order to assess the
environmental and health impact
of the Fukushima accident. This
study offers a reconstruction of the
atmospheric transport and deposition of the releases and provides
the data required for the assessment of doses taken by the
population.
Atmospheric Dispersion Models
and Input Data
Atmospheric Dispersion Models
The long-range Eulerian operational model ldX was used
to model the dispersion of radioactivity at the scale of
Japan, typically up to a few hundred kilometres from the
source. The ldX model is based on the chemistry transport
model Polair3D (Boutahar et al. 2004) and has been validated on the European Tracer Experiment (ETEX-I) and
the Algeciras and Chernobyl accidents (Quélo et al. 2007).
The statistical indicators for model-to-data comparisons
have indicated the advantages of ldX as compared to other
models. For instance, the analysis using the ETEX-I data
indicated that 73% of the simulated concentrations were
within a factor of 2 of the observations, and 80% of the
values were within a factor of 5. Since Eulerian models are
known to have difficulty in resolving steep gradients near
point sources, the operational Gaussian puff model pX
(Soulhac and Didier 2008) was used within 80 km of the
Fukushima source.
Both models include consideration of radioactive decay.
They also account for particle and gas removal from the
plume and deposition on the ground through dry deposition and scavenging due to rain. Dry deposition was
modelled using a simple scheme with a constant deposition
velocity: vdep = 2 × 10 -3 m/s. For wet scavenging, the parameterization used was of the form Λs = Λ0 p 0 , where Λ0 =
5 × 10 -5 h/(mm.s) and p 0 the rainfall intensity in millimetres per hour (Baklanov and Sørensen 2001). Depending
on the atmospheric stability, the vertical diffusivity in the
ldX model followed either Louis (Louis 1979) or TroenMahrt schemes (Troen and Mahrt 1986). Pasquill stability
* All from IRSN, Institute of Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety,
Fontenay-aux-Roses 92262 Cedex, France Corresponding author e-mail: [email protected]
E lements , V ol . 8,
pp.
195–200
195
J une 2012
classes (Pasquill 1961) were used for pX. The spatial resolution for ldX simulations was the same as for the meteorological data input, and ten vertical levels were used.
Meteorological Data
The Fukushima plant is located in complex terrain, close
to the sea and within 10 km of a mountainous area, where
meteorological conditions are sometimes difficult to forecast. Therefore, several sources of meteorological data were
considered. Operational forecasts from the European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and
Météo-France (based on the ARPEGE model) were used,
with a time resolution of 3 hours. ECMWF data have a
spatial resolution of 0.125° × 0.125° (about 11 km × 11 km),
and ARPEGE data have a resolution of about 0.5° × 0.5°
over Japan. However, these models do not resolve the
complex topography of Japan. Measurements of wind
velocity and rainfall rate, collected at various sites in Japan,
were used to evaluate the quality of the meteorological
forecasts. The comparisons showed rather good model-todata agreement, except for three events: forecast wind fields
appear to be inaccurate on March 15 in the Fukushima
area and on March 16 and 21 in the Ibaraki area. Despite
these weaknesses, no other data have proven to be better
for the characterization of the meteorological conditions
at the Japan and hemispheric scales. Therefore, ldX simulations were driven by ECMWF data at the Japan scale, and
ARPEGE data were used for hemispheric simulations.
For local-scale simulations, wind observations were used
to compensate for the shortcomings in the forecasts.
Following the analysis of forecasts and comparisons with
observations, three-dimensional ECMWF data were used
for pX simulations, except for March 15, when we preferred
to use the uniform wind fields built from wind observations
at the Fukushima Daiichi site. This solution had its own
limitations, since we assumed that wind observed at
Fukushima was homogeneous within the domain of simulation (80 km), but this did not take into account the
natural spatial heterogeneity of flow.
Several rain events occurred in Japan during the Fukushima
accident. The timing, spatial resolution and intensity of
rain fields are of prime importance for the proper simulation of scavenging and deposition caused by rain. The
resolution of meteorological models is too crude for an
accurate representation of the spatial and temporal variability of rain episodes. Thus, radar observations of rain
available at 10 -minute intervals are best suited.
Unfortunately, such data are only available for the pX
spatial domain. Therefore, radar observations of rain were
used for pX simulations, whereas the ldX model used
ECMWF rain fields.
tionality factor to account for the nominal reactor power.
Seventy-three different radioisotopes were considered. The
approach led to an overall estimate of 7.2 × 1018 becquerels
(Bq) discharged into the atmosphere, including 5.9 × 1018
Bq of 133Xe, 1.9 × 1017 Bq of 131I and 2.0 × 1016 Bq of 137Cs.
The proposed assessment is consistent with the released
amount provided by NISA (2011) and NSC (2011), except
for the noble gases, where xenon is underestimated by a
factor of two.
The time evolution of the release was more difficult to
determine. The quantity of each radioactive species released
during venting or an explosion as well as the release duration were uncertain. Some information could be inferred
from environmental measurements, but only to a point.
Indeed, dose rates measured in the environment included
all the gamma emitters present in the ground and in the
atmosphere in the vicinity of the receptor. These measurements did not allow us to determine the isotopic composition or to distinguish the plume contribution from wet
deposition. Activity concentration measurements or gammaray spectra analysis may help to infer the plume composition, but such measurements at Fukushima were far too few
to remove the larger uncertainty. Besides, no near-field deposition or ambient air measurements could be used to improve
the release estimates whenever the plume from Fukushima
Daiichi was carried towards the ocean.
One year after the accident, the radioactive release still
remains the key source of uncertainty in the simulations.
Some preliminary and partial assessments of the release
kinetics have become available (Chino et al. 2011; Stohl et
al. 2011; Winiarek et al. 2012). All are based on environmental measurements. In the present study, the release
kinetics were defined, first, by the chronology of events as
provided by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) (i.e.
time of containment venting, flushing, onset of smoke,
etc.) and by plant measurement parameters (i.e. water level
and pressure in the reactor vessel, pressure in the containment), and second, by considering dose-rate peaks measured
by on-site monitoring devices. In order to improve estimates of release rates and duration, dose-rate measurements
distributed over Japan were used. The resulting source
terms induced by damage to reactors 1, 2 and 3 are plotted
in Figure 1. Four main periods of emission have been
Source Term
The radioactive species released into the atmosphere during
the Fukushima accident depended on the respective
nuclide inventories per reactor unit and on the state of the
reactors. They can be classified into three categories: aerosols, gases and noble gases. Noble gases are unique in that
they neither react with other species nor are deposited on
the ground.
During the crisis, the source term (the quantity of each
radionuclide released into the atmosphere) used for the
simulations presented here was estimated first by analysing
the state of the reactors following the methodology
proposed by Herviou and Calmtorp (2004). The Fukushima
Daiichi core inventories (i.e. the initial mass and activity
of radioisotopes in Units 1, 2 and 3) were calculated using
the French reactor core inventory, corrected by a proporE lements
Estimated rate of released activities per reactor in
becquerels per second (Bq/s), including the contribution of 73 radioisotopes. Event 1 corresponds to March 12, event 2 to
March 13–14, event 3 to March 15–16 and event 4 to March 17–26.
196
Figure 1
J une 2012
i­dentified. Until March 16, the timing of the releases is
based on specific events, such as venting and explosions,
and thus is fairly reliable. The release rate and its distribution among radioisotopes were highly uncertain until
March 14. From March 15 to 17, many measurements
helped in estimating the release rate, but the composition
of the release, in particular, the proportions of the noble
gases, remains uncertain. From March 17 to 26, many uncertainties remain concerning both the sequence of events and
the composition (rate and isotopic distribution) of the
source term.
Event 1:
Venting and Hydrogen Explosion at Unit 1
The first release followed the explosion of Unit 1 on March
12 at 15:36 JST (Japanese Standard Time). Simulations
suggest that the radioactive plume travelled first to the
north along the Japanese coast and then turned towards
the Pacific Ocean (Fig. 2a). Contamination of Japanese land
resulting from the first event was due only to plume exposure and dry deposition northward along the coast. Only
one gamma dose-rate station, located in Minamisoma,
about 25 km north of the nuclear plant, detected the
plume. The observed signal is in good agreement with pX
simulations (Fig. 2b). However, the use of only one dose-rate
station is not sufficient to validate the modelled release
scenario.
Ambient dose rate (µGy/h)
2011/03/12 23h00 (JST)
Ambient dose rate at Minamisoma
Rain [mm/h]
Dose rate [µGy/h]
B
Date and time (JST)
(A) Map of the ambient dose rate in micrograys per
hour (μGy/h), due to event 1 (March 12), simulated
with pX. The circles correspond to 20 km, 50 km and 80 km from
the Fukushima plant. (B) Comparison between dose rate (cloud and
ground shine) observed in Minamisoma, 25 km north of the
Fukushima plant, and simulated by pX
Figure 2
E lements
The second event occurred between March 13 and 14 and
was triggered by venting and an explosion at Unit 3.
Fortunately, the wind was blowing towards the ocean, and
no contamination of Honshu Island was detected. Again,
the lack of observational stations prevents us from validating the release scenario. The consequences of the first
two events for the Pacific Ocean have been described by
Bailly du Bois et al. (2012).
Event 3:
Venting and Breach of the Wetwell at Unit 2
Dispersion Analysis for Each Event
A
Event 2:
Venting and Hydrogen Explosion at Unit 3
The third event occurred between March 15 at 00:00 and
March 16 at 12:00. First, between 0:00 and 5:00 JST, the
venting of Unit 2 led to a released plume that moved to
the south and then west. Second, at 6:00 JST on March 15,
the sound of an explosion was heard, which may have
come from Unit 3. This may have contributed in a minor
part to that day’s releases. Around the same time, the pressurizing of reactor vessel 2 created a breach in the wet well
(suppression chamber). Pressure-vessel measurements
showed that during one day, the reactor vessel totally
depressurized, leading to significant atmospheric releases.
The resulting plume first went west, then northwest, and
finally turned south toward the Pacific Ocean on March 16.
Forecasts by most of the meteorological services predicted
the flow of the contamination toward the south and west
of the nuclear plant, but they did not reproduce correctly
the wind field carrying the plume to the northwest.
Moreover, significant precipitation over Japan occurred
when the flow travelled to the northwest. The most
contaminated areas were those that experienced plume
wash-out by precipitation. Thus, correct estimates of wind
directions, precipitation timing and intensity, and release
time and duration are crucial for accurately simulating the
effective contamination. During the crisis, the significance
of the contamination was first hinted at by an increase of
dose rate in Iitate, located 40 km northwest of the power
plant. Car-borne surveys and airborne observations by DOE
and MEXT provided the data for mapping the high-doserate zone and deposition northwest of the Fukushima plant
(Fig. 3a, b). Simulations by the System for Prediction of
Environmental Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI;
Terada and Chino 2008) were the first to model the March
15 contamination in the northwestern area (NSC and
MEXT 2011).
The ldX model driven by ECMWF data failed to accurately
simulate the contamination to the northwest. The highdose-rate area predicted by ldX is too far west, whereas pX
simulations driven by wind observations at the Fukushima
Daiichi site and radar observations of rainfall are in better
agreement with observations (Fig. 3). Simulations show
that contamination in the northwest was caused by wet
deposition between March 15 at 21:00 JST and March 16
at 3:00. The pX deposition area is slightly too far north.
This may be due to the use, during this episode, of a homogeneous wind field on a domain that was larger than the
representative scale of the observations. Figure 4 gives
examples of comparisons between model and observations
for various dose-rate stations. The main contamination was
observed in Iitate. Model-to-data comparisons are generally
in good agreement; nevertheless, the peak values are often
overestimated by pX, and the plume arrival is simulated
with a delay of a few hours. The reconstruction proposed
by Chino et al. (2011) shows the same deficiency in the
modelled values. The discrepancies between model and
observations may be due to several factors: inaccurate wind
speed and direction, delays in the precipitation timing
197
J une 2012
Ambient dose rate (µGy/h)
30/03/2011 00h00 JST
B
Cs-134 deposit (Bq/m2)
30/03/2011 00h00 JST
(especially in Iitate where rain was observed before it was
detected by radar), underestimates of the amount of noble
gas released and deposition models that do not account
for complex processes (e.g. land-use spatial variability and
particle-size variations).
Event 4:
Damage to Reactors 1, 2 and 3, Sprayings
and Smokes
(A) Map of ambient dose rate in micrograys per hour
(μGy/h) due to the plume on March 30, observed
(painted areas) and simulated with pX (iso-contours) (B) Map of observed (dots) and pX-simulated (iso-contours) 134Cs
deposits on March 30, in becquerels per square metre (Bq/m2).
The circles correspond to distances of 20 km, 50 km and 80 km
from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Figure 3
Between March 17 and 26, new releases occurred due to
the very poor condition of the reactors and perhaps the
re-scattering of materials. White and grey smokes from
Units 2 and 3 were also reported by TEPCO, especially on
March 21 and 22 (TEPCO 2011). These releases were probably less significant than earlier ones, but they cannot be
ignored because they explain some of the contamination
caused mainly by wet deposition in the Tokyo and Ibaraki
areas. Since there were no specific events, such as a venting
or an explosion, the evaluation of the smoke releases can
only be based on the on-site, observed gamma dose-rate
signal. Various plumes travelled first east and then west.
A Ambient dose rate (µGy/h)
21/03/2011 06h JST
Ambient dose rate at Kawauchi
Rain [mm/h]
Dose rate [µGy/h]
A
B Ambient dose rate (µGy/h)
21/03/2011 11h JST
Date and time (JST)
B
Ambient dose rate at Iitate
Rain [mm/h]
Dose rate [µGy/h]
A
Date and time (JST)
Comparisons of ambient dose rate (cloud and ground
shine), in micrograys per hour (μGy/h), between
ground measurements (in black) and pX simulations (in red) in (A)
Kawauchi (20 km west) and (B) Iitate (40 km northwest of the
Fukushima nuclear plant). Radar observations of rainfall rate, in
millimetres per hour, are plotted in green.
Figure 4
E lements
Comparisons of ambient dose rate (cloud shine only)
in micrograys per hour, between ground observations
(dots) and ldX simulations (painted areas) on March 21 at (A) 6:00
and (B) 11:00. The circles correspond to 50 km, 100 km and
160 km from the Fukushima plant.
Figure 5
198
J une 2012
On March 21, a plume was measured in the morning in
Ibaraki Prefecture, where ldX simulations have a delay of
a few hours, probably due to inaccurate meteorological
data (Figs. 5a, 6a). Later in the morning, the plume arrived
in the Tokyo area (Figs. 5b, 6b). However, measurements in
the Tokyo region showed that the main contamination
occurred around March 15–16 (Fig. 6b), following event 3.
A
Dispersion and Deposition on
Honshu Island and in the Northern
Hemisphere
Model-to-data comparisons have been completed using
available gamma dose-rate observations (SPEEDI and
prefectural measurements). The comparison between
observed and modelled gamma dose rates due to ground
shine (after the plume is supposed to have left the area)
shows an agreement within a factor of 5 to 10, and most
of the time a factor of two. Model-to-data comparisons
show an agreement within a factor of 5 for the gamma
dose rate during the plume passage. Most of the time, the
dose rate due to radionuclides in the air (“cloud shine”) is
underestimated, and the dose rate due to radionuclides
deposited on the ground only (“ground shine”) is over­
estimated. The airborne map of 137Cs deposition (see Fig. 1
in Yoshida and Takahashi 2012 this issue ) (MEXT 2011) shows
that the long-term impact of the accident is mainly located
northwest of the plant where wet deposition occurred.
Figure 7a, b illustrates the total deposition of 137Cs simulated
at large and local scales. The locations of the contaminated
areas are correctly identified by both models. Nevertheless,
deposition fields modelled with ldX are smoothed because
of the size of the mesh of the model. The northwestern
contamination is too far to the west as modelled by ldX,
Ambient dose rate at Ebisawa town, Ibaraki
Rain [mm/h]
Dose rate [µGy/h]
A
B
Simulation of total 137Cs deposited using (A) ldX and
(B) pX. Values are given in becquerels per square
metre (Bq/m2). Compare it with the airborne survey results
published in Yoshida and Takahashi (2012 this issue). The circles
correspond to the distances from the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Figure 7
Date and time (JST)
Ambient dose rate at Tokyo
Rain [mm/h]
Dose rate [µGy/h]
B
Date and time (JST)
Gamma dose rates (cloud and ground shine), in
micrograys per hour, observed (black) and simulated
with ldX (red) in (A) Ebisawa in the Ibaraki region and (B) in Tokyo.
The rainfall rate, in millimetres per hour, from ECMWF data is
plotted in blue.
Figure 6
E lements
but better reproduced by pX because of the use of wind
observations. The pX simulations slightly underestimate
the maximum values of radioactivity deposition close to
the power plant, and the northwestern contamination is
slightly too far north. Otherwise, the values of the pX
deposition are correct as compared to observations.
The proposed scenario for the Fukushima accident can be
indirectly evaluated by comparing simulations with observations recorded on other continents. Indeed, radioactive
materials were detected on the western coast of the United
States as early as March 16 (Bowyer et al. 2011; Diaz Leon
et al. 2011) and arrived in most European countries on
March 23–24 (Masson et al. 2011). The ldX model has been
used to model the transport and evolution of the plume
in the northern hemisphere. Preliminary comparisons in
Masson et al. (2011) show that the predicted plume arrival
times and the global patterns are consistent with observations over Europe.
199
J une 2012
Conclusions and Perspectives
Models have been used to describe four different periods
of radioactivity release as a result of the accident at the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Three of the
releases resulted in exposures to the population because
of the movement of the plumes. The main ground contamination in Japan was caused by wet deposition northwest
and south of the plant. When comparisons between model
and observations are possible, results show that the
modelled results are realistic. For some events, the lack of
actual observations prevents validation.
Despite the good agreement between model and observations, many uncertainties remain in the source term and
the meteorological conditions. An inverse modelling
approach, as proposed by Winiarek et al. (2012), which
was extended to gamma dose-rate measurements, may
improve the source term assessment. For uncertainties, an
ensemble approach may also be used (Mallet and Sportisse
2008). This method is based on an ensemble of simulations
and is carried out using several dispersion models and/or
a set of perturbed input data to describe their uncertainties.
This approach allows one to quantify the uncertainties in
References
Bailly du Bois P, Laguionie P, Boust D,
Korsakissok I, Didier D, Fiévet B (2012)
Estimation of marine source-term
following Fukushima Dai-ichi accident.
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity,
in press
Baklanov B, Sørensen JH (2001)
Parameterisation of radionuclides deposition in atmospheric long-range transport modelling. Physics and Chemistry
of the Earth B26: 787-799
Boutahar J, Lacour S, Mallet V, Quélo D,
Roustan Y, Sportisse B (2004)
Development and validation of a fully
modular platform for numerical modelling of air pollution: POLAIR.
International Journal of Environmental
Pollution 22: 17-28
Bowyer TW, Biegalski SR, Cooper M,
Eslinger PW, Haas D, Hayes JC, Miley
HS, Strom DJ, Woods V (2011) Elevated
radioxenon detected remotely following
the Fukushima nuclear accident.
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity
102: 681-687
Chino M, Nakayama H, Nagai H, Terada
H, Katata G, Yamazawa H (2011)
Preliminary estimation of release
amounts of 131I and 137Cs accidentally
discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant into the atmosphere. Journal of Nuclear Science and
Technology 48: 1129-1134
Diaz Leon J, Jaffe DA, Kaspar J, Knecht A,
Miller ML, Robertson RGH, Schubert
AG (2011) Arrival time and magnitude
of airborne fission products from the
Fukushima, Japan, reactor incident as
measured in Seattle, WA, USA. Journal
of Environmental Radioactivity 102:
1032-1038
DOE (2011) Radiation monitoring data
from Fukushima Area 04/04/2011. U.S.
Department of Energy, www.slideshare.
net/energy/ams-data-april-4v1
Herviou K, Calmtorp C (2004) Method­
ology and tools for source term assessment in case of emergency. Radiation
Protection Dosimetry 109: 53-57
E lements
the model output. Inverse modelling and ensemble
methods appear to be powerful tools that should be used
for operational purposes during emergency management.
The Fukushima accident has also highlighted other needs,
such as the importance of having a monitoring strategy.
As an example, gamma dose-rate observations were very
useful, and airborne observations played a key role during
the crisis. Nevertheless, even with these methods, the
uncertainties are large. More activity-concentration and
gamma-ray spectroscopy measurements, combined with
rainfall measurements, would have significantly reduced
the uncertainty in the modelled values.
Acknowledgments
The source term assessment was done in collaboration with
D. Corbin and J. Denis. They are gratefully acknowledged.
The authors thank Météo-France for providing meteorological forecasts and especially J. P. Tonnelier for his decisive help in interpreting meteorological data and for
sharing his expertise. The authors gratefully acknowledge
the stakeholders of the IRSN technical crisis centre for their
work during the Fukushima crisis.
Louis J-F (1979) A parametric model of
vertical eddy fluxes in the atmosphere.
Boundary-Layer Meteorology 17:
187-202
Mallet V, Sportisse B (2008) Air quality
modeling: From deterministic to
stochastic approaches. Computers &
Mathematics with Applications 55:
2329-2337
Masson O and 81 coauthors (2011)
Tracking of airborne radionuclides from
the damaged Fukushima Dai-Ichi
nuclear reactors by European networks.
Environmental Science & Technology
45: 7660-7677
MEXT (2011) Airborne observations of
Cs-137 deposit. Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
of Japan, http://radioactivity.mext.go.
jp/ja/1940/2011/08/1940_0831.pdf
NISA (2011) Regarding the evaluation of
the conditions on reactor cores of Unit
1, 2 and 3 related to the accident at
Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power
Station, TEPCO. Nuclear and Industrial
Safety Agency, news release June 6,
2011, www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/
press/2011/06/en20110615-5.pdf
NSC (2011) Trial estimation of emission
of radioactive materials (I-131, Cs-137)
into the atmosphere from Fukushima
Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station. Nuclear
Safety Commission, press release April
12, 2011, www.nsc.go.jp/NSCenglish/
geje/2011%200412%20press.pdf
NSC and MEXT (2011) SPEEDI dose
prediction maps. http://www.nsc.go.jp/
mext_speedi/index_2-1.html
Pasquill FA (1961) The estimation of the
dispersion of windborne material.
Meteorological Magazine 90-1063:
33-49
Quélo D, Krysta M, Bocquet M, Isnard O,
Minier Y, Sportisse B (2007) Validation
of the Polyphemus platform on the ETEX,
Chernobyl and Algeciras cases.
Atmospheric Environment 41:
5300-5315
200
Soulhac L, Didier D (2008) Projet pX,
note de principe pX 1.0. Note technique
IRSN/DEI/SESUC/08-39
Stohl A, Seibert P, Wotawa G, Arnold D,
Burkhart JF, Eckhardt S, Tapia C, Vargas
A, Yasunari TJ (2011) Xenon-133 and
caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
nuclear power plant: determination of
the source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics Discussions 11:
28319-28394
TEPCO (2011) Plant status of Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (as of
2:00 PM Mar 23). Tokyo Electric Power
Company, press release, www.tepco.co.
jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11032312e.html
Terada H, Chino M (2008) Development
of an atmospheric dispersion model for
accidental discharge of radionuclides
with the function of simultaneous
prediction for multiple domains and its
evaluation by application to the
Chernobyl nuclear accident. Journal of
Nuclear Science and Technology 45:
920-931
Troen IB, Mahrt L (1986). A simple model
of the atmospheric boundary layer;
sensitivity to surface evaporation.
Boundary-Layer Meteorology 37:
129-148
Winiarek V, Bocquet M, Saunier O,
Mathieu A (2012) Estimation of errors
in the inverse modeling of accidental
release of atmospheric pollutant:
Application to the reconstruction of the
cesium-137 and iodine-131 source terms
from the Fukushima Daiichi power
plant. Journal of Geophysical Research
117: D5, doi: 10.1029/2011JD016932
Yoshida N, Takahashi Y (2012) Landsurface contamination by radionuclides
from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant accident. Elements 8:
201-206
J une 2012
Land-Surface Contamination by
Radionuclides from the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident
Naohiro Yoshida1 and Yoshio Takahashi2
1811-5209/12/0008-0201$2.50 DOI: 10.2113/gselements.8.3.201
R
adionuclides, such as 134Cs, 137Cs, and 131I, were released during the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in March 2011. Their
distribution was monitored by airborne surveys and soil sampling. The
most highly contaminated areas are to the northwest of the plant and in the
Naka-dori region of Fukushima Prefecture; this contamination was mainly
the result of wet deposition on March 15. Radionuclides were also released
on March 21, and they were dispersed up to 200 km south of the plant. The
Cs/I ratios are different for these two events, probably because of differences
in the initial ratios in the airborne plumes and the amount of wet deposition.
Numerical simulations of the dispersion process and vertical profiles of radionuclides in soils are used to describe the contamination of soils.
conducted four times in Fukushima
between March and November
2011 (MEXT and DOE 2011; MEXT
2011a). Airborne monitoring is
done using large sodium iodide
( Na I ) sc i nt i l lator detec tors
installed in an aircraft. These
instruments can quickly measure
γ-rays emitted from radioactive
materials on the ground and determine the distribution of radionuclides over large areas.
The first airborne monitoring was
done by DOE using 40 hours of
flying time between March 17 and
Keywords : airborne monitoring, soil analysis, wet deposition, vertical profile,
19 (DOE 2011); this survey revealed
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, radionuclides
a highly contaminated area northwest of the Fukushima plant.
INTRODUCTION
Three subsequent surveys, conducted by MEXT and DOE,
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident
provided details on the distribution of radioactive materesulted in the release of huge amounts of radionuclides rials, generally consistent with the results of the first DOE
into the environment. The total amounts of the two main
survey, and showed that the area in which deposition of
volatile radionuclides, 131I and 137Cs, released into the 134Cs and 137Cs totaled more than 3000 kBq/m 2 (kilobecatmosphere between March 12 and April 6, 2011, were
querels per square meter) extended from the plant towards
estimated to be approximately 1.5 × 1017 and 1.3 × 1016 the northwest, affecting Namie town, Minami-Soma city,
becquerels (Bq), respectively (Chino et al. 2011). Due to a Katsurao village, Kawamata town, and Iitate village (Fig.
strong wind from the west, most of the radionuclides were
1). Several areas in which 134Cs and 137Cs totaled more than
transported out over the Pacific Ocean (Yasunari et al.
300 kBq/m 2 were also found, such as at Date city in the
2011). However, it is estimated that about 10–20% of the Naka-dori region (Fig. 1). Very high radioactivity (>3000
total radiocesium and radioiodine emitted from the power
kBq/m 2 ) extended from the power plant to the Naka-dori
plant were deposited over land in northeastern Japan
region through the Abukuma Highland, whose elevation
(Morino et al. 2011). As a consequence of the land contami- is ca 1000 m (Figs. 1 and 2).
nation shown by the airborne monitoring until April 2011,
The highly contaminated area (>60 kBq/m 2 ) extends into
the area within 20 km of the Fukushima plant is now
restricted, while other areas, such as Iitate village and a the northern parts of Tochigi and Gunma prefectures
(compare this value with that originating from global
part of Kawamata town, have been designated as “planned
fallout around Japan, namely, a few kBq/m 2 level; Aoyama
evacuation areas.” To assess the health risks and impact on
et
al. 2001). In particular, the highly contaminated area is
food production in Fukushima Prefecture and neighboring
clearly evident along the fronts of the Ohu, Shimotsuke,
prefectures, the spatial distribution of the radionuclides is
and Echigo mountainous regions. A three-dimensional
of critical importance.
image (Fig. 2) confirms the close relationship between the
distribution of the radionuclides and the higher elevations
AIRBORNE MONITORING
(MEXT 2011b).
Planned
evacuaon
areas
OF LAND CONTAMINATION
Airborne monitoring of radioactivity by the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
(MEXT) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was
1 Department of Environmental Chemistry and Engineering
Tokyo Institute of Technology
G1-17, 4259 Nagatsuta, Midori-ku, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan
E-mail: [email protected]
2 Department of Earth and Planetary Systems Science
Graduate School of Science, Hiroshima University
1-3-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan
E-mail: [email protected]
E lements , V ol . 8,
pp.
201–206
RADIONUCLIDE DISTRIBUTION IN SOILS
Endo et al. (2012) sampled soils in March 2011 in areas
northwest of the Fukushima plant to study the radioactive
distribution at ground level. They detected the following
radionuclides (with maximum depositional density values
in parentheses, decay corrected to 17:00 on March 15,
2011): 129mTe (2.97 × 103 kBq/m2), 129Te (1.80 × 103 kBq/m2),
131I (1.25 × 10 5 kBq/m 2 ), 132 Te (7.53 × 10 4 kBq/m 2 ), 132I
(6.98 × 10 4 kBq/m 2 ), 134 Cs (9.78 × 10 3 kBq/m 2 ),
136 Cs (3.95 × 10 2 kBq/m 2 ), 137Cs (1.01 × 10 4 kBq/m 2 ),
201
J une 2012
Emergenc
evacuao
prepara
areas
N
Miyagi
Prefecture
Yamagata
Prefecture
K akuda
Pacific
Ocean
Date
F ukus hima
Miyagi
Yamagata
Fukushima
Prefecture
K awa
mata
MinamiS oma
Iitate
30 km
20 km
Nihonmats u
F DNP P
K ats urao
Fukushima
Namie
F ig. 2
F DNP P
K oriyama
Tochigi
Gunma
Ibaraki
Saitama
Tokyo
Chiba
F ig. 2
0
50
The MEXT team collected soil samples from
220 0 locations throughout Fukushima
Prefecture and in northern Ibaraki and southern
Miyagi prefectures. The depth of the sampled
soil can affect the measured radioactivity, since
the analytical result is reported as becquerels
per kilogram (Bq/kg) after homogenization of
the soil sampled between the surface and the
given depth. Thus, the soil sample up to 5 cm
depth was collected using a 5 cm core sampler
with a specific cross-sectional area, since more
than 90% of the 131I, 134Cs, and 137Cs was found above this
depth; after analysis, the radionuclide concentrations were
converted to the unit Bq/m 2 . Maps showing the distribution of 134 Cs, 137Cs, 129mTe, and 110m Ag were prepared
(MEXT 2011c, d).
Total deposition
of 134Cs and 137Cs
(Bq/m2)
> 3000 k
1000 k–3000 k
600 k–1000 k
300 k–600 k
100 k–300 k
60 k–100 k
30 k–60 k
10 k–30 k
< 10 k
No data
100 km
Naka-dori
region
Tochigi
Prefecture
Ibaraki
Prefecture
0
10 km
Distribution of 134Cs + 137Cs measured during airborne
monitoring. (A) Distribution in the northern part of
Honshu Island. The red dashed box corresponds to the area in
Figure 2. The red arrow indicate the direction of view in Figure 2.
(B) Distribution within 80 km of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant (FDNNP). Decay corrected to July 2 and November 1,
2011, in (B) and (A), respectively. Modified from MEXT and DOE
(2011) and MEXT (2011a)
Figure 1
140Ba (1.03 × 102 kBq/m 2 ), and 140La (1.16 × 102 kBq/m 2 ).
Kinoshita et al. (2011) reported the spatial distributions of
129mTe, 131I, 134 Cs, 136 Cs, and 137Cs based on the analysis of
soil samples collected in March and April 2011 in Fukushima
and Ibaraki prefectures. Later, the MEXT team made accurate radionuclide maps with a 2 km mesh within a 100 km
radius of the power plant (MEXT 2011c).
After the accident at the Fukushima plant, volatile radionuclides, such as 134Cs, 137Cs (the boiling points of Cs, I,
and Te are 671 °C, 184 °C, and 988 °C, respectively), were
S himots uke m.
Gunma
Tokyo
N
E chigo m.
Saitama
Ohu m.
Tochigi
Chiba
Fukushima
Ibaraki
Yamagata
Total deposition of 134Cs + 137Cs
> 3000 k
1000 k – 3000 k
600 k – 1000 k
300 k – 600 k
100 k – 300 k
60 k – 100 k
30 k – 60 k
10 k – 30 k
(unit: Bq/m2)
< 10 k
Abukuma highland
Miyagi
F DNP P
Three-dimensional map showing an oblique view of
exaggerated topography and 134Cs + 137Cs concentrations measured during airborne monitoring; these results show that
radiocesium was deposited outside of the mountainous areas.
Decay corrected to October 13, 2011. Modified from MEXT (2011b)
Figure 2
E lements
presumed to have been released to the atmosphere as gases, considering that the temperature in the reactor at the time of the meltdown
was possibly 2100–2300 °C (Barrachin et al.
2008). Although the chemical species of the
radionuclides during emission are not known,
their volatilities can be estimated from the
elemental boiling points. On the other hand,
some radionuclides, such as 95Zr, 103Ru, and
106Ru, which were found in Chernobyl fallout,
were not observed in the soil analyses, possibly
due to the refractory properties of these radionuclides (Tagami et al. 2011). After release to
the environment, the chemical species of Cs,
I, and Te may have been, respectively, Cs +; I2,
CH3I, I-, and IO3 - ; and HTeO4 - (Santschi et al.
1988).
The distribution of 137Cs in soils (MEXT 2011c; Fig. 3)
showed that the highly contaminated area was to the
northwest of the power plant; this result was consistent
with measurements from the airborne survey. The activity
of 137Cs was highest in Okuma town (15,500 kBq/m2 ; point
1 in Fig. 3), close to the plant (<3 km), where the radiation
dose at 1 m height was 480 mSv/y (millisieverts per year)
as measured at each sampling site by the MEXT team. The
activity of 137Cs was second highest around the border
between Namie town and Iitate village (7900 kBq/m 2 ;
radiation dose: 367 mSv/y; point 2 in Fig. 3), about 30 km
northwest of the plant. Moderate radioactivity (100–600
kBq/m2) was found in the Naka-dori region. The 2 km scale
sampling mesh used in this MEXT project revealed that
there was a heterogeneous distribution even within small
areas, which was not evident in the airborne survey. For
example, point 2 mentioned above was located near a lowactivity location (870 kBq/m 2 ; point 3), as shown in the
inset of Figure 3.
The distribution of 129mTe (MEXT 2011d; data not shown)
was similar to that of 137Cs, suggesting that 129mTe was also
emitted as a gas. A larger concentration of 129mTe was found
south of the plant, possibly because of the migration of
radioactive plumes with different 129mTe/137Cs ratios.
However, the distribution of 110m Ag (data not shown) was
not similar to that of 137Cs. The emission and distribution
mechanisms of 110m Ag may be different from those of 137Cs
and 129mTe, because 110m Ag may not be emitted as a gas on
account of its refractory nature (boiling point of Ag =
2164 °C).
Determination of the concentrations of 129I, 131I, 89Sr, and
90 Sr in soil is in progress (e.g. MEXT 2011e, f). Since the
soil sampling and analysis by MEXT were conducted
between June 4 and 29, data for short-lived nuclides, such
as 131I, were obtained only for about 20% of the sites (MEXT
2011e). If it is assumed that the 129I/131I ratio is constant
202
J une 2012
Point 3
Point 2
Different spatial distribution patterns for 129mTe, 131I, and
137Cs can be generated by variable air movements and rainfall patterns, coupled with variable 131 I/137Cs and
129mTe/137Cs ratios in the plume, as seen from the
contrasting ratios of I and Cs released from the power plant
(Fig. 5). Considering the possibility that 131I can cause more
serious health effects, as was seen at Chernobyl (Cardis et
al. 2005), the distribution of 131I obtained by Kinoshita et
al. (2011) is very important, particularly for the radiological
dose assessment of the accident. The 129I mapping planned
by MEXT is expected to confirm the 131I results obtained
by Kinoshita et al. (2011).
100 km
80 km
Point 1
2 km
Plutonium isotope ratios different from those of the global
fallout were found in a sample collected 1.7 km from the
power plant and in three soil samples taken northwest and
south of the plant in the 20–30 km radius zone (Zheng et
al. 2012; Yamamoto et al. 2012). Further studies on the
distribution of plutonium within 20 km of the plant are
needed.
COMPARISON OF SIMULATED
AND OBSERVED RESULTS
137Cs
Emergency
evacuaon
preparaon
areas
Planned
evacuaon
areas
(Bq/m2; As of June 14)
> 3000 k
1000 k–3000 k
600 k–1000 k
300 k–600 k
100 k–300 k
60 k–100 k
30 k–60 k
10 k–30 k
< 10 k
Distribution of 137Cs as determined from soil samples
collected on a 2 or 10 km grid. Decay corrected to
June 14, 2011. Modified from MEXT (2011c)
Figure 3
for the radioiodine emitted during the accident, the determination of 129I using accelerator mass spectroscopy
(Matsuzaki et al. 2007) allows one to estimate the distribution of 131I. Thus, the analysis of 129I is important as a
complement to the 131I mapping.
Kinoshita et al. (2011) collected soil samples from shortly
after the accident until the end of April 2011 and determined the distributions of short-lived nuclides, such as 131I
(half-life = 8.0 days), 129mTe (34 days), and 136Cs (13 days)
(F ig. 4). In addition, the sampled area extends from
Fukushima through all of Ibaraki Prefecture. The ratios of
the three radiocesium isotopes (134Cs, 136Cs, and 137Cs) were
constant over the whole area. On the other hand, the distributions of 129mTe, 131I, and 137Cs were different, especially
in Ibaraki Prefecture. Also, 129mTe was more concentrated
immediately south of the power plant, as compared to 137Cs
(see 129mTe/137Cs activity-ratio map in Fig. 4). A similar
tendency is also shown by the 131I/137Cs ratio (Fig. 4).
According to previous studies of radionuclide emissions
from the Chernobyl reactor (Muramatsu et al. 1987), most
radionuclides are distributed as wet deposition (rainfall
events). The main wet-deposition events after the
Fukushima accident occurred on March 15–16 in northern
Fukushima Prefecture and on March 21–23 in Ibaraki and
Chiba prefectures, south of Fukushima, when transient
cyclones entered these areas (Figs. 4, 5). Kinoshita et al.
(2011) pointed out that the air mass around the power
plant stayed in northern Fukushima Prefecture and that
the radionuclides were deposited with rainfall and snowfall
in the area on March 15 and 16 (Fig. 4). On the other hand,
from March 21 to 23, air flowed from the plant southwards
to Ibaraki and Chiba prefectures, accompanied by rainfall.
E lements
In order to understand the temporal variation of radionuclide deposition and the mechanisms of contamination,
numerical models that consider the meteorological conditions, the concentration and depositional amounts of
radionuclides, and the resulting radiation doses have been
developed. Such simulations have been done for radionuclide distributions on land (Chino et al. 2011; Morino et
at al. 2011; Katata et al. 2012) and in the Pacific Ocean
(Yasunari et al. 2011; Honda et al. 2012). Details about
simulation studies of the atmospheric and oceanic dispersion of radionuclides are given by Mathieu et al. (2012)
and Masumoto et al. (2012), respectively, in this issue.
Here, we focus on simulation studies of the temporal variation of radionuclide emission and deposition over land.
Katata et al. (2012) estimated temporal variations in the
release rates of radionuclides, in plume movement, and in
the spatial distributions of radionuclides at various times
after the accident (Fig. 6). Briefly, the dispersion from the
nuclear plant on March 15–16 can be attributed to two
main processes: (1) release on the morning of March 15 by
a plume moving southwestwards from the plant, which
created high radioactivity in the Naka-dori region; (2)
release in the afternoon of March 15 from another highconcentration plume flowing northwestwards from the
plant, which, coupled with rainfall, resulted in high activities in the northern part of Fukushima Prefecture (i.e. Iitate
village).
Temporal variations in the deposition and emission rates
from the power plant in March are summarized in Figure 5
(Morino et al. 2011). On March 15–16, high emission rates
of 137Cs and 131I, coupled with easterly winds and precipitation, caused the deposition of large amounts of radionuclides in Fukushima, Miyagi, Ibaraki, and Tochigi
prefectures. On March 21–23, although the emission rates
were lower, large amounts of radioactive materials were
transported over land by easterly or northeasterly winds,
during periods of continuous precipitation, resulting in
the second-largest event of radionuclide deposition
over land.
Dry deposition contributed to the concentration of 131I
much more than to the concentration of 137Cs, a fact that
can be explained by differences in their chemical properties (Fig. 5). Under ambient conditions, radiocesium cannot
be present as gas, suggesting that all radiocesium was transported in aerosol form. These aerosols can be readily
203
J une 2012
129mTe Air parcel 16:00 March 15 Air parcel 11:00 March 21
131I
1000
100
100
10
10
1
134Cs
137Cs Rainfall amount March 15-16 Rainfall amount March 21
136Cs
30
30
20
20
10
10
10
1
0
0
100
10
100
10
1
1
0.1
129mTe/137Cs
131I/137Cs
129mTe/131I
Figure 4
Distributions of 131I, 129mTe, 134Cs,
and 137Cs as determined from soil samples,
along with three maps of radionuclide ratios. The
four maps on the right show air parcels at 16:00
JST on March 15 and at 11:00 JST on March 21,
and rainfall amounts on March 15–16 and on
March 21. Modified from K inoshita et al. (2011)
136Cs,
1
0.1
0.01
10
0.1
1
0.01
0.1
0.001
washed out during rainfall. However, a part of the radioiodine can be present as gas (I 2 , CH3I) that cannot be
readily dissolved in water. Thus, dry deposition on land
can be important in the removal of radioiodine from the
atmosphere. The dry deposition fraction was larger near
the power plant, in both the southwestern and northwestern directions (Katata et al. 2012). However, radionuclides in the Iitate village and Naka-dori regions were
supplied mainly by wet deposition. Katata et al. (2012) also
noted that topography is important in the distribution of
radionuclides resulting from wet deposition.
In summary, simulations of the temporal variations of
emission, deposition, and distribution of radionuclides are
basically in good agreement with measured distributions
obtained by airborne surveys and soil sampling.
VERTICAL SOIL PROFILES
Examination of the vertical migration of the radionuclides
in soils after deposition has shown that more than 90% of
the radiocesium and 131I deposited on the soil surface was
retained in a surface layer no more than 5 cm thick and
that 131I penetrated to greater depth than radiocesium (Kato
et al. 2012; Tanaka et al. 2012). The depth of radiocesium
infiltration in the Fukushima area was deeper than that
reported for cultivated soil near the Chernobyl nuclear
power plant, which may be related to the smaller clay
content in the Japanese soil (Kato et al. 2012). Information
on vertical migration is obviously useful for present and
future decontamination strategies and also for modeling
the migration of radiocesium into groundwater.
Direct evidence of the fixation mechanisms of the radionuclides in the top layer of the soil is limited, because the
molar concentrations of the radionuclides are far below
the level that can be measured by normal physicochemical
methods. Indirect methods can be used only to estimate
the chemical processes and to determine the host phases
of the radionuclides in the soil; such methods include
E lements
sequential extraction and particle size analysis, followed
by radioactivity measurements and imaging techniques
that measure radioactivity (autoradiography). Tanaka et al.
(2012) suggested that less than 1% of the radiocesium in
soils can be leached either with water at various pH values
or even with 2 M HCl solution (soil: 5 g; solution: 15 mL).
With the addition of 1.0 M NH4Cl solution, the leached
fraction increases to 5–15%, which suggests that radio­
cesium is strongly adsorbed into the interlayer of clay
minerals (Wauters et al. 1996). Bostick et al. (2002)
employed X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) to show
that Cs + ions are strongly bonded with oxygen atoms
within the SiO4 sheets in the interlayers of clay minerals
(montmorillonite and vermiculite); thus, an inner-sphere
complex is formed between Cs + and the clay structure.
Cations that are smaller than Cs +, such as Na + and Ca 2+,
are adsorbed by clays through the formation of outersphere complexes, the stability of which is much lower
than that of inner-sphere complexes. Thus, these small
cations are readily exchangeable through ion-exchange
reactions. On the other hand, Cs + and other cations (e.g.
K+ and Tl+) are not readily exchanged because of the formation of inner-sphere complexes with the clay structure.
Most likely, the Cs + species in the Fukushima soils also
forms inner-sphere complexes with clays, which reduces
the mobility of Cs + in soil.
Less than 10% and about 30% of the 131I were leached by
water and an NaOH solution (pH 10.5), respectively, from
soil collected one month after the accident (Tanaka et al.
2012). The NaOH solution, with its contained 131I, was
subsequently acidified to pH 2; more than 60% of the 131I
in the solution precipitated, possibly with humic materials
that can bind iodine to the phenyl group in the polyorganic
structure (Schlegel et al. 2006). This leaching–precipitation
behavior suggests that part of the iodine is associated with
organics in the soil, which may be the cause of the low
rate of leaching of 131I from the soil by water. The formation of organic iodine in natural soil has been suggested
204
J une 2012
I deposition (kBq/m2day)
deposition (kBq/m 2day)
Emission rate (Bq/h)
C
(a) 131I deposition
1200
1000
Total (wet + dry) deposion
800
600
Wet deposion
400
200
0
150
(b) 137Cs deposition
Total (wet + dry) deposion
100
Wet deposion
A
B
50
137Cs
B
cesium onto soil particles, the migration of radiocesium
into groundwater as a result of the infiltration of water
through the soil layer is unlikely (e.g. Ohta et al. 2012).
On the other hand, strong adsorption to soil particles facilitates the migration of radiocesium, mainly as particulate
matter, in rivers that receive the runoff from the contaminated area. A high content of particulate matter, such as
colloids, results in the redistribution of radioactivity from
highly contaminated areas into the fluviatile environment,
and finally into lake and ocean sediments. Migration
through river systems has been suggested by results from
airborne monitoring within 80 km of the Fukushima plant
1400
131
A
0
10
16
10
15
10
14
10
13
(c) Emission rate
131
I
137
Cs
10
12
12
16
20
24
28
March
Figure 5 Wet and total (= wet + dry) deposition rates over land
(Fukushima, Miyagi, Ibaraki, and Tochigi prefectures)
for (A) 131I and (B) 137Cs obtained by the simulation of Morino et al.
(2011). (C) Temporal variation in March 2011 of emission rates of
137Cs and 131I from the Fukushima plant (Chino et al. 2011). Shaded
bars show the periods when transient cyclones passed over Japan,
accompanied by northeasterly, easterly, or southeasterly winds.
previously by XAS and by X-ray fluorescence analysis using
an X-ray microbeam (Shimamoto et al. 2011). The formation of organo-iodine species in soil with a high organicmatter content proceeds over a relatively short period, even
within a day (Yamaguchi et al. 2010; Shimamoto et al.
2011). Thus, the formation of organo-iodine is possible for
131I in the soil within about a month after it is deposited.
FUTURE MIGRATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT
In addition to determining the initial distribution of the
radionuclides at ground level, it is equally important to
follow the migration of the radionuclides in various environments via the atmosphere and hydrosphere (Yoshida
and Kanda 2012). Redistribution of radionuclides through
the atmosphere has been suggested (e.g. MEXT 2011a). In
particular, the secondary transport of radioactive dust that
has been resuspended and redeposited by wind and/or rain
has been monitored in Fukushima. This effect may be
responsible for the apparently more rapid decay of the
measured activity in the highly contaminated areas, that
is, by the removal of highly radioactive dust particles and
their redistribution into moderately contaminated areas
(Yamauchi 2012). In addition, the dispersion of radionuclides by pollen is being followed during the pollen season,
February to May, because it is suspected that a part of the
radiocesium in soil can be absorbed by plants and trees
and dispersed via the pollen from these plants.
However, the main pathway for the redistribution and
migration of radionuclides must be through the hydrological system. Considering the strong adsorption of radioE lements
Simulated spatial distributions of (A) air dose rate and
(B) rainfall intensity (colored areas) and surface wind
directions (small arrows). Values beside circles represent observed
air dose rates at monitoring posts, given in micrograys per hour.
Modified from K atata et al. (2011)
205
Figure 6
J une 2012
(MEXT and DOE 2011) between October 22 and
November 5, 2011 (MEXT 2011a). When compared to data
obtained between May 30 and July 2 (the wet season is
roughly from June to September), these results suggest that
there has been a redistribution of radionuclides into the
estuaries of several rivers in Minami-Soma (see Fig. 1) and
into a basin in the middle of the Abukuma River in Kakuda
city, in Miyagi Prefecture (see Fig. 1). More quantitative
data on the runoff of the radionuclides from land and their
flux and pathways to the ocean must be obtained as a
References
Aoyama M, Hirose K, Miyao T, Igarashi Y,
Povine PP (2001) Temporal variation of
137
Cs inventory in the western North
Pacific. Journal of Radioanalytical and
Nuclear Chemistry 248: 785-787
Barrachin M, Chevalier PY, Cheynet B,
Fischer E (2008) New modelling of the
U–O–Zr phase diagram in the hyperstoichiometric region and consequences
for the fuel rod liquefaction in oxidising
conditions. Journal of Nuclear Materials
375: 397-409
Bostick BC, Vairavamurthy MA,
Karthikeyan KG, Chorover J (2002)
Cesium adsorption on clay minerals: An
EXAFS spectroscopic investigation.
Environmental Science & Technology
36: 2670-2676
Cardis E and 35 coauthors (2005) Risk of
thyroid cancer after exposure to 131I in
childhood. Journal of the National
Cancer Institute 97: 724-732
Chino H, Nakayama H, Nagai H, Terada
H, Katata G, Yamazawa H (2011)
Preliminary estimation of release
amounts of 131I and 137Cs accidentally
discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant into atmosphere.
Journal of Nuclear Science and
Technology 48: 1129-1134
DOE (2011) Radiological assessment of
effect from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant, May 13, 2011. U.S.
Department of Energy, http://energy.
gov/situation-japan-updated-102111
Endo S, Kimura S, Takatsuji T, Nanasawa
K, Imanaka T, Shizuma K (2012)
Measurement of soil contamination by
radionuclides due to the Fukushima
Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident
and associated estimated cumulative
external dose estimation. Journal of
Environmental Radioactivity in press
Honda MC, Aono T, Aoyama M,
Hamajima Y, Kawakami H, Kitamura M,
Masumoto Y, Miyazawa Y, Takigawa M,
Saino T (2012) Diffusion of artificial
caesium-134 and -137 in the western
North Pacific one month after the
Fukushima accident. Geochemical
Journal 46: e1-e9
Katata G, Terada H, Nagai H, Chino M
(2012) Numerical reconstruction of
high dose rate zones due to the
Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant
accident. Journal of Environmental
Radioactivity in press
Kato H, Onda Y, Teramage M (2012)
Depth distribution of 137Cs, 134Cs, and
131I in soil profile after Fukushima
Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident.
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity
in press
Kinoshita N and 11 coauthors (2011)
Assessment of individual radionuclide
distributions from the Fukushima
nuclear accident covering central-east
Japan. Proceeding of the National
Academy of Sciences 108: 19526-19529
E lements
function of the temporal variation of the radionuclide
distribution on land.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Y. Morino and D. Saito for providing results from
their studies. We are also grateful to Profs. T. Murakami
and R. C. Ewing for their constructive comments and
suggestions about this manuscript. Two anonymous
reviewers are also thanked for their helpful comments.
Masumoto Y and 10 coauthors (2012)
Oceanic dispersion simulations of 137Cs
released from the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant. Elements 8:
207-212
Mathieu A and 9 coauthors (2012)
Atmospheric dispersion and deposition
of radionuclides from the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident.
Elements 8: 195-200
Matsuzaki H, Muramatsu Y, Kato K,
Yasumoto M, Nakano C (2007)
Development of I-129-AMS system at
MALT and measurements of I-129
concentrations in several Japanese soils.
Nuclear Instruments & Methods In
Physics Research Section B-Beam
Interactions with Materials and Atoms
259: 721-726
MEXT and DOE (2011) Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology of Japan and U.S.
Department of Energy, http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/contents/5000/418
2/24/1304797_0708e.pdf
MEXT (2011a) http://radioactivity.mext.
go.jp/en/contents/4000/3179/24/
1270_1216.pdf
MEXT (2011b) http://radioactivity.mext.
go.jp/en/contents/4000/3176/24/
1270_1125.pdf
MEXT (2011c) http://radioactivity.mext.
go.jp/en/contents/5000/4165/24/
1750_083014.pdf
MEXT (2011d) http://radioactivity.mext.
go.jp/en/contents/5000/4168/24/1750_1
031e_2.pdf
MEXT (2011e) http://radioactivity.mext.
go.jp/en/contents/5000/4169/24/1750_0
921e.pdf
MEXT (2011f) http://radioactivity.mext.
go.jp/en/contents/5000/4167/24/
1750_093014.pdf
Morino Y, Ohara T, Nishizawa M (2011)
Atmospheric behavior, deposition, and
budget of radioactive materials from the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant
in March 2011. Geophysical Research
Letters 38: L00G11, doi:10.1029/
2011GL048689
Muramatsu Y, Sumiya M, Ohmono Y
(1987) Iodine-131 and other radionuclides in environmental samples
collected from Ibaraki/Japan after the
Chernobyl accident. Science of the Total
Environment 67:149-158
Ohta T, Mahara Y, Kubota T, Furutani S,
Fujiwara K, Takamiya K, Yoshinaga H,
Mizuochi H, Igarashi T (2012)
Prediction of groundwater contamination with 137Cs and 131I from the
Fukushima nuclear accident in the
Kanto district. Journal of
Environmental Radioactivity in press
Santschi PH, Bollhalder S, Farrenkothen
K, Lueck A, Zingg S, Sturm M (1988)
Chernobyl radionuclides in the environment: tracers for the tight coupling
of atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic
206
geochemical processes. Environmental
Science & Technology 22: 510-516
Schlegel ML, Reiller P, Mercier-Bion F,
Barré N, Moulin V (2006) Molecular
environment of iodine in naturally
iodinated humic substances: Insight
from X-ray absorption spectroscopy.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70:
5536-5551
Shimamoto YS, Takahashi Y, Terada Y
(2011) Formation of organic iodine
supplied as iodide in a soil–water
system in Chiba, Japan. Environmental
Science & Technology 45: 2086-2092
Tagami K, Uchida S, Uchihori Y, Ishii N,
Kitamura H, Shirakawa Y (2011) Specific
activity and activity ratios of radionuclides in soil collected about 20 km
from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant: Radionuclide release to the
south and southwest. Science of the
Total Environment 409: 4885-4888
Tanaka K, Takahashi Y, Sakaguchi A,
Umeo M, Hayakawa S, Tanida H, Saito
T, Kanai Y (2012) Vertical profiles of
iodine-131 and cesium-137 in soils in
Fukushima prefecture related to the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station accident. Geochemical Journal
46: 73-76
Wauters J, Elsen A, Cremers A, Konoplev
AV, Bulgakov AA, Comans RNJ (1996)
Prediction of solid/liquid distribution
coefficients of radiocaesium in soils and
sediments. Part one: a simplified procedure for the solid phase characterization. Applied Geochemistry 11: 589-594
Yamaguchi N, Nakano M, Takamatsu R,
Tanida H (2010) Inorganic iodine incorporation into soil organic matter:
evidence from iodine K-edge X-ray
absorption near-edge structure. Journal
of Environmental Radioactivity 101:
451-457
Yamamoto M and 12 coauthors (2012)
Early survey of radioactive contamination in soil due to the Fukushima
Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident:
with emphasis on Pu analysis.
Geochemical Journal, www.terrapub.
co.jp/journals/GJ/FukushimaReview.
html
Yamauchi M (2012) Secondary wind
transport of radioactive materials after
the Fukushima accident. Earth, Planets
and Space 64: e1-e4
Yasunari TJ, Stohl A, Hayano RS, Burkhart
JF, Eckhardt S, Yasunari T (2011)
Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the
Fukushima nuclear accident. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences
108: 19530-19534
Yoshida N, Kanda J (2012) Tracking the
Fukushima radionuclides. Science 336:
1115-1116
Zheng J and 9 coauthors (2012) Isotopic
evidence of plutonium release into the
environment from the Fukushima
DNPP accident. Scientific Reports 2:
304, doi:10.1038/srep00304
J une 2012
Oceanic Dispersion Simulations of
137
Cs Released from the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
Yukio Masumoto1, Yasumasa Miyazawa1, Daisuke Tsumune2 , Takaki Tsubono2 ,
Takuya Kobayashi3, Hideyuki Kawamura3, Claude Estournel4, Patrick Marsaleix4,
Lyon Lanerolle5, 6, Avichal Mehra7, and Zulema D. Garraffo8
1811-5209/12/0008-0207$2.50 DOI: 10.2113/gselements.8.3.207
F
ive models have been used to estimate the oceanic dispersion of 137Cs
from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant during March and April
2011, following the accident on March 11, 2011. The total discharged
activity of 137Cs is estimated to be 2 to 15 petabequerels. A weak southward
current along the Fukushima coast was responsible for the initial transport
direction, while mesoscale eddy-like structures and surface-current systems
contributed to dispersion in areas beyond the continental shelf. Most of the
discrepancies among the models in April are caused by differences in how
the mesoscale current structures off the Ibaraki coast are represented.
Keywords : oceanic dispersion simulation, radionuclides, 137Cs, Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant, regional ocean simulation, mesoscale eddy
INTRODUCTION
A devastating earthquake and huge tsunami struck the
Tohoku area, Japan, on March 11, 2011, causing major
damage to the cooling systems of reactors in the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant, operated by Tokyo Electric
Power Company (TEPCO). In order to cool the reactor cores
and the spent fuel in storage pools, large amounts of
seawater and freshwater were used. A significant part of
this radioactivity-contaminated water was discharged into
the Pacific Ocean close to the power plant. In addition,
several hydrogen explosions between March 12 and 15
resulted in the release of significant radioactivity into the
atmosphere, some of which was deposited onto the sea
surface over a wide area of the Pacific Ocean. Careful monitoring combined with modeling of the dispersion of the
radioactivity provide critical information (1) on the
processes responsible for dispersion of the radionuclides,
(2) for simulation and prediction of the spread of radioactivity in the seawater, and (3) for the evaluation of the
impact on the health of marine ecosystems and humans.
Since the accident at the Fukushima plant, several groups
have been conducting numerical dispersion simulations of
radionuclides discharged into the ocean, each group having
different objectives. Some of the results from the simulations have been used to determine locations of monitoring
observations off the east coast of Japan. This article reviews
the present status of such simulations, without considering
1 Research Institute for Global Change
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science
and Technology
Yokohama, Kanagawa 236-0001, Japan
2 Environmental Science Research
Laboratory, Central Research Institute
of Electric Power Industry, 1646 Abiko
Abiko-shi, Chiba-ken 270-1194, Japan
pp.
207–212
DISPERSION SIMULATION
MODELS
Numerical simulations of the
dispersion of radionuclides in the
ocean basically consist of two
parts: an ocean circulation model and a radionuclide
dispersion model. The ocean circulation model provides
evolving circulation patterns for the dispersion model,
while the dispersion model calculates the movement and
spread of radionuclides in the ocean. In this article, we
compare results from five groups: the Central Research
Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), the Japan
Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), the Japan Coastal Ocean
Predictability Experiment (JCOPE) group at the Japan
Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
(JAMSTEC), the Simulation Réaliste de l’Océan Côtier
(Sirocco) group from the Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées,
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Toulouse
University, and the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) group.
Each group utilized a different set of models (Table 1). All
of the models have their finest regional domain resolution
focused on the area close to the nuclear plant, with various
grid spacings in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
Lateral boundary conditions of the circulation models are
typically obtained from larger domain ocean circulation
models, with relatively coarse resolutions, into which
observed data, such as temperature, salinity, and sea-surface
height, are assimilated to provide realistic upper-ocean
conditions. With these assimilation schemes, mesoscale
eddies and meandering of ocean currents, which are crucial
4 CNRS, Toulouse University, Laboratoire
d’Aérologie, 14 Avenue Edouard Belin
F-31400 Toulouse, France
5 Earth Resources Technology, Inc.
Laurel, Maryland 20707, USA
6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, USA
3 Japan Atomic Energy Agency, 2-4 Shirane
Shirakata, Tokai-mura, Naka-gun
Ibaraki 319-1195, Japan
E lements , V ol . 8,
atmospheric deposition, and
describes common aspects and
discrepancies among the simulated results. The article also points
out potential problems and
provides guidance for future
studies. This is the first attempt to
conduct an intercomparison of
models for the oceanic dispersion
of 137Cs from the Fukushima plant.
207
7 National Centers for Environmental
Prediction/National Weather Service/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Camp Springs, Maryland 20746, USA
8 I.M. Systems Group, Inc.
Camp Springs, Maryland 20746, USA
Corresponding author: Yukio Masumoto
([email protected])
J une 2012
Table 1
Model
name
Model specifications
Base model
Circulation
Dispersion
JAEA
Kyoto U./
JMSF b
SEA-GEARNc
CRIEPI
ROMSf
JCOPET
Resolutiona
Nesting
(parent model)
Winds
Data
assimilation
Tides
Integration
period
Reference
NCEP reanalysis 2 d 4D-VAR
and JMA- MSMe
No
March 11–
April 30
Kawamura et al.
(2011)
Passive tracer
1/72° × 1/54° 2-step, (1/24° × 1/18° near
Japan, 1/8° × 1/6° North
Pacific, Kyoto U./JMSF b)
1 km
1-step, (1/12° HYCOMg)
NuWFASh
Yes
Tsumune et al.
(2011)
JCOPE i
Passive tracer
1/36°
NCEP analysis and
JMA-MSM
Sirocco
Siroccoj
Passive tracer
600 m
2-step, (1/12° Northwest
Pacific, 1/4° North Pacific,
JCOPE2i)
1-step, (NCOM k)
March 1–
May 31
March 21–
May 6
Toulouse
University (2011)
NOAA
ROMSf
Passive tracer
1 km
1-step, (NCOM k))
March 11–
to present
March 10–
June 27
ECMWF forecast l
US Navy’s
COAMPSm
(via NCOM)
Included in
HYCOM
3D-VAR in
JCOPE2
Included in
NCOM
Included in
NCOM
Yes
Yes
Yes
a The finest grid spacing is indicated, if grid system is variable in space. b Kyoto University and Japan Marine Science Foundation (Ishikawa
et al. 2009). c Kobayashi et al. (2007). d Kanamitsu et al. (2002). e Japan Meteorological Agency – Meso-Scale Model. f Regional Ocean
Modeling System (Shchepetkin and McWilliams 2005). g Hybrid Coordinate Ocean Model (http://hycom.org/). h Numerical Weather
Forecasting and Analysis System (Hashimoto et al. 2010). i Japan Coastal Ocean Prediction Experiment (Miyazawa et al. 2009). j http://
sirocco.omp.obs-mip.fr/outils/Symphonie/Produits/Japan/SymphoniePreviJapanDescript.htm/. k The U.S. Navy Operational Global Ocean
Model (Barron et al. 2004). l European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (http://www.ecmwf.int/). m Coupled Ocean/
Atmosphere Mesoscale Prediction System (http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/coamps-web/web/home)
for the radionuclide dispersion in the open ocean, are
adequately represented. Tidal currents are also included in
several models in order to reproduce realistic spatial–
temporal current variations near the coastal regions.
Although most of the groups are conducting dispersion
calculations for several radionuclides, such as 131I, 134Cs,
and 137Cs, we focus only on 137Cs in this article, since it
has a significantly long half-life of ~30 years and is observed
in a wide area of the northwestern Pacific Ocean. All five
groups are now considering both direct discharge and
atmospheric deposition in their calculations, but we discuss
here only the results without atmospheric deposition.
SOURCE ESTIMATION
The temporal evolution and amount of radioactivity
released to the ocean and atmosphere from the plant are
key pieces of information for dispersion simulations. In
general, the source conditions are not readily available for
this kind of accident, leaving a large uncertainty in the
simulated results. One of the main purposes of the oceanic
dispersion simulations is, therefore, to estimate the source
information, using inversion techniques, as accurately as
possible. So far, several estimates of the amount of 137Cs
discharged into the ocean have been reported, which are
summarized in Table 2 and Figure 1. Note that the values
come not only from peer-reviewed scientific papers but
also from unreviewed articles.
TEPCO reported that the estimated total amount of 137Cs
discharged directly into the ocean through a crack in the
concrete wall near the reactor of Unit 2 during April 1–6
was 0.94 petabecquerels (PBq), which is equivalent to about
25 kilocuries (kCi) (TEPCO 2011a). In Figure 1, this amount
is indicated by a gray bar, assuming that the discharge
occurred constantly for five days from April 1. On a few
other occasions, TEPCO reported discharges of contaminated water into the ocean, but those were two to five
orders of magnitude smaller in terms of radioactivity than
the amount released during April 1–6.
Kawamura et al. (2011) estimated the amount of 137Cs
discharged into the ocean (red line in Fig. 1) using radioactivity data measured near the power plant by TEPCO
(2011b) (black line in Fig. 1); they assumed that the
contaminated water of the observed concentration occupied an area of 1.5 km 2 in front of the plant and was 1 m
E lements
deep. After adjustment to the values reported by TEPCO
for the period of April 1–6, a value of 4 PBq was obtained.
The time series of the source information thus estimated
(red line in Fig. 1) shows two peaks of release at the end
of March and the beginning of April, with a magnitude of
about 0.4 PBq day-1. After April 7, the discharge diminished
exponentially to about 0.001 PBq day-1 at the end of April.
On the other hand, Tsumune et al. (2011) estimated a
source function of 137Cs by multiplying by a factor to adjust
their model results, with a unit release of the radionuclide,
to the observed values, giving a total of 3.5 PBq of 137Cs
discharged directly into the ocean (Fig. 1, blue line). They
provided a simple scenario for the time evolution of the
radionuclide discharge, in which they assumed that the
time fluctuation of the observed radioactivity is associated
with dispersion processes after entering the ocean. Indeed,
Tsumune et al. (2011) are successful in reproducing a
detailed time evolution similar to that observed at several
locations along the coast south of the plant, including 137Cs
maxima observed on March 30 and April 6 near the plant.
Time series of source information for 137Cs. The black
line with solid circles is the time series of 137Cs radioactivity in the open ocean near the Fukushima plant (right scale, in
becquerels per liter). The values were obtained by averaging the
radioactivity observed by TEPCO at the northern and southern
drainage points of the plant. The red and blue lines are the time
series of 137Cs released into the ocean as estimated by Kawamura
et al. (2011) and Tsumune et al. (2011), respectively (left scale, in
petabecquerels per day). The gray bar indicates the 137Cs discharge
estimated by TEPCO, assuming a constant discharge between April
1 and 5 (left scale). 1 petabecquerel (PBq) = 1015 Bq
208
Figure 1
J une 2012
Several other estimates, including those by the Sirocco,
NOAA, and JCOPE groups, were basically obtained from
numerical models using the TEPCO data. The values
obtained by Sirocco and NOAA, about 3 to 4 PBq of 137Cs
discharged directly into the ocean, are similar to those
derived by Kawamura et al. (2011) and Tsumune et al.
(2011). The second report from the Institut de
Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) on the
impact of radioactivity released from the plant on the
marine environment (IRSN 2011a) estimated the amount
of radioactivity discharged until April 11 to be 2.3 PBq,
which is somewhat smaller than other estimates. Another
IRSN report shows a significantly large value of 27 PBq of
137Cs (IRSN 2011b), which seems to have been derived by
simple interpolation of sparsely observed data and assuming
constant radioactivity within a relatively thick surface
mixed-layer in March. A relatively large estimate of
14.8 PBq from JCOPE is mainly due to relatively coarse
horizontal resolution with a simple boundary condition,
in which the simulated 137Cs concentration at the sea
surface in front of the plant is forced to adjust toward the
observed value.
Most of the above estimates rely on radioactivity measurements by TEPCO near the nuclear plant. Errors in the
TEPCO data, if any, can propagate into these estimates
directly. Another factor affecting the value of estimated
source information is the vertical distribution of radionuclides, especially in the oceanic surface layer. The surface
mixed-layer defined by temperature or water density can
be relatively thick in March due to winter cooling at the
sea surface and subsequent vertical convective motion. We
do not know at this stage, however, whether or not the
radionuclides are also evenly distributed vertically within
the surface mixed-layer. In this regard, the values in Table 2
should be considered to have large uncertainties.
DISPERSION SIMULATIONS
With the above-mentioned source information for simulating the dispersion of radionuclides in the ocean, time
series of the three-dimensional distribution of 137Cs were
obtained from each model. In this section, we compare
these results, focusing on the surface distribution of 137Cs
in the coastal and continental shelf regions during the first
two months after the accident. We present 10-day averaged
surface horizontal-velocity fields and 137Cs distributions
for two periods, from March 22 to 31 (Fig. 2) and from
April 21 to 30 (Fig. 3). These periods correspond, respectively, to a time of southward dispersion along the
Fukushima coast and to a time of gradual dispersion toward
the margin of the continental shelf. Monitoring of the
radionuclides was conducted by the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and
Table 2
a
Estimated amount of
137Cs
TEPCO during March and April, 2011 (MEXT 2011; TEPCO
2011b), and comparisons of the simulated results with the
observations are also made for the two periods.
March 22–31
A lack of observational data prevents us from providing a
detailed description of the 137Cs distribution at the end of
March. The monitoring observations, however, indicate
high concentrations of 137Cs along the coast, near the
nuclear plant (Fig. 2g). The data along a line 30 km offshore
from the coast also show 137Cs contamination, with a
magnitude of about 10 to 15 Bq L -1. These observed values
are significantly higher than those observed in Japanese
coastal waters before the accident, a typical value of which
is about 0.003 Bq L -1 (Kasamatsu and Inatomi 1998).
In general, the surface current fields in all the models show
a strong eastward or northeastward flow—the Kuroshio
current—along the coast of Japan south of Inubo Peninsula.
The current separates from the coastal area off Inubo
Peninsula. The models also show a broad southward flow,
with a speed of 0.2 to 0.5 m s-1, in the region east of 141.5°
E and north of the Kuroshio current (Fig. 2a-e). All models
demonstrate a weak southward flow, with a speed of 0.1 m
s-1 or less, along the coast in front of the Fukushima plant.
This southward current along the coast is responsible for
the southward distribution of 137Cs at the end of March.
The southward flow along the coast can be traced back up
to 38° N in all the models, while the speed of the flow
varies among the models and, in the JCOPET model, is
partially associated with a cyclonic circulation off the coast
of Fukushima. The local flow pattern in this region is susceptible to wind forcing, which shows higher temporal variability associated with synoptic weather disturbances.
All the models fail to simulate the relatively high concentration of 137Cs along a line 30 km offshore. Since the
results shown here are the dispersions of 137Cs released
directly from the plant, it is reasonable to expect that this
offshore contamination at the end of March was due to
deposition from the atmosphere. This is consistent with
the conclusion of Tsumune et al. (2011), who showed the
importance of deposition from the atmosphere by checking
the 131I/137Cs activity ratio.
Another important surface current pattern is eddy-like
structures off the coast of Ibaraki in the region between
36.7° N and the Kuroshio current; in this region, the differences among the models are rather large. A clear example
is an anticyclonic circulation centered at 36.4° N, 141° E
in the CRIEPI result. A similar eddy structure can also be
seen in other model results, but it is relatively weak and
shifted slightly to the east in the JCOPET model, and it
appears as a part of a strong dipole eddy structure in the
discharged directly into the ocean
Institution
Period
137Csa
TEPCO
April 1~April 6
0.94
Based on observed data
Media release
IRSN
Up to April 11
2.3
Based on observed data
IRSN (2011a)
IRSN
March 25~July 18
27
Simulated results with observed boundary conditions
IRSN (2011b)
Method
Reference
JAEA
March 21~April 30
3.58
Based on observed data
Kawamura et al. (2011)
CRIEPI
March 26~May 31
3.54
Unit release experiment with adjustment to observed
values
Tsumune et al. (2001)
JCOPE
March 21~May 6
14.8
Based on observed data
NOAA
March 10~June 27
3.6
Based on observed data
(data from Kawamura et al. 2011)
Sirocco
March 20~June30
4.2
Inverse model based on observed data
In petabecquerels (1 PBq = 1015 Bq)
E lements
209
J une 2012
Horizontal distribution of
Cs and horizontal
current velocity at the sea surface (0–1
m below the sea surface for (A) CRIEPI
model, (B) JAEA model, (C) JCOPET
model, (D) Sirocco model, and (E)
NOAA model. (F) Ensemble mean
weighting the five models, averaged
over 10 days from March 22 to 31.
Note that the averaged period for the
CRIEPI model is from March 26 to 31,
since their discharge scenario started
on March 26. (G) Observed horizontal
distribution of 137Cs averaged over the
same 10-day period. Current speeds are
given by the lengths of the arrows (see
scale). Radioactivity concentrations are
given in becquerels per liter (Bq L-1).
UDL = below detection limit; F1-NPP =
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant
Figure 2
137
A
B
C
D
E
F
JAEA model. The Sirocco and NOAA models show relatively
broad southward flow off Ibaraki. Satellite images of the
sea-surface temperature distribution indicate a weak,
warm-core, eddy-like feature off the coast of Ibaraki at the
end of March and in early April (not shown). The 137Cs
concentration had not reached the region of these eddies
by the end of March.
An ensemble mean of the five model results, giving equal
weight in the averaging (Fig. 2 f ), captures most of the
above-mentioned velocity and 137Cs distributions. It is
rather difficult, however, to show that the ensemble mean
field is better at representing the observed distribution,
since the observational data are so sparse and limited to a
region close to the plant.
April 21–30
The high 137Cs concentration had spread offshore by the
end of April, while the radioactivity along the line 30 km
offshore diminished slightly to a value of around 10 Bq L -1
or less, except for two locations, where values of more than
20 Bq L -1 were detected (Fig. 3g). New monitoring stations
were installed in the region off Ibaraki, but the observed
values were all under the detection level of about 10 Bq L -1
for this time period.
All the models show southward or southeastward dispersion of the 137Cs in the latter part of April (Fig. 3a– e). The
offshore dispersion seems to be associated with a nearshore, northeastward surface flow broadly distributed near
the power plant in all models. The southward or southeastward movements of 137Cs in the offshore region south
of 37° N, however, show large differences among the
models. While the anticyclonic circulation brings the 137Cs
distribution southeastward in the CRIEPI and JCOPET
E lements
G
models, the JAEA, Sirocco, and NOAA results show southward dispersion along the coast associated with a weak
southward flow near the coast. The NOAA results indicate
strong eddy features beyond the coastal region, but the
radionuclide distribution was not affected by the eddies at
the end of April. The differences among the models suggest
that the surface circulations in the region between 37° N
and the Kuroshio current are susceptible to mesoscale eddy
activity and to variability of the Kuroshio, and the modeled
Kuroshio current is in turn strongly affected by data-­
assimilation processes in the larger domain models. In
addition, the radionuclide distribution is affected by
velocity fields not only during April 21–30 but also before
that period. Again, the ensemble mean fields capture
reasonably well the main features of the 137Cs distribution
and the velocity characteristics off Fukushima and Ibaraki
(Fig. 3f).
In addition to the mesoscale eddy activity, the magnitude
of horizontal and vertical mixing processes in the ocean
may strongly influence the 137Cs distribution. For example,
the CRIEPI and NOAA results show relatively weak values
of less than 10 Bq L -1 in most of the region affected by
radionuclide contamination as compared with other model
results. One possible reason for this discrepancy could be
differences in the magnitude of the vertical diffusivity; in
general, the larger the vertical diffusivity, the weaker the
surface concentration of the 137Cs. However, it is not
straightforward to deduce this effect in a simple comparison among the models in Figures 2 and 3, since each model
uses different schemes for advection and diffusion as well
as different diffusion coefficients.
210
J une 2012
Same information as in
Figure 2, but for the period
April 21–30. Note that the
average period for the JAEA
and NOAA models ends on
April 29 and 26, respectively. For other explanations, see the caption of
Figure 2.
Figure 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
Another possible cause for the discrepancy is the degree of
horizontal movement of the radionuclides within the
10-day-average window. When the radionuclides move
around in a large area, the averaged concentration becomes
smaller as compared with a case where radionuclides stay
in the same location. This aspect strongly depends on the
variability in the current system and should be evaluated
in the future in order to clarify the detailed dispersion
processes in this region.
G
The degree of vertical mixing in a model, as well as the
vertical distribution of the source term, may also affect the
surface distribution of the radionuclides. During March
and April, several low-pressure systems passed through the
Fukushima region, and these could have produced relatively large vertical mixing in this region. We need to
At the end of April 2011, the relatively strong southward
flow in the offshore region had strengthened as compared
with the end of March. A major part of the 137Cs distribution, however, was confined within the region between
the coast and the offshore southward flow. The 137Cs
dispersed to the south or southeast was eventually captured
in early May by the northern flank of the Kuroshio current
and spread rather quickly to the east into the Pacific Ocean.
This eastward movement of 137Cs can be seen in all the
model outputs, and one example for the JCOPET model is
shown in Figure 4.
FUTURE ISSUES
Comparison of the surface horizontal distributions of 137Cs
among the dispersion models for the Fukushima accident
demonstrates general agreement of the flow fields and associated 137Cs distributions at the end of March and April
2011. However, there are noticeable differences among the
models as well, in particular for the region between 37 °N
and the Kuroshio current, where cyclonic or anticyclonic
eddy-like circulations can be seen in some models. Accurate
representation of such mesoscale structures and associated
radionuclide dispersion near the coast is an important challenge for simulations on the regional scale.
E lements
Horizontal distribution of daily mean 137Cs concentrations (in becquerels per liter) and surface velocities on
May 6 simulated by the JCOPET model. Surface velocity vectors
(arrows) are drawn only in regions where the magnitude of the
surface current exceeds 0.5 m s-1 to highlight the location of the
simulated Kuroshio current.
211
Figure 4
J une 2012
complete systematic sensitivity analyses and more detailed
model intercomparisons in order to resolve these issues.
In this article, we have focused only on the dispersion of
the 137Cs discharged directly from the Fukushima plant
into the ocean. However, 137Cs was also deposited as atmospheric fallout on the sea surface over a wide region.
Investigations of the relative importance of these two
sources and the distribution of total 137Cs concentration
in the ocean are now being undertaken by several groups.
Kawamura et al. (2011), for example, have discussed the
noticeable impact of atmospheric deposition of 131I over a
large area of the northwestern Pacific. NOAA’s simulations
in a larger area of the northwestern Pacific, including a
component of atmospheric deposition of 137Cs, also agree
with this assessment. Tsumune et al. (2011) pointed out
that the contribution by direct release to the observed 137Cs
concentrations near the Fukushima coast in the latter part
of March and in April was larger than that resulting from
atmospheric deposition. Further intercomparison studies
on the impact of atmospheric deposition are necessary.
Other possible contributors to the contaminated water, such
as rivers and groundwater, should also be taken into account.
Another important point for accurate dispersion calculations is to consider ocean processes that scavenge radionuclides, including adsorption onto particulates and
absorption due to biological processes. At present, only a
few groups are trying to integrate these processes into their
models. The incorporation of better-performing models of
scavenging mechanisms into dispersion simulations in the
ocean will be essential.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
We have reviewed the present status of oceanic dispersion
simulations of radionuclides discharged from the
Fukushima nuclear plant. There are large differences in the
References
Barron CN, Kara AB, Hurlburt HE, Rowley
C, Smedstad LF (2004) Sea surface
height predictions from the Global
Navy Coastal Ocean Model (NCOM)
during 1998–2001. Journal of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
21: 1876-1894
Hashimoto A, Hirakuchi H, Toyoda Y,
Nakaya K (2010) Prediction of regional
climate change over Japan due to global
warming (Part 1) – Evaluation of
Numerical Weather Forecasting and
Analysis System (NuWFAS) applied to a
long-term climate simulation. CRIEPI
report N10044, 22 pp (in Japanese)
IRSN (2011a) Impact on marine environment of radioactive releases resulting
from the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear
accident. Institut de Radioprotection et
de Sûreté Nucléaire, 9 pp, www.irsn.fr/
EN/news/Pages/201103_seism-in-japan.
aspx
IRSN (2011b) Update: Impact on the
marine environment of radioactive
releases following the nuclear accident
at Fukushima Daiichi. Institut de
Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire,
May 13, 2011, 16 pp, www.irsn.fr/EN/
news/Pages/201103_seism-in-japan.aspx
Ishikawa Y, Awaji T, Toyoda T, In T,
Nishina K, Nakayama T, Shima S,
Masuda S (2009) High-resolution
synthetic monitoring by a 4-dimensional variational data assimilation
system in the northwestern North
E lements
models and model settings among the research groups,
leading to different results for ocean currents near
Fukushima and, hence, for the distributions of radionuclides such as 137Cs. At the moment, we cannot say that
one model is better than another. Rather, we need to be
able to explain the discrepancies and reduce the overall
uncertainty of the dispersion simulations. The International
Atomic Energy Agency is now coordinating a more detailed
model intercomparison in order to facilitate this research.
Insights into oceanic dispersion gained through such international efforts will facilitate implementation of more
predictive models.
According to the TEPCO data obtained near the Fukushima
plant, 137Cs radioactivity at the end of April 2012 was of
the order of 1 Bq L -1. Results from recent observations and
numerical models indicate that the distribution of 137Cs
has expanded and shifted to the east into a large portion
of the North Pacific Ocean, while the radioactivity in most
of the area is of the order of, or below, 0.01 Bq L -1. In order
to describe what happened and is happening in terms of
the dispersion of radionuclides from the Fukushima plant,
research-based, accurate observations and analyses in a
wide area of the North Pacific Ocean for more than a few
decades are needed; as well, detailed comparisons and a
synthesis of the simulated results and observations are
strongly required.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
YM and YM thank Drs. Sergey M. Varlamov, Ruochao
Zhang, Toshimasa Doi, and Toru Miyama for their support
of JCOPE simulations. LL is deeply grateful for support
from Dr. John Cortinas, Dr. Frank Bub, Mr. Robert Daniels,
Mr. Richard Patchen, and Ms. Hong Lin for NOAA dispersion simulations.
Pacific. Journal of Marine Systems 78:
237-248
Kanamitsu M, Ebisuzaki W, Woollen J,
Yang S-K, Hnilo JJ, Fiorino M, Potter GL
(2002) NCEP–DEO AMIP-II Reanalysis
(R-2). Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society 83: 1631-1643
Kasamatsu F, Inatomi Y (1998) The effective environmental half-life of 90 Sr and
137Cs in coastal seawaters of Japan.
Journal of Geophysical Research 103:
1209-1217
Kawamura H, Kobayashi T, Furuno A, In
T, Ishikawa Y, Nakayama T, Shima S,
Awaji T (2011) Preliminary numerical
experiments on oceanic dispersion of
131I and 137Cs discharged into the ocean
because of the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant disaster. Journal
of Nuclear Science and Technology
48: 1349-1356
Kobayashi T, Otosaka S, Togawa O,
Hayashi K (2007) Development of a
non-conservative radionuclides dispersion model in the ocean and its application to surface cesium-137 dispersion in
the Irish Sea. Journal of Nuclear Science
and Technology 44: 238-247
MEXT (2011) Monitoring information of
environmental radioactivity level.
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/
monitoring_around_FukushimaNPP_
sea/
Miyazawa Y, Zhang R, Guo X, Tamura H,
Ambe D, Lee J-S, Okuno A, Yoshinari H,
Setou T, Komatsu K (2009) Water mass
212
variability in the western North Pacific
detected in a 15-year eddy resolving
ocean reanalysis. Journal of
Oceanography 65: 737-756
Shchepetkin AF, McWilliams JC (2005)
The regional ocean modeling system
(ROMS): a split-explicit, free-surface,
topography-following-coordinate
oceanic model. Ocean Modelling 9:
347-404
TEPCO (2011a) Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Station Unit 2:
Countermeasures to stop the outflow of
contaminated water and the water
amount flowed out into the sea. Tokyo
Electric Power Company, press release
April 21, 2011, www.tepco.co.jp/en/
press/corp-com/release/11042103-e.html
TEPCO (2011b) Detection of radioactive
materials from seawater near Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, www.
tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/
index2-e.html
Toulouse University (2011) http://sirocco.
omp.obs-mip.fr/outils/Symphonie/
Produits/Japan/SymphoniePreviJapan.
htm
Tsumune D, Tsubono T, Aoyama M,
Hirose K (2011) Distribution of oceanic
137Cs from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Nuclear Power Plant simulated numerically by a regional ocean model. Journal
of Environmental Radioactivity (in
press)
J une 2012
Interactions between Nuclear
Fuel and Water at the
Fukushima Daiichi Reactors
Bernd Grambow1 and Christophe Poinssot2
1811-5209/12/0008-0213$2.50 DOI: 10.2113/gselements.8.3.213
U
sed nuclear fuel is a redox-sensitive semiconductor consisting of
uranium dioxide containing a few percent of fission products and up
to about one percent transuranium elements, mainly plutonium. The
rapid increase in temperature in the cores of the Fukushima reactors was
caused by the loss of coolant in the aftermath of the damage from the
tsunami. Temperatures probably well above 2000 °C caused melting of not
only the UO2 in the fuel but also the zircaloy cladding and steel, forming a
quenched melt, termed corium. Substantial amounts of volatile fission products, such as Cs and I, were released during melting, but the less volatile
fission products and the actinides (probably >99.9%) were incorporated into
the corium as the melt cooled and was quenched. The corium still contains these
radionuclides, which leads to a very large long-term radiotoxicity of the molten
reactor core. The challenge for environmental scientists is to assess the longterm interactions between water and the mixture of corium and potentially
still-existing unmelted fuel, particularly if the molten reactor core is left in place
and covered with a sarcophagus for hundreds of years. Part of the answer to
this question can be found in the knowledge that has been gained from research
into the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a geologic repository.
Keywords : corium, spent fuel, radionuclide release, environmental impact,
radiotoxicity, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant
Characteristics of the reactors
and NUCLEAR fuels
There are six boiling water reactors (R1–R6) at the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Four reactors (R1–
R4) were destroyed by the accident: the three reactors (R1–
R3) operating at the time of the earthquake and the
neighboring reactor, R4, whose fuel had been removed and
stored in cooling ponds. The cores of R1–R3 contained
about 256 metric tons of nuclear fuel (400 fuel assemblies
in R1 and 548 assemblies in each of R2 and R3; one
assembly contains 60 fuel rods, each 3.70 m long, and each
assembly weighs about 170 kg). Reactors R5 and R6 were
shut down for routine inspection. In September 2010, 32
of the fuel assemblies in the core of reactor R3 were mixedoxide (UO2 + PuO2 ) MOX fuel (IAEA 2011) totaling about
5.5 tons. The other assemblies were uranium oxide fuels,
UO2 (named UOX fuels). The spent fuel storage tanks
located in the four destroyed reactor buildings contained
an additional 461 tons of nuclear fuel, including 395 tons
1 SUBATECH UMR 6457, Ecole des Mines, Université de Nantes
CNRS-IN2P3, F 44307 Nantes, France E-mail: [email protected]
2 French Nuclear and Alternative Energies Commission CEA, Nuclear Energy Division, RadioChemistry & Processes
Department, BP11, F-30207 Bagnols sur Cèze, France
E-mail: [email protected]
E lements , V ol . 8,
pp.
213–219
of discharged irradiated fuel and
66 tons of unirradiated UO2 fuel
waiting to be loaded into the
reactors.
When reactors 1–3 shut down
automatically after the earthquake, about 89% of the 6.1 gigawatts (GWth) of thermal nuclear
fission energy being produced was
immediately interrupted, i.e. the
kinetic energy of fission products,
neutrons, and photons. However,
11% of the energy remained in the
cores of R1–R3 after shutdown, 6%
(360 megawatts) in the form of
beta decay heat essentially from
fission products (see Fig. 1a) and
5% in the form of antineutrinos.
Initially, this energy was rapidly
released, and later, more slowly.
Indeed, spent nuclear fuel is
considered to be an important heat
source for thousands of years in
most concepts of geological
disposal (Fig. 1b).
The radiotoxicity of the used fuel
is in part due to the accumulation
of the radioactive isotopes (“fission products”) that were
generated by the nuclear fission of uranium and plutonium
atoms during reactor operation. It is also due to the transuranium elements (actinides beyond uranium in the periodic table) created by neutron capture on 238U in the fuel.
These radionuclide inventories depend on the length of
time the fuel was “burned” in the nuclear reactor, i.e. on
the “burnup,” which is the energy released expressed in
gigawatt-days per metric ton of uranium and plutonium
(GWd/t). After a typical burnup during reactor operation
for some years, the radioactivity of the fuel has increased
by a factor of a million (1017 becquerels/metric ton of fuel).
One year after discharge from a reactor, the dose rate
measured one meter from the fuel assembly is one million
millisieverts per hour (for comparison, the natural background dose is on the order of three millisieverts per year).
A person exposed to this level of radioactivity at a distance
of one meter would receive a lethal dose in less than a
minute (Hedin 1997; Bruno and Ewing 2006). Fissionproduct inventories are roughly proportional to burnup,
while actinide-element inventories (Pu, Am, Np, Cm) are
more complicated functions of burnup because the fissile
transuranium elements are partly consumed at high
burnups and the production rates of higher actinides (Am,
Cm) increase with burnup.
213
J une 2012
toxicities of this type of fuel are probably lower than the
average inventories of a pure UO2 fuel. But the Pu inventory of MOX fuel is much higher. Endo et al. (2011a) report
a value of 3.9 wt% Pu in the MOX fuel in reactor 3.
Considering that UOX fuel with an average burnup of
23 GWd/tU contains about 0.8 wt% Pu and that only about
6% of the fuel in reactor 3 was MOX fuel, the total loaded
inventory of Pu in this reactor was about 0.98 ton, roughly
30% greater than the 0.75 ton (0.8% of 95 tons of fuel) in
reactor 2, which contained a similar total fuel mass but
without MOX.
A
As an example of the evolution of toxicity over time,
Figure 2 shows the toxicity inventory of one ton of spent
nuclear fuel (UO2 ) for a rather high burnup of 47.5 GWd
per ton of the initial uranium inventory (calculations were
made as part of the MICADO project; Grambow et al.
2010). Indeed, even for this UO2 fuel, the Pu inventory
dominates the long-term toxicity; therefore, the greater Pu
inventory of the MOX-containing reactor would increase
the long-term toxicity by about 30%. However, this does
not directly represent the potential impact since the
toxicity also depends on the mobility of plutonium, which
can be very low depending on the chemical conditions (for
instance in a reducing environment or in the presence of
organics).
B
(A) The residual thermal power (in megawatts per ton
of uranium) of the nuclear reactors calculated as a
function of time after shutdown for the two types of spent fuel
present in the Fukushima reactors, BWR UOX fuel (3.1% initial
enrichment) and BWR MOX fuel (6% initial Pu content), assuming a
mean burnup of 30 thermal gigawatt-days per ton uranium or
plutonium (GWd/t) (calculated with the DARWIN code, using the
CEA2005V4 database). (B) Relative residual thermal power of representative fuels over the geological timescale (data calculated with
the CESAR code, Samson et al. 1998). 1E+0 = 1.0, 1E-1 = 0.1, etc.
Figure 1
Typical end-of-life burnups are about 40 GWd/t, which are
achieved after 3 to 4 years in the reactor. Due to the replacement of only a part of the used fuel by unirradiated UO2
fuel in normal reactor operation, a reactor core is always
a mix of old and rather fresh fuel, and burnups for individual fuel assemblies range from 3 GWd/t to 41 GWd/t.
The average burnup of the Fukushima Daiichi reactors is
assumed to be about 20 GWd/t. The average burnup has
not been reported “officially,” but the “official” total 137Cs
inventory of reactors 1–3 can be calculated from the release
fractions and total releases given in IAEA (2011) as
7.1 × 1017 Bq. This would correspond to an average burnup
of about 23 GWd/tU. Endo et al. (2011a) estimated an
average burnup of 17.2 ± 1.5 GWd/tU, based on the average
ratio of 134Cs/137Cs (0.996 ± 0.07) measured in soils within
a radius of 100 km. Average core burnups were reported in
the same publication as 25.8, 23.2 and 21.8 for reactors R1,
R2, and R3, respectively, closely matching the value of
23 GWd/tU derived from the IAEA (2011) data. The lower
burnup calculated by Endo et al. (2011a) may be due to
the postulated core meltdown (i.e. differences in the degree
of damage and associated Cs release for the fuel in the
center of the core versus at the periphery) or to greater
damage of once-burned fuel due to its higher temperature.
The presence of MOX fuel in reactor 3 was considered in
the world press to be a strong additional risk factor due to
the higher plutonium content. For a given burnup, MOX
fuel is more toxic than conventional fuel, but the short
residence time in the reactor—only 5 months—means that
the average fission-product inventories and associated
E lements
Evolution, in years, of the long-term toxicity (by ingestion) of one ton of spent nuclear fuel with a burnup of
47.5 GWd/tU, expressed in sieverts (Sv) per ton of UOX. The total
toxicity of the 3 reactor inventories (not including fuel storage
ponds) is about 100 times greater (256 tons of fuel with an average
burnup of 23 GWd/t U) than the values in this figure. The data
were calculated using the CESAR code (Samson et al. 1998) for
fuel evolution.
Figure 2
Considering that the dose limit for ingestion according to
regulations in Europe is 1 mSv/y (millisievert per year), the
high toxicity of the radionuclides in the damaged fuel cores
requires isolation well beyond hundreds of thousands of
years in order to avoid exposing the fuel cores to natural
waters, which might lead to the release of toxic radionuclides into the food chain. Isolation for such long times is
also necessary to avoid exposing people in the vicinity of
the damaged cores to lethal doses of external gamma
radiation.
214
J une 2012
How much was released from
the reactors? How much remains?
Toxicity is not identical to risk. Risk depends on the accessibility of radionuclides to humans and to their mobility
in the environment. In the future, important measures
will have to be taken in order to reduce the short- and
long-term risks of the highly toxic inventory of the reactors, for example, by strict confinement and/or geological
disposal of the fuel. Today, the largest risk stems from those
fractions of the toxicity inventory that have been released
to the environment, i.e. 2.2% and 2.5%, respectively, of
the total 137Cs and 131I inventories in the reactor cores 1–3
(IAEA 2011, attachment IV-2). Recent data (IRSN 2011)
indicate that actual releases might have been even higher.
Latest estimates by TEPCO (2012) give release fractions of
1.9% for 137Cs and 8% for 131I. For the most volatile
elements, as indicated by 133Xe data, the release is estimated
to be close to 100% (Stohl 2011; IAEA 2011). However, the
information is not yet sufficient to conclude that the entire
cores in reactors 1–3 have melted. Indeed, considering that
the diffusion of Cs or Xe is similar to that of I, which is
governed by a diffusion coefficient of ~2.5 × 10 -11 cm2 /s at
2200 °C, at the high temperature encountered in the accident (~2200 °C), Cs would diffuse at a velocity of 1 mm
per day, which is much greater than the grain size (~8 µm)
of the fuel.
The situation is quite different for the transuranium
elements (Pu, Am, Np, Cm). These elements are responsible
mainly for long-term toxicity (see Fig. 2) since they are
long-lived alpha emitters (in case of ingestion, alpha particles, 4He2+, cause more damage to human cells due to their
larger size). But the actual risk originating from these
nuclides is much lower since, even in the immediate
vicinity of the damaged reactors, for example, at a distance
of 500 m, Pu concentrations in the soil (239/240Pu activities
are 0.055 ± 0.029 Bq/kg) are identical to the Pu concentrations in Japanese soil that resulted from atmospheric
testing of nuclear weapons (0.02–0.4 Bq/kg for 239/240Pu)
(Hirose et al. 2003).
The activities of plutonium and other nuclides measured
by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) over a
period of 8 months are shown in Figure 3 (original data
taken from a series of Web references from TEPCO 2011:
www.tepco.co.jp). These data can be used to compare the
ratios of the measured activities to the activity ratios of
fission products and actinides in the nuclear fuel in the
reactor. The large symbols in Figure 3, corresponding to
the date of the accident, represent reference values (see
explanation in the caption). As can be seen, the measured
activities still have, with an uncertainty of about a factor
of 2, the signature of the inventory ratios in the original
fuel as far as the releases of 137Cs, 131I, 110m Ag, and 129m Te
are concerned, when corrected, as in the case of 131I, for
radioactive decay since the date of release (March 15) from
the reactors. In contrast, measured activities of the alkali
earth element nuclides, such as 140Ba and 90 Sr, are about a
thousand times lower than the reference value of the
activity ratios in the fuel. Finally, for the actinides 241Am,
242Cm, and 238Pu, the measured activities are about 5 orders
of magnitude lower than the reference values in the nuclear
fuel. Comparing the concentrations of the actinides with
each other, their measured activity ratios correspond to
their inventory ratios in the fuel, indicating a similarly
slow mechanism of release for all actinides.
Thus, for the Pu inventory in the reactor, about 105 times
less is released to the environment as compared with the
Cs inventory. Considering this low release of Pu, even fuels
of higher Pu content, such as MOX fuel, will release very
E lements
little Pu. Thus, no significant additional short-term risk
will arise from Pu release from the MOX fuel. In contrast,
long-term risks depend on Pu inventories, particularly if
Pu release from the reactor is increased by oxidizing
groundwater coming into contact with the fuel.
Recently, careful activity measurements were reported at
15 soil-sampling points between 5 and 60 km from the
Fukushima plant (Endo et al. 2011b). Using these data, the
activity ratios 129mTe/137Cs, 131I/137Cs, and 140Ba/137Cs were
calculated to be 1, 20, and 0.06, respectively, which can
be compared with the same ratios in the original spent
fuel, i.e. 0.7, 12, and 22, respectively. This corroborates the
previously discussed measurements made in close proximity to the Fukushima plant: 129mTe, 131I, and 137Cs show
similar release behaviors, whereas about 1/400 th as much
140Ba is released as Cs. These findings confirm that the data
obtained in the vicinity of the Fukushima plant are representative of the general release patterns.
Graphical representation of radioactivity measurements, reported periodically by TEPCO (2011)
between March and November 2011 for the Fukushima plant at
soil-sampling locations (denoted “Playground”) located about
500 m north-northwest of the stacks of Units 1 and 2. The large
symbols at the date of the accident represent reference values,
which correspond to hypothetical activities for the case in which all
nuclides have been released to the same extent (i.e. the same fraction of reactor core inventory of a given nuclide) as that of Cs.
Measured values lower than the reference value indicate a much
lower extent of release than Cs.
Figure 3
The relative behavior of the different nuclides near the
Fukushima plant also matches very well with experimental
results. In a Knudsen cell experiment, spent nuclear fuel
fragments were heated stepwise in a closed, confined space
to temperatures in excess of 2000 °C, and the stepwise volatilization of the various elements were measured by mass
spectrometry (Rondinella et al. 2008). Figure 4 presents a
typical result obtained from MOX fuel samples.
Volatilization starts at 1000 °C with the release of Te and
He (produced by alpha decay), while Cs and I start to volatilize at 1100 °C. Finally, uranium begins to volatilize above
1600 °C. Interestingly, Ba shows an intermediate level of
volatility. From these data, temperatures in the Fukushima
reactors were probably high enough to cause the volatilization of most of the Xe inventory and a large fraction of
the Cs, but certainly not the actinides (U, Pu, and minor
actinides such as Am, Cm, and Np).
The confinement of most of the actinides within the reactors is, on one hand, reassuring, as these elements carry
the highest long-term toxicity burden. On the other hand,
a direct consequence of this confinement is that the longterm risk assessment requires the evaluation of the fate of
215
J une 2012
corium, Pontillon and Durcos (2010) identified four groups
of released elements:
1. Volatile fission products, including fission gases (Xe,
Kr), I, Cs, Sb, Te, Cd, Rb, and Ag
2. Semivolatile fission products, including Mo, Rh, Ba, Pd,
and Tc
3. Low-volatility fission products, such as Ru, Ce, Sr, Y, Eu,
Nb, and La
4. Nonvolatile radionuclides, including Zr, Nd, Pr, and
some of the actinides (U, Pu, Np, Am, Cu)
Knudsen cell analysis of the volatile release of radionuclides during heating of irradiated MOX fuel beyond
normal conditions, from the European project NF-PRO. “M.S.”
means “mass signal”; for the present discussion, only relative values
are of importance. The left scale applies to all radionuclides except
Xe and UO2, which are plotted against the scale on the right.
Modified from Rondinella et al. (2008)
Figure 4
the remaining fuel in the reactor. How can we proceed
with this assessment, considering the fact that due to high
radiation fields direct access to the fuel will probably not
be possible for at least a few decades? Some indirect information on the release behavior of the radionuclides in the
reactor core can be derived from chemical analyses of the
cooling water collected from the three damaged reactor
cores. A cooling circuit was installed by TEPCO in July
2011, which runs decontaminated water through the three
destroyed reactor cores and collects outflowing contaminated water for decontamination and desalination, after
which the decontaminated water is reinjected.
Decontamination factors for 137Cs were 106, meaning that
Cs activity in the water was a million times lower after a
decontamination cycle than before. About 180,000 m3 of
highly contaminated water were collected for decontamination, with a specific activity for 137Cs varying between
1.8 Bq/mL in July 2011 to 0.7 Bq/mL in November 2011
(data on the volumes collected and the associated activities
are from TEPCO reports; TEPCO 2011). These data indicate
a total release to the water of 1.7 × 1017 Bq, or about 27%
of the total 137Cs inventory in the cores of reactors 1–3.
However, some fraction of the volatile elements, such as
Cs, may have recondensed in the coldest parts of the
primary cooling circuits during the accident. This figure
is therefore a minimum amount of Cs release from the
fuel. Specific activities for the nuclides 89+90 Sr were 6 × 105
Bq/mL in July 2011. No data were reported for longer
contact periods. The Cs/Sr activity ratio in water collected
in July is about 10 times higher than in the fuel, indicating
reduced mobility of Sr as compared with Cs.
Due to the very high temperature during the meltdown,
fuel pellets, as well as the zircaloy cladding and steel,
melted and mixed, yielding an ill-defined material called
corium. Earlier work, as in the French VULCANO experiments or the characterization of the core of reactor 2 at
Three Mile Island, demonstrated that corium consists of
several phases: an oxic phase and one or two metallic
phases, depending on the accident conditions, which can
cause the separation of the heavier and lighter metallic
elements. How can we estimate the long-term stability of
corium? In laboratory experiments performed on simulated
E lements
These laboratory results are consistent with the behavior
of the measured radionuclides at the Fukushima plant:
group 1 corresponds to radionuclides that have been significantly released (30 to 100%) into the cooling water (Cs)
and into the environment (Xe, Cs, I, Te); groups 2 and 3,
as indicated by Ba and Sr, seem to have been significantly
released from the fuel (0.01%; see the discussion related
to Fig. 3), but only a small part of these elements has
reached the environment, probably due to their lower volatility and their propensity to recondense within the
primary circuit (see Fig, 3); and group 4 essentially was not
released from the fuel (99.9999% retained).
Long-Term Corium Alteration
in Water
Characteristics of the Two Main Alteration
Mechanisms
Oxic corium is a solid solution with a tetragonal structure.
Although it has not been demonstrated that corium is a
single phase, it may be possible to consider the oxic corium
as hyperstoichiometric UO2+x: stoichiometric deviations of
the fuel were about x = 0.14 for samples obtained from the
molten core of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor
(Bottomley and Coquerelle 1989). This value is lower than
the threshold value of x = 0.25, which corresponds to U4O9.
Corium compositions obtained from fuel treated in the
PHEBUS severe-accident facility (Barrachin et al. 2008)
were close to U0.99Zr 0.01O2.23 and U0.86Zr 0.12Fe 0.005Cr 0.001
Nd 0.006 Pu 0.004 Ce 0.004 O 2.42 for irradiated fuel and to
U0.95Zr 0.04Fe 0.001O2.32 for nonirradiated fuel. In the latter
cases, these compositions correspond to an average deviation of x = 0.33 from the normal stoichiometry.
Considering corium as hyperstoichiometric UO2+x allows
the use of certain analogue materials for assessing the longterm behavior of corium in contact with natural waters.
Indeed, many studies have been performed worldwide over
at least 30 years on different types of uranium oxides in
order to assess the long-term behavior of spent nuclear fuel
under geological repository conditions. For instance, solid–
water reactions have been studied for different solid solutions, such as UO2+x; partly oxidized or fresh spent nuclear
fuel; pure UO2 ; oxidized UO2 ; alpha-doped UO2 simulating
long-term irradiation fields; and natural uraninite (Forsyth
1995; Grambow et al. 1996, 2000; Stroes-Gascoyne et al.
1997; Röllin et al. 2001; Ollila et al. 2003; Werme et al.
2004; Poinssot et al. 2005; Ollila 2008). The Europeanfunded MICADO project (Grambow et al. 2010) recently
assessed the uncertainties in the different models describing
the dissolution processes of spent nuclear fuel disposed of
in a deep repository for geological periods. Based on this
knowledge, some key issues can be considered.
First, as for UO2 -derived solids, two radionuclide fractions
can be distinguished: (1) fast-dissolving radionuclide
inventories (the so-called “instant release fraction,” or IRF),
which correspond to radionuclides that are not bound into
216
J une 2012
the matrices (either corium or spent fuel); (2) a slow-release
fraction of radionuclides, which are located in the matrices
(corium or spent fuel) and released as the corium matrix
dissolves.
Instant Release Fraction (IRF)
The so-called IRF release is not governed by any mechanism but corresponds to radionuclides that are dissolved
fast upon fuel–water contact. Therefore the only issue to
address is the quantity of fast release upon water contact.
No experimental data are available for corium. For spent
fuel, IRF values are in the range of 5–10% of the total
inventory, depending on the radionuclides (Ferry et al.
2007). Considering the typical corium-formation scenario
(a transient event at very high temperature, >2300 °C,
followed by a decade-long phase during which the corium
is cooled under water), it is likely that a large part of the
unbound radionuclides has already been released in the
reactor core and to the cooling water and that these radionuclides are no longer retained in the fuel matrix. The
remaining long-term IRF fraction in the corium is therefore
anticipated to be very limited.
Slow-Release Fraction
The dissolution process of the corium matrix in water is
likely to be electrochemically controlled, as for spent fuel
(see Figure 5 for spent fuel). Due to the large difference in
uranium solubility under oxidizing and reducing conditions (roughly 10 -6.5 and 10 -9.5 mol L -1, respectively), the
corium matrix will probably undergo two competing dissolution mechanisms: (1) under oxidizing conditions, a relatively fast surface-interaction-controlled dissolution and
(2) under reducing conditions, a slow solubility-controlled
dissolution.
Under oxidizing conditions, spent fuel or UO2 leaching
requires, first, a surface oxidation of UO2 to a mixed U(IV)/
(VI) oxidation state of hyperstoichiometric UO2+x, with x
> 0.33 (U3O7), and then complete oxidizing dissolution as
dissolved U(VI) species. As measured on synthetic samples,
the corium matrix is likely to be already oxidized so that
its stochiometric deviation is given by x = 0.33, and no
additional surface-oxidation step prior to oxidative leaching
is probably necessary. One can anticipate a faster oxidation
rate than for spent nuclear fuel. Oxidant influx is however
necessary for transforming the remaining U(IV) into U(VI):
oxygen may come from an external source under aerated
conditions or from the radiolytic decomposition of water
(oxidizing radiolysis products are H2O2 and O2 ). The fractional release rates for fractured spent fuel rods under
oxidizing conditions are between 10 -5 and 10 -7/day. The
fractional release rates for corium may be underestimated
due to the preoxidized state. Finally, the alteration rate
strongly depends on surface areas, which are unknown
and likely different from that of the original spent nuclear
fuel.
Under reducing conditions, corium stability is anticipated to be higher and governed, as for spent fuel, by the
relative solubilities of the dissolving phases (UO2 in the
case of spent fuel, UO2+x, x ≈ 0.33 for corium). This implies
that equilibrium U concentrations would be lower than in
the previous case, in the range of 10 -9 to 10 -10 M for spent
fuel (Grambow et al. 2010). However, corium solubility
will depend on the actual chemical state of the corium,
and its solubility might be much higher than that of UO2 .
Due to the lack of information on the state of the corium,
and for the sake of simplicity, all the radionuclides that
have not been released into the cooling water and the environment are assumed to be integrated into the corium
matrix as solid solution components. This implies that
E lements
The various alteration mechanisms affecting spent
nuclear fuel in contact with water as a function of the
environmental redox conditions (oxidation potential, Eh). “RN”
stands for “radionuclide.” The numbers refer to the consecutive
steps in the alteration process. Modified from Poinssot and Gras (2008)
Figure 5
equilibrium conditions will govern the maximum concentrations in the aqueous solution of uranium and other
radionuclides (like actinides, fission products, and activation products).
Whether oxidizing or reducing conditions prevail in the
damaged reactor cores may be assessed by analyzing the
concentrations of U and Pu in the cooling water and by
studying solubility controls: high concentrations
(>10 -5 mol/L) are, for example, typical of oxidizing conditions. The experimental database on the interaction of
UO2 -derived solids with water shows that temperature, the
solubility limits of radionuclides, fuel-damage conditions,
burnup, and the presence of remaining cladding play major
roles in the effective radionuclide release from the corium
matrix. Furthermore, the dissolution rates are not expected
to be directly proportional to the specific surface areas. As
far as water chemistry is concerned, redox potential and
carbonate concentrations are key parameters (Bruno and
Ewing 2006), whereas salinity (seawater versus freshwater)
will play only a minor role in radionuclide release (Loida
et al. 1994). Colloidal particles and dissolved organic
matter are important for the transport of sparingly soluble
radioelements such as Pu and Am (Kim and Grambow
1999).
Potential Influence of Radiation Fields
The temporal evolution of the redox conditions at the
corium–water interface has an important effect on the
radionuclide release behavior. The evolution of this
behavior will be quite different under oxic surface conditions than under the reducing conditions in a deep geological repository. Air ingress is indeed omnipresent under
oxic surface conditions, but in a geological repository, it
only occurs during the operations phase, and thereafter
all remaining air is consumed by redox reactions, in particular, with the metal of the disposal containers.
Spent nuclear fuel and the corium short-term radiation
field mainly give off oxidizing gamma radiation, while over
the very long term (>>100 years) the radiation field is characterized mainly by alpha-decay radiation. During the first
few hundred years, gamma radiation may strongly increase
217
J une 2012
the oxidation potential, even under oxic surface conditions. Over the long term, many thousands of years, as for
geological disposal, alpha radiation will locally produce at
the solid–water interface oxidizing species that could
significantly increase the material dissolution rate, as has
already been demonstrated on α-doped UO2 samples
(Cachoir et al. 2005). However, the net effect is directly
related to the overall balance at the local scale between
the oxidants produced by the radiolytic decomposition of
water [of which the primary oxidizing or reducing products
are the radicals OH, OH 2 , e - (aq), and H, or molecular
species like H 2 O2 , and H 2 ], the transport constraints
involving the radiolytic producs, and the reactive reducing
species that are present in the environment.
Options for Corium Management
From the available data on the total inventory of radionuclides that were released into the environment during the
Fukushima accident, we have derived some important
information regarding the potential state of the spent
nuclear fuel in the three melted cores of the reactors. In
particular, the relative behavior of the different radionuclides is consistent with the knowledge gained about fuel
behavior at high temperature: volatile elements are released
at much lower temperatures (<1300 °C) than actinides. This
is consistent with the absence of a significant release of
actinides around the Fukushima site. The ratios of the
activities of 137Cs, 131I, 110m Ag, and 129m Te reported for soil
samples correspond to inventory ratios in the reactors, and
the 131I content in soil samples is much larger than the
value that would be expected if a large contribution came
from the fuel storage ponds. The large quantity of radionuclides released from the three reactors probably masks
any contribution from the fuel storage ponds, which
confirms a much lower fuel alteration in the ponds.
Furthermore, from the large data set that has been acquired
in the last few decades about the long-term evolution of
spent nuclear fuel in water, some insights may be gained
about the behavior of the oxic corium, whether in a geological repository or in long-term storage (such as within a
protective sarcophagus). By comparison with spent nuclear
fuels, after the passage of cooling water, oxic corium is
anticipated to have a much lower IRF, potentially zero, and
its radionuclide release behavior should be dominated by
matrix alteration, which should be faster than for spent
nuclear fuel. Three main options are therefore possible for
corium management:
ƒƒ Recovery of the corium in order to condition it inside
suitable containers without further treatment, as was
done with reactor 2 at Three Mile Island, while waiting
for subsequent disposal in a deep geological repository.
However, the amount of fuel lost in the melted core at
Three Mile Island in 1979 was about 30 tons, less than
one-twentieth the inventory at Fukushima (reactors and
pools). In this case, the long-term release behavior of
the corium is anticipated to be less desirable than that
of spent nuclear fuel, since the long-term alteration rate
of the corium will be higher. However, little or no IRF
is anticipated, which would be favorable since the IRF
dominates the long-term impact of spent fuel in a
repository.
ƒƒ Treatment, in order to decrease long-term toxicity and
to optimize the stabilization of corium in dedicated
waste matrices. Indeed, the most toxic elements, such
as the actinides, could be recovered by separation
processes, such as hydrochemistry or pyrochemistry.
Pyrochemical processes may be of great interest due to
the presence of numerous metallic components and the
E lements
anticipated refractory behavior of part of the corium.
Such treatment may allow confining the most mobile
radionuclides in a stable matrix instead of having them
dispersed in the ill-defined corium matrix. In this
option, the long-term release performance of the waste
will depend on the specific matrix to be used. If vitrification of corium is chosen, good performance for up
to 106 years can be anticipated.
ƒƒ Finally, the site can be stabilized by creating some kind
of protective sarcophagus. During a period lasting
hundreds of years, natural waters will probably find
access to the corium inside the sarcophagus, and the
corium will likely corrode and release radionuclides;
these would have to be recovered and managed. This is
not a long- term option (thousands of years), but it may
be a solution for a time period during which institutional control can be assured, which is intrinsically
difficult to assess (what about the stability of current
societies over hundreds of years?).
Whether option 1 or 2 is chosen, only a preliminary estimate of the long-term performance is possible based on
the present knowledge of spent nuclear fuel behavior.
Studies of real corium samples from Fukushima will have
to be performed, either to develop a treatment process or
to characterize the radionuclide release properties of
untreated corium. In the absence of relevant and robust
experimental data, conservative assumptions in performance assessment will probably lead to prohibitively
expensive solutions.
Upper limits for radionuclide release predictions from the
corium matrix can be obtained by developing a site-specific
performance model for the Fukushima corium. Such a
model could be created based on actual observations of
the corium in the reactors in the presence of water. In the
present study, we used the reported activities of 137Cs and
90 Sr in the outflowing cooling water to conclude that about
30% of the Cs inventory and about 3% of the Sr inventory
were mobilized from the three reactors. In a similar way,
one could analyze the evolution of the activities of other
radionuclides ( 239Pu, etc.) in the cooling water of the
reactor to assess the mobility of these nuclides in the core
and to quantify source terms for water contact for the
various conditioning and disposal scenarios. The continued
flushing of the molten cores with water will in the long
term also reduce the inventories of radionuclides that can
be mobilized rapidly during disposal.
Conclusion
Comparison of radionuclide release from the reactors with
the radionuclide inventories remaining in the reactor and
estimation of corium–water interaction from known spent
fuel–water interaction provide important insight for developing assessment and management strategies for the
molten fuel in the reactor cores. If corium is to be disposed
of without treatment, models for corium stability and for
radionuclide release from corium upon contact with water
will have to be developed based on (1) analyses of radionuclide activities in actual cooling waters, (2) chemical
modeling of the analytical results in the context of the
kinetics and thermodynamics of actinide and fission
product release (solubility constraints, redox states, etc.),
and (3) comparison with spent fuel behavior and experimental corium databases. If corium treatment is being
considered in view of either confining it in a more stable
matrix or even recovering the most radiotoxic radionuclides, specific processes will have to be developed based
on the corium properties and the wide knowledge available
about fuel treatment.
218
J une 2012
References
Barrachin M, Chevalier PY, Cheynet B,
Fischer E (2008) New modelling of the
U–O–Zr phase diagram in the hyperstoichiometric region and consequences
for the fuel rod liquefaction in oxidising
conditions. Journal of Nuclear Materials
375: 397-409
Bottomley PD, Coquerelle M (1989)
Metallurgical examination of bore
samples from the Three Mile Island unit
2 reactor core. Nuclear Technology 87:
120-136
Bruno J, Ewing RC (2006) Spent nuclear
fuel. Elements 2: 343-349
Cachoir C and 13 coauthors (2005) Effect
of alpha irradiation field on long-term
corrosion rates of spent fuel. In:
Grambow B (ed) European Commission
Report JRC-ITU-SCA-2005/1
Endo T, Sato S, Yamamoto A (2011a)
Estimation of average burnup of
damaged fuels loaded in Fukushima
Dai-Ichi reactors by using the
134
Cs/137Cs ratio method. Symposium
on Nuclear Data, Techno Plaza Ricotti,
Tokai-mura, Ibaraki-ken, Japan,
November 17, 2011
Endo S, Kimura S, Takatsuji T, Nanasawa
K, Imanaka T, Shizuma K (2011b)
Measurement of soil contamination by
radionuclides due to the Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident
and associated estimated cumulative
external dose estimation. Journal of
Environmental Radioactivity,
doi:10.1016/ j.jenvrad.2011.11.006
Ferry C, Piron JP, Poulesquen A, Poinssot
C (2007) Radionuclides release from the
spent fuel under disposal conditions :
re-evaluation of the instant release fraction. In: Lee WE. Roberts JW, Hyatt NC
(eds) Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste
Management XXXI, Materials Research
Society Proceedings, Sheffield
Forsyth R (1995), Spent nuclear fuel. A
review of properties of possible relevance to corrosion processes. Swedish
Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management
Co., Stockholm, SKB technical report
TR 95-23, 46 pp
Grambow B, Loida A, Geckeis H, Dressler
P, Casas I, Torrero ME, Giménes J, de
Pablo J, Gago J (1996) Chemical
Reaction of Fabricated and High Burnup
Spent UO2 Fuel with Saline Brines. Final
Report of EU Project, Wissenschaftliche
Berichte, FZKA 5702,
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe.
Commission of the European Union EU
17111 EN, 222 pp
Grambow B, Loida A, Martinez-Esparza A,
Diaz-Arocas P, de Pablo J, Paul JL, Marx
G, Lemmens JPK, Ollila K, Christensen
H (2000) Source Term for Performance
Assessment of Spent Fuel as a Waste
Form. Final Report for the EU contract
FI4W-CT95-0004, Forschungszentrum
Karlsruhe Final Report FZKA 6420,
European Commission EUR 19140 EN,
222 pp
E lements
Grambow B and 35 coauthors (2010)
MICADO Model Uncertainty for the
Mechanism of Dissolution of Spent Fuel
in Nuclear Waste Repository. Final
Report. European Commission, EUR
24597 EN, 52 pp
Hedin A (1997) Spent Fuel – How
Dangerous is It? Swedish Nuclear Fuel
and Waste Management Co., Stockholm,
SKB Technical Report TR 97-13, 60 pp
Hirose K, Igarashi Y, Aoyama M, Kim CK,
Kim CS, Chang BW (2003) Recent
trends of plutonium fallout observed in
Japan: plutonium as proxy for desertification. Journal of Environmental
Monitoring 5: 302-307
IAEA (2011) Report of Japanese
Government to the IAEA Ministerial
Conference on Nuclear Safety – The
Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear
Power Stations. Nuclear Emergency
Response Headquarters Government of
Japan June 2011, www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/japan-report
low-volatile fission products and
actinides. Nuclear Engineering and
Design 240: 1867-1881
Röllin S, Spahiu K, Eklund UB (2001)
Determination of dissolution rates of
spent fuel in carbonate solutions under
different redox conditions with a flowthrough experiment. Journal of Nuclear
Materials 297: 231-243
Rondinella VV, Serrano-Purroy D,
Hiernaut JP, Wegen D, Papaioannou D,
Barker M (2008) Grain boundary inventory and instant release fractions for
SBR MOX. Proceedings of the 12th
International High-Level Radioactive
Waste Management Conference, pp
418-424
Samson M, Grouiller JP, Pavageau J,
Marimbeau P, Pinel J, Vidal JM (1998)
CESAR: A simplified evolution code for
reprocessing applications; RECOD 98.
5th International Nuclear Conference on
Recycling, Conditioning and Disposal,
Nice, France
Kim JI, Grambow B (1999) Geochemical
assessment of actinide isolation in a
German salt repository environment.
Engineering Geology 52: 221-230
Stohl A, Seibert P, Wotawa G, Arnold D,
Burkhart JF, Eckhardt S, Tapia C, Vargas
A, Yasunari TJ (2011) Xenon-133 and
caesium-137 releases into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
nuclear power plant: determination of
the source term, atmospheric dispersion, and deposition. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics Discussions 11:
28319-28394
Loida A, Grambow B, Dressler P, Friese K,
Geckeis H (1994) Chemical durability of
high burnup LWR-spent fuel in concentrated salt solutions. Materials Research
Society Symposium Proceedings 333:
417-424
Stroes-Gascoyne S, Johnson LH, Tait JC,
McConnell JL, Porth RJ (1997) Leaching
of used CANDU fuel: Results from a
19-year leach test under oxidizing
conditions. Materials Research Society
Symposium Proceedings 465: 551-558
Ollila K (2008). Dissolution of
Unirradiated UO2 and UO2 Doped with
233U in Low- and High-Ionic-Strength
NaCl under Anoxic and Reducing
Conditions. Working report 2008-50,
Posiva Oy Olkiluoto, Finland, 34 pp
TEPCO (2011) Data source: measurements
at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
station at periodic soil sampling spot of
activities “Playground” at about 500 m
from stacks of Unit 1 and 2 in direction
west/north-west. Updated periodically
on the Web
IRSN (2011) Synthèse actualisée des
connaissances relatives à l’impact sur le
milieu marin des rejets radioactifs du
site nucléaire accidenté de Fukushima
Dai-ichi, 26 octobre 2011
Ollila K, Albinsson Y, Oversby V, Cowper
M (2003) Dissolution Rates of
Unirradiated UO2, UO2 Doped with
233U, and Spent Fuel under Normal
Atmospheric Conditions and under
Reducing Conditions Using an Isotope
Dilution Method. Swedish Nuclear Fuel
and Waste Management Co., Stockholm,
SKB Technical Report TR-03-13, 88 pp
Poinssot C, Gras JM (2008) Key scientific
issues related to the sustainable
management of spent nuclear fuels in
the back-end of the fuel cycle. Materials
Research Society Symposium
Proceedings 1124: 85-97
Poinssot C and 22 coauthors (2005) Spent
Fuel Stability under Repository
Conditions – Final Report of the
European Project. European
Commission 5th Euratom Framework
Program, contract nº FIKW-CT-200100192, 104 pp
TEPCO (2012) The estimated amount of
radioactive materials released into the
air and the ocean caused by Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power station accident
due to the Tohoku-Chihou-TaiheiyouOki earthquake (as of May 2012). Tokyo
Electric Power Company press release,
May 24, 2012
Werme LO, Johnson LH, Oversby VM,
King F, Spahiu K, Grambow B,
Shoesmith DW (2004) Spent Fuel
Performance under Repository
Conditions: A Model for Use in SR-Can.
SKB Technical Report TR 04-19,
Stockholm, 34 pp
Pontillon Y, Ducros G (2010 Behaviour of
fission products under severe PWR accident conditions. The VERCORS experimental programme—Part 3: Release of
219
J une 2012
Publish your next research article in
Geochemical Transactions
1.92
Official Journal of the Geochemistry Division of the American Chemical Society
Editors-in-Chief: Gregory Druschel and Carla Koretsky
Geochemical Transactions is an open access, peer-reviewed journal encompassing all
areas of chemistry as it relates to materials and processes occurring in terrestrial and
extraterrestrial systems.
www.geochemicaltransactions.com
Rare Minerals
for Research
F
rom our inventory of over 200,000 specimens, we can supply your research specimen
needs with reliably identified samples from worldwide localities, drawing on old,
historic pieces as well as recently discovered exotic species. We and our predecessor
companies have been serving the research and museum communities since 1950. Inquiries
by email recommended.
Tufted crystal groups of cuprosklodowskite over malachite from the Musonoi Mine,
Kolwezi, Katanga, Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Shaba Province, Zaire). From
the Photographic Guide to Mineral Species CD, a production of Excalibur Mineral Corporation
Excalibur Mineral Corp.
1000 North Division St. Peekskill, NY 10566 USA
Telephone: 914-739-1134; Fax: 914-739-1257
www.excaliburmineral.com | email: [email protected]
www.chemistrycentral.com
Call for Session Proposals for IMA 2014
Preparations are well under way for the 21st meeting of the
International Mineralogical Association (IMA) in South Africa.
The overall theme of the IMA 2014 meeting is “Delving Deeper
– Minerals as Mines of Information.” The logo is symbolic of
South Africa’s rich mineral resources, from which has sprung its
dynamic mining heritage, also the
backbone of the country’s economy. The meeting will take place
on 1–5 September 2014 at the
Sandton Convention Centre, in the
heart of Johannesburg, the City
of Gold.
The IMA 2014 meeting will be
held under the auspices of the
Geological Society of South Africa
and the Mineralogical Association
of South Africa, and is already generating sponsorship from the
mineral industry, which will enable a professional, vibrant atmosphere for a memorable conference. South Africa’s sizeable community of mineralogists will contribute to the hosting of this first
IMA meeting on African soil, and all aspects of mineralogy will be
covered. The Organizing Committee is headed by Dr Sabine
Verryn as conference chair, along with Dr Desh Chetty as scientific committee chair and Dr Craig Smith as finance chair.
Proposals for sessions and topics to be covered are invited (e-mail:
[email protected]), and further information is available on the
conference website (www.ima2014.co.za). Please register to
receive updated information if you are not already on the communications list. The Organizing Committee looks forward to
welcoming everyone to South Africa in September 2014.
Société Française de Minéralogie
et de Cristallographie
www.sfmc-fr.org
WELCOMING NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS
FOR 2012–2014
FROM THE PRESIDENT
With my two vice-presidents, Guy Libourel and Javier Escartin, and
the support of a renewed Council composed mainly of young scientists,
it is a true pleasure and great honour for me to be the president of the
SFMC for the term 2012–2013. I am convinced that, in France and in
Europe, these two years will be known in the future as the beginning
of the “renaissance” of the idea that minerals are key products for the
development of our civil societies, as occurred in the past during the
Stone, Bronze and Copper ages. A milestone for this new age happened
in February 2012, when the European Commission identified nonenergy, non-agricultural raw materials as one of the three societal and
economic challenges for the future, along with health and agriculture.
This is a response to the ever-growing pressure on industry's access to
critical elements, like the rare earths. Minerals and materials of natural
or artificial origin are thus at the heart of the scientific and technical
issues raised by the global management of our raw-materials resources.
The issues involve extracting, recycling and substitution processes, and
they require consideration of the whole chain of environmental impacts
and the necessity to reinforce, and rebuild in some cases, research,
education, training centres and networks. This renewal coincides with
the emergence of nanomaterials, which, because of their novel properties, may help to reduce material consumption; but they also bring
many disturbing questions about their impacts on the environment
and human health. So it is an exciting time for mineralogical societies
in general and the French community in particular to be involved in
these two crucial issues. We must work on maintaining bridges between
academic research on one hand and industry and the public on the
other.
I am convinced, as were SFMC past-presidents Anne Marie Karpoff and
Patrick Cordier before me, that societal and economic questioning will
provide our community with many opportunities to increase the visibility, attractiveness and notoriety of our discipline worldwide.
Bruno Goffé, SFMC President
Bruno Goffé (CEREGE, Marseille)
1st
Guy Libourel (CRPG, Nancy)
vice-president: 2nd
vice-president: Secretary general: Alain Cheilletz is a full professor at the École Nationale Supérieure
de Géologie de Nancy, Lorraine University. As an economic geologist,
he has worked on tungsten, copper, lead–zinc and gold deposits around
the world. He is the co-holder of three international patents devoted
to determining the geographic origin of emeralds and was an associate
editor of Mineralium Deposita (2001–2005).
Sylvain Bernard is a CNRS research scientist at the Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris). During his PhD in 2008 at the Laboratoire
de Géologie de l’ENS, he documented the preservation of traces of life
in rocks that had experienced intense metamorphic conditions. His
scientific goals can be synthesized in a single question: How do biomolecules (and biominerals) evolve during fossilization processes?
Javier Escartin is a CNRS senior scientist at the Institut de Physique
du Globe de Paris and adjunct scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution. His main areas of interest are the formation and evolution
of the oceanic lithosphere and the use of experimental rock mechanics
to understand the rheology and mode of deformation of alteration
products (e.g. serpentinites) in the oceanic environment.
Mathieu Roskosz is an assistant professor at Lille I University. He is
an experimentalist in the field of mineral physics and chemistry, with
applications in astrophysical and magmatic environments. Recently,
he has been applying an experimental approach to the study of isotopic
fractionation and equilibration processes.
SFMC ELECTION RESULTS FOR 2010–2012
President: Bruno Goffé, CNRS, senior scientist at CEREGE Aix-Marseille, was
the head of the Earth sciences division at the National Earth and
Astronomy Institute (INSU) from 2006 to 2011. He is a mineralogist,
petrologist and geologist specialized in mountain building, metasediments, experimental mineralogy and materials science. He has supervised 30 PhD and 50 master’s students and is the author or co-author
of 150 peer-reviewed publications and 17 patent publications.
Javier Escartin (IPGP, Paris)
NEXT EVENT SPONSORED BY SFMC
Marc Blanchard (IMPMC, Paris)
serpentine days
Assistant secretary general: Maryse Ohnenstetter (CRPG, Nancy)
Treasurer: Stéphanie Rossano (U. Marne-la-Vallée)
Assistant treasurer: Christian Chopin (ENS, Paris)
News editor/Elements: Anne-Marie Boullier (ISTERRE, Grenoble)
•Mineralogy, Crystallochemistry
Councilors: Muriel Andréani (UCBL, Lyon), Anne Line Auzende
(IMPMC, Paris), Etienne Balan (IMPMC, Paris), Sylvain Bernard
(MNHN, Paris), Delphine Charpentier (UFC, Besançon), Valérie
Chavagnac (LMTG, Toulouse), Alain Cheilletz (CRPG, Nancy), Stéphanie
Duchêne (CRPG, Nancy), Mathieu Roskosz (UMET, Lille), Denis
Testemale (Institut Neel, Grenoble)
•Origin of Life, Primitive Planets
•Magnetic properties
•Rheology, Deformation
•Thermodynamics
•Societal implications
•Geodynamics
2-6 September, 2012
Porquerolles Island, 83412 Hyeres, France
http://www.sfmc-fr.org
contact : [email protected]
Deep Carbon Observatory
Organizing Committee : Muriel Andréani (LST, Lyon), Anne-Line Auzende (IMPMC, Paris), Isabelle Daniel (LST, Lyon), Adélie Delacour (GET, Toulouse)
E lements
221
J une 2012
Mineralogical Society of America
www.minsocam.org
What gas phase reactions are catalyzed on mineral–dust surfaces in
the atmosphere, and what is their impact on atmospheric chemistry?
President’s Letter
Which abundant airborne minerals, if any, have important radiative properties and thus affect climate change?
Mineralogy to the Fore
In this President’s Letter, I want to talk
about global climate change science and
opinion, which I believe can help inform
us about a transformation that is happening today in the science of mineralogy
and all the other sciences that mineralogy
touches.
Recently, I saw reported in the New York
Times the results of an opinion poll that
had been very carefully designed and comMichael F. Hochella Jr.
missioned by academics at Yale and George
Mason University. By roughly a 2-to-1
margin, the poll reports that Americans perceive that weather extremes
have increased in recent years and that “global warming is affecting
weather in the United States.” Contrast this apparent sea-change with
the deep aggravation that most scientists have experienced (at least in
the United States) over the last several years, where a vanishingly small
number of vocal scientists with alternative opinions to standard scientific views on global climate change have had the bulk of public opinion
on their side. I was also impressed by an article published in Physics
Today (March 2012) by Jane Lubchenco and Thomas Karl, administrator
and director, respectively, of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. In that article, they lay out the quantifiable evidence
for the increase in extreme weather events over the last few decades,
and they remind us that this is a prediction of mainstream global
climate change science, which climatologists are continuing to refine.
I believe that we are far from a general public understanding of the
views that we are conducting a very dangerous experiment by burning
fossil fuels as fast as they can be pulled from the ground, that the cost
of energy in the near term is not nearly as important as the cost to the
planet in the long term, and that debating these issues in the political
arena can only break down into dramatic counterproductivity. But I
am delighted that at least there is a move to wake up the general public
about topics that people must (eventually) understand, for this really
is one of the very most important issues of our time.
These and related questions put mineralogy squarely in the core of
future, critical climate change science, and as a result, into the public
(and political) eye. But clearly, that is exactly where we want mineralogy
to be, helping to understand these critical issues relevant to Earth
sustainability. Answering questions like the two above take large numbers of interdisciplinary scientists, who are at least in part serious mineralogists, working for many years to sort through these challenges. In
the process, if done well with skill and patience, the great questions of
our time are answered, along with attracting the public and political
support that is ultimately so important.
This example is just one of many. Within the “100 Most Important
Questions in Mineralogy” exercise to date, many deeply insightful questions have been submitted. In several cases, revealing mineralogical
questions addressing key issues have been put forward, spanning the
fundamental and applied sciences, in fields from the origin of life to
aspects of geophysics, from plate tectonics to heat transfer. For example:
What does the temporal distribution of minerals through >4 billion
years of Earth history reveal about global tectonics and the supercontinent cycle?
Other areas addressed by these questions have to do with everything
from ocean science to nanogeoscience. For instance: What is the inventory of mineral nanoparticles in the world’s oceans, and what biogeochemical role do they play, including the role they play in supplying limiting nutrients to the vital photosynthetic microorganisms
of the oceans?
The science of mineralogy has moved to the fore. It is a science that is
now sophisticated enough to integrate with other advanced disciplines
to gain valuable insight into the most pressing fundamental, as well
as practical, questions of this age. For a mineralogist, what could be
more valuable and rewarding than that? Let’s do our job effectively,
and contribute.
How could this possibly have anything to do with the way we, as
mineralogists, currently perceive our science, and where it is going in
the future? There are many ways to answer this question, and I have
already written, albeit indirectly, about this kind of thing in my previous presidential letters, Elements editorials, and certain published
articles. However, here, we will take a slightly different tack to see the
connection. Richard Harrison at Cambridge is currently leading a
remarkable initiative, sponsored by the Mineralogical Society of Great
Britain and Ireland, known as the “100 Most Important Questions in
Mineralogy.” The stated purpose? “We aim to identify 100 mineralogical
questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on resolving
current and future challenges in the Earth, planetary, and environmental sciences.” With input from mineralogists the world over
(including, undoubtedly, many of you, and, for better or worse, myself),
they are well on their way to doing this. Well over 200 questions have
been proposed to date, and we have been challenged to assess these
entries according to several criteria, including by considering the following question: “What does the list convey to funding agencies and
the wider public about the research we are doing as a community?”
This is where global climate change comes back into the picture. Several
submitted mineralogy-based questions speak to the heart of the global
climate change research picture. Here are just two, whose answers are
largely missing in climate change science, but sorely needed:
E lements
222
Michael F. Hochella Jr. ([email protected]), Virginia Tech,
President, Mineralogical Society of America
The MSA, CMS, and Meteoritical Society offices are at the southern
end of the north-south runways of Dulles Airport and adjacent to the
Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy
Center. On April 17, 2012, the staff was treated to the sight of the space
shuttle Discovery being brought to the museum’s annex on the back
of a Boeing 747 jet after a flying tour around the Washington, DC, area.
J une 2012
Notes from Chantilly
„„ Balloting for the 2012 election of MSA officers and councilors is
underway. Here is the slate of candidates for the 2012 MSA Council
election – president: John M. Hughes; vice president: David J.
Vaughan and Harry Y. McSween Jr.; treasurer: Edward S. Grew and
Howard W. Day; councilors (two to be selected): Joshua M. Feinberg,
Horst R. Marschall, Isabelle Daniel, and Kirsten P. Nicolaysen.
Andrea Koziol continues in office as secretary. Continuing councilors
are Pamela C. Burnley, Guy L. Hovis, Christine M. Clark, and
Kimberly T. Tait.
MSA members should have received voting
instructions at their current e-mail
addresses. Those who do not wish to vote
online can request a paper ballot from the
MSA business office. As always, the voting deadline is August 1.
„„ The MSA had a booth at the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show, Tucson,
Arizona, on 9–12 February 2012, a show celebrating Arizona’s
“Centennial” with the theme of “Minerals of Arizona.”
„„ The Dana Medal will be presented to Roberta L. Rudnick at the 2012
Goldschmidt Conference in Montreal, Québec, Canada, to be held
on 25 June–1 July 2012. There will be a special session in her honor,
“Formation, Evolution, and Destruction of Cratons and Their
Lithospheric Roots,” during which she will give her Dana Lecture.
„„ MSA will have a booth at the GSA Annual Meeting in Charlotte,
North Carolina, USA, on 4–7 November 2012. During that week,
MSA will hold its Awards Lunch, MSA Presidential Address, Joint
Reception among MSA, GS, and GSA’s Mineralogy, Geochemistry,
Petrology, and Volcanology Division, annual business meeting,
Council meeting, and breakfasts for the past presidents and associate
editors. Do not forget the lectures by Roebling Medalist Harry W.
Green II and MSA Awardee recipient Karim Benzerara. More information will be available through the MSA website.
„„ MSA has in stock the newly published Landmark Paper Number 4
(2012): Classic Papers in Granite Petrogenesis. The volume includes
the selected papers and a commentary by John Clemens and
Fernando Bea. MSA also has the previous 3 volumes of the series.
Descriptions, tables of contents, and ordering of these and other
volumes can be accessed on the MSA home page, www.minsocam.
org/MSA/Mineralogical_Society.html#landmark.
J. Alex Speer, MSA Executive Director
[email protected]
Zara Gerhardt Lindenmayer
Peter McSwiggen
David W. Mogk
George B. Morgan VI
Toshiro Nagase
Roger L. Nielsen
Mark I. Pownceby
John F. Rakovan
James S. Scoates
Michael S. Smith
Yong-Sun Song
Michael N. Spilde
Heinz G. Stosch
Charles H. Trupe III
Peter Ulmer
Quentin C. Williams
Bjoern Winkler
Mineralogical Society of America Under­
graduate Prizes for Outstanding Students
The Society welcomes the following exceptional students to the program’s honor roll and wishes to thank the sponsors for enabling the
Mineralogical Society of America to join in recognizing them. MSA’s
Undergraduate Prizes are for students who have shown an outstanding
interest and ability in mineralogy, petrology, crystallography, and geochemistry. Each student is presented a certificate at an awards ceremony
at his or her university or college and receives an MSA student membership, which includes a subscription to Elements and a Reviews in Mineralogy
or Monograph volume chosen by the sponsor, student, or both.
Past Undergraduate Prize awardees
are listed on the MSA website, as
well as instructions on how MSA
members can nominate their students for the award.
The following individuals will reach 50 or 25 years of continuous membership in the Mineralogical Society of America during 2012. Their
long support of the Society is appreciated and is recognized by this list
and by 25- or 50-year pins, mailed in early January. If you should be
on this list and are not, or have not received your pin, please contact
the MSA business office.
Donald H. Lindsley
Malcolm E. McCallum
Stearns A. Morse
Peter C. Rickwood
Germain Sabatier
Yukio Sakamaki
Sponsored by Dr. David London
Kara E. Marsac
Eastern Michigan University
Benjamin S. Murphy
Pomona College
Sponsored by Dr. John Brady
Sponsored by Dr. Jade Star Lackey
Marisa Davies
University of Victoria
Abbey Nastan
University of Montana
Sponsored by Prof. Dante Canil
Sponsored by Dr. Julia Baldwin
Bradley W. Pitcher
Central Washington University
Sponsored by Dr. Robert Popp
Lauren Finkelstein
George Washington University
Sponsored by Dr. Richard Tollo
Sponsored by Dr. Christopher Mattinson
Allison Ricko
Towson University
Sponsored by Dr. David Vanko
James C. Gossweiler
Towson University
Nathalie Elizabeth Sievers
University of Maryland
Sponsored by Dr. David Vanko
50-Year Members
Thao P. Le
University of Oklahoma
Sponsored by Dr. Christine Clark
Jennifer Axler
Smith College
Nicholas Davis
Texas A & M University
50- and 25-Year MSA Members
Robert L. Christiansen
Edward Dale Ghent
Philip C. Goodell
Stefan Graeser
Lawrence Grossman
Friedrich Liebau
Donald J. DePaolo
Robert T. Downs
Martin Engi
Carol D. Frost
Bruno J. Giletti
Priscilla C. Grew
Bradley R. Hacker
David P. Hawkins
Marc M. Hirschmann
Richard S. James
Wei-teh Jiang
Raymond L. Joesten
Rhian H. Jones
Herbert Kroll
T. Kurtis Kyser
Bernd Lehmann
Charles E. Lesher
Sponsored by Prof. Roberta Rudnick
David W. Hawkins
George Mason University
Emily Stewart
Indiana University
Sponsored by Dr. Julia Nord Cooper
Kathryn Kumamoto Williams
College
Sponsored by Prof. Reinhard Wobus
Sponsored by Prof. David Bish
Jacob van Wesenbeeck
Indiana University
Sponsored by Prof. David Bish
25-Year Members
Robert L. Bauer
Lukas P. Baumgartner
James S. Beard
Adrian J. Brearley
Maarten A. T. M. Broekmans
L. Taras Bryndzia
Paul K. Carpenter
J. M. D. Coey
Mark E. Conrad
Cameron Davidson
E lements
In Memoriam
Friedrich Liebau
223
– Senior Fellow – 1962
J une 2012
European Association of Geochemistry
www.eag.eu.com
The President’s Corner
Funding
Geochemistry
and Other News
For the most part, geochemistry is perceived as
an academic discipline
whose impact on society
is limited. However, as
time passes, geochemBernard Bourdon
istry and its related multiple subfields have
become essential in showing the way towards
solutions for the major challenges that our
society has to face in the future. EAG Past
President Eric Oelkers, in a provocative plenary
lecture at the Goldschmidt meeting in
Knoxville, told us “how geochemistry can save
the world.” There is no end to the list of
domains where geochemists can help in this
noble cause. Energy: The future depends on
finding and better managing new energy
resources, be they unconventional gas and oil
or new sources of uranium and coal, until
other more renewable and ecologically friendlier energy sources can take over. The underground capture and storage of CO2 also require
the advanced and multifaceted knowledge of
geochemists. Water: Being able to predict the
quality of water resources and the pathways of
contaminants released by human activities
clearly requires the know-how of geochemists.
Mineral resources: The scarcity of several
strategic materials is a challenge for geochemists involved in understanding the genesis and
long-term utilization strategies for ore deposits.
This list could be further expanded by adding
climate change, forensic geochemistry, soil
conservation, etc. However, while specific programs are targeted at these societal questions,
it can be said that the geochemical community
has failed at being identified as the prime science at the root of and leader in the applications mentioned above. From that perspective,
our community should “reclaim its copyrights” and become more proactive in
increasing its visibility to governments,
funding agencies and the European Union. In
my own subdiscipline, isotope geochemistry,
it is rather obvious that the boundary between
basic science and the science that funding
agencies or governments include in their
focused programs is very fuzzy. Many tools
and approaches originally developed for
understanding mantle geochemistry or the
early Solar System have been used in more
applied geochemical approaches. Overall, this
is true for most geochemical fields, where
much of the basic understanding upon which
applied geosciences are based stem from more
fundamental investigations that are nowadays
unfortunately looked down upon by funding
agencies. All this is probably rather obvious to
most geochemists. Yet, I am convinced that
one has to be relentless in making this message
known, if we are to halt and perhaps even
reverse the ever-diminishing funding stream
for fundamental geochemical research. There
is a clear need for raising awareness about this
topic, and our societies should be at the forefront of this endeavour.
On another front, I would like to talk to you
about the recently launched EAG blog (http://
blog.eag.eu.com/). It is a new endeavour that
started in March 2012; we have several regular
geochemical bloggers and various intermittent
bloggers and storytellers, and naturally, contributions from the community are highly
encouraged and more than welcome. I would
like to congratulate Juan Diego RodriguezBlanco (University of Leeds) and his team, as
well as Marie-Aude Hulshoff from the EAG, for
making our association even more lively
through this blog.
Bernard Bourdon, EAG President
Lyon, April 2012
Florence, birthplace of the Renaissance and a
UNESCO World Heritage Site, hosts the
Goldschmidt conference in August 2013. Set in
one of the most beautiful cities in the world,
Goldschmidt2013 boasts cultural delights and
an excellent science program. The Goldschmidt
conferences, co-sponsored by the EAG and the
GS, is now the foremost conference in
Geochemistry, with over 3300 delegates
attending the 2011 meeting in Prague.
Call for additional sessions starts
September 2012
Do put these dates into your diary
and join us for what looks set to be
Copyright R and B
an outstanding meeting.
goldschmidt.info/2013
E lements
224
J une 2012
Geochemical Society
www.geochemsoc.org
Why Join a Professional Society?
This question was recently posed to the membership of the Geochemical Society in a survey
whose goal was to ensure that the Society continues to best serve the needs of its membership.
The responses were eye-opening, and reflective
of scientists’ changing expectations and needs
as they increasingly rely on social media for
peer-to-peer communication and access to journals through library e-subscriptions. The strongest message received concerned many aspects
Rick Carlson
of the journal we cosponsor with the
Meteoritical Society, Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta. Some parts of this story we already knew. The number of personal
subscriptions to GCA is becoming vanishingly small as the membership,
and everyone else, gets access to the journal electronically through
their library. Many respondents noted the turmoil, hopefully solved
by the time you read this, that accompanied the most recent contract
negotiation with the publisher and the change in editorial leadership.
The role of a commercial publisher in society journal production was
a particularly prickly topic among respondents, with many pointing
out the diminishing society editorial control and questioning the
wisdom of letting commercial publishers profit from the authors’ products and the editorial services provided, generally for free, by our community. What was less often noted is that GCA has been the numberone-cited full-length journal in the category of geochemistry/geophysics
for many years, in part because of the fair and even-handed peer review
managed by Frank Podosek and the selfless service of a large board of
dedicated associate editors. Other positive features include the fact that,
in most cases, authors can publish in GCA for free, that the web presentation of the journal, created by the publisher, allows the reader
easy discovery of related papers and, in the near future, the ability to
link with other related datasets. Where the balance lies between the
strengths and weaknesses of the Society’s current publishing activities
is front and center in the mandate given to the recently restaffed
Publication Advisory Committee, which will be examining the types
of publishing activities that would best address the needs of the membership. GCA is but one of many publications cosponsored by the
Geochemical Society, one of which you are reading now.
One experiment in our publications inventory is the redesigned
Geochemical News (www.multibriefs.com/briefs/gs), now e-mailed
weekly to the membership. The GN provides the opportunity to communicate news of interest to the geochemistry community quickly and
link the membership to newsworthy stories across the broad field of
geochemistry. The GN is at your disposal to advertise meetings and
publications and to post funding announcements and other news items
of interest to the geochemical community. Also appearing in GN are
job postings listed in our Career Center (www.geochemsoc.org/careercenter), an economical way to have your job postings viewed by over
4000 subscribers to the GN.
Another traditional raison d’etre for a professional society is conferences, and here the nearly 3000 abstracts submitted to this year’s
Goldschmidt Conference in Montreal reflect the continued popularity
of the Goldschmidt and its increasing ability to attract attendees from
across the breadth of geochemistry. Going forward, our efforts will be
focused on keeping Goldschmidt strong by looking for ways to reduce
the expense of the meeting for attendees, increasing support for student
participation, providing additional content, and rotating the meeting
location through a larger proportion of the world, in keeping with the
international nature of the Geochemical Society. As with our multiple
publishing activities, the Goldschmidt Conference is not our only
E lements
conference-related activity. The Meeting Assistance Program offers
grants of up to $2000 to support smaller, thematic meetings (www.
geochemsoc.org/programs/meetingassistanceprogram). You can read a
report on a meeting we sponsored on page 236. Along these lines, we
also have joined forces with the EAG in establishing an outreach program, whose goal is to bring modern approaches and interesting applications of geochemistry to audiences that have fewer opportunities to
interact routinely with the international geochemical community.
Perhaps the most distressing survey responses were from those who
noted their desire to partake in Society activities but could not afford
to do so. The US$30 membership fee of the GS is small by western
standards, but not for some developing countries. We hope to address
this issue with some form of sliding membership fee that ties the fee
to an index of relative income. We already do something similar for
students and retirees, who pay a membership fee that is just enough
to cover their subscription to this magazine; so, in essence, they receive
the other benefits of GS membership for free.
The ongoing programs mentioned above address the majority of
member services requested by survey respondents. Beyond these, the
survey responses provided a number of ideas for ways in which the GS
can expand its activities to better address the needs of the geochemical
community. The leadership takes these suggestions seriously and will
work to implement as many as feasible. This path thus provides at least
one answer to the question “Why join a professional society?” because
a professional society can marshal and direct a critical mass of energetic
individuals to make highly cited publications a reality, organize wellattended conferences, provide rapid reporting of news relevant to the
community, connect those offering jobs to those looking for employment, and provide a variety of other services of benefit to the membership. The GS greatly appreciates the membership participation in the
benefits survey and looks forward to making many of the suggested
new benefits a reality.
Rick Carlson ([email protected]), GS President
Notes from St. Louis
Remember the 15 October 2012 deadlines for the 2013 GS awards:
Goldschmidt Medal, Clarke Medal, Patterson Medal, Treibs
Medal, and the GS/EAG Geochemical Fellow. Nomination requirements and procedures are available online at www.geochemsoc.org/
awards/makeanomination.
The GS Meeting Assistance Program (MAP) was established in
2002 to allocate up to five sponsorships of up to US $2000 each ($10,000
annually) in support of geochemistry sessions/symposia at any scientific
conference of geochemical relevance. Past sponsorships and application
procedures are available at w w w.geochemsoc.org/programs/
meetingassistanceprogram/.
The GS weekly e-newsbrief, Geochemical News, now has more than
4000 subscribers. Subscription is included with membership, but anyone
may subscribe for free at: http://multibriefs.com/optin.php?gs. Archives
of recent issues are also online at http://multibriefs.com/briefs/gs/.
Geochemical Society Business Office
Seth Davis, Business Manager
Kathryn Hall, Administrative Assistant
Washington University in St. Louis
Earth and Planetary Sciences, CB 1169
One Brookings Drive, Saint Louis, MO 63130-4899, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 314-935-4131 • Fax: 314-935-4121
Website: www.geochemsoc.org
225
J une 2012
Meteoritical Society
http://meteoriticalsociety.org
2012 METEORITICAL SOCIETY FELLOWS
Philip Bland (UK/
Australia) – For original
and diverse studies of
important meteorite
problems, helping
establish the Western
Australia camera network, and contributions
to the society
Christine Floss (USA)
– For superior ion
microprobe studies of
isotopes and trace elements in diverse meteorites and in presolar
grains, as well as for
contributions to the
society
Makoto Kimura
(Japan) – For outstanding studies of the
mineralogy and
petrology of primitive
chondrites and of highpressure minerals in
shocked meteorites, and
for his contributions to
the society
Thorsten Kleine
(Germany) – For his
fundamental studies of
the Hf–W system and
the chronology of the
early Solar System
Yangting Lin (China)
– For contributions to
the understanding of
the origins of chondritic components, most
notably presolar grains
and CAIs, and the
petrology of Martian
meteorites, for his role in the Chinese
Antarctic meteorite collection program, and
for his contributions to the society
Katharina Lodders
(USA) – For the application of thermodynamics to our understanding of Solar
System processes and
the compilation of huge
amounts of Solar
System data so that it is readily accessible
to scientists
E lements
Bernard Marty
(France) – For outstanding studies on the
noble gases and
nitrogen in meteorites
and Genesis samples,
and for contributions to
the society
Akira Yamaguchi
(Japan) – For major
contributions to our
understanding of the
petrogenesis of achondrites, leadership in the
collection/curation of
Antarctic meteorites at
NIPR, and contributions
to the society
Edward Young (USA)
– For significant studies
of C, O, and Mg isotopes in meteorites and
protoplanetary disks,
for studies of the
hydrology of asteroids,
and for contributions to
the understanding of isotopic fractionation
during evaporation of silicates
Hisayoshi Yurimoto
(Japan) – For innovative
isotopic studies of chondritic components, particularly CAIs and fluid
inclusions, and the
mentoring of many
students
Jutta Zipfel
(Germany) – For significant research on a
range of differentiated
meteorites and on planetary missions to understand igneous processes
on asteroids and Mars,
for work on meteorite curation and classification, and for contributions to the society
NOMENCLATURE COMMITTEE
REPORT
The purpose of the Nomenclature Committee
(NomCom) is to approve new meteorite
names, and to establish guidelines and make
decisions regarding the naming of meteorites.
We are also charged with keeping the community apprised of new meteorites through the
Meteoritical Bulletin and the Meteoritical
Bulletin Database (www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/
metbull.php). Since the last report, Meteoritical
Bulletin (MB) 99 has been completed; it contains 1075 meteorites, 468 of which are nonAntarctic. MB99 will be published shortly in
the new online format. A further 1509 meteorites have been approved thus far for MB100.
The type specimen (TS) repository review
process is underway, with curators of TS
repositories now required to update their
contact information in an online database.
Any new meteorite submission will not be
considered if the information about the TS
repository listed in the submission is
incomplete.
Our guidelines for meteorite nomenclature
continue to be revised to keep up with the
times. A recent addition is a section entitled
“Meteorites Found on Celestial Bodies Other
than Earth”! The complete, up-to-date guidelines can be found at www.meteoriticalsociety.org/bulletin/nc-guidelines.htm.
Please do not hesitate to contact me ([email protected]
ualberta.ca) with questions or concerns
about NomCom and especially with suggestions for improvement. As always, essential
information on meteorite nomenclature,
instructions, and the template for reporting
new meteorites can be found on our
homepage: http://meteoriticalsociety.org/
simple_template.cfm?code=pub_bulletin.
A list of current NomCom members can be
found at www.meteoriticalsociety.org/bulletin/TermExpirations2011.htm.
Chris Herd
Chair of the Nomenclature Committee
The Meteoritical Society wishes
Marc Norman great success as executive
editor of Geochimica et Cosmoschimica Acta.
Read about his appointment on page 186.
226
J une 2012
The Clay Minerals Society
www.clays.org
STUDENT RESEARCH SPOTLIGHT
THE PRESIDENT’S CORNER
The United Nations declared October 31, 2011, to
be the day (+/– about a year) that the Earth’s population reached 7 billion. Less well publicized but
far more significant is that the projection for peak
global population was raised from 9 billion to
slightly over 10 billion and will occur somewhere
around 2050. This brings me to the critical question, “Will we be able to feed 10 billion people in
2050?” The problem is not so much a growing
population as it is a changing of diets. The people
of China, India, and other rapidly developing countries are eating more
meat and dairy products as their economies grow, and it takes 3 to 10
calories of grain to produce one calorie of meat. Thus global economic
growth is accelerating growth in demand for grain far faster than the
effect population growth is having on this demand. My children and
as yet unborn grandchildren have little risk of facing a food shortage:
we live in Iowa, the greatest grain-producing region the world has ever
known! For that matter, people living throughout North America, South
America, and Europe have little risk of food shortages, as these regions
have excess food-production capacity and their populations have either
stabilized or are rapidly doing so. The people of China, India, Japan,
South Korea, and Southeast Asia are also at low risk of food shortages;
populations in these countries are also rapidly stabilizing, and as long
as their economies continue to grow they will be able to afford to
import the surplus food produced in the Americas. My concern is for
the people of sub-Saharan Africa, a region with rapidly growing populations, abysmal economies, and degraded soils.
The poverty and deprivation that grips sub-Saharan Africa is rooted in
the mineralogy of their soils. The young loess and glacial till soils of
Iowa are dominated by smectites, illites, and randomly interstratified
S/I (not really smectite/illite because the layer charge of the “illitic
phase” is way too low, but that is another story). These 2:1 phyllosilicate
clay minerals hold water and nutrients and help both to form and to
stabilize soil organic matter by adsorbing fragments of biopolymers
and physically protecting humic substances from rapid microbial
decomposition. Soil organic matter in turn stabilizes soil structure and
is a reservoir of slowly released nutrients that nourish crop growth.
Iowa soils are incredibly productive! The soils of sub-Saharan Africa
are dominated by quartz sands and old, highly weathered Fe- and
Al-oxyhydroxide clay minerals. Because these minerals have lowactivity surfaces, they are not effective at forming and stabilizing soilenriching humus. Furthermore, the soils of sub-Saharan Africa have
little capacity for retaining plant nutrients and are easily leached and/
or depleted of nutrients by cropping.
Congratulations to Conni De Masi for
winning a CMS Student Research Grant
Award. Conni is a graduate student at
California State University, Long Beach,
where she is working on a master of science degree in biology. In her research, she
uses clay mineralogy and stable isotopes to
determine the paleoclimate and paleo­
elevation of Owens Valley, California,
and the surrounding mountains.
CLAY AND PHYLLOSILICATE MINERALS
IN EXTRATERRESTRIAL MATERIALS
On Earth, many clay minerals and related phyllosilicates form from reactions involving water
during weathering, diagenesis, and hydrothermal alteration. Clay and phyllosilicate
minerals have been detected by spectroscopy
on the surface of Mars and in some classes of
meteorites by analyses in terrestrial laboratories. Occurrences of phyllosilicate minerals in
extraterrestrial materials are widely understood to indicate the former presence of water
on some rocky bodies elsewhere in the Solar
System. The landing site for the Mars Science
Laboratory (MSL) mission (successfully
launched in November 2011 and due to land on Mars in August 2012)
was chosen largely because clay-mineral-bearing strata, in their stratigraphic context and in relation to other water-soluble minerals, will
be accessible to the ten scientific instruments on MSL rover Curiosity,
including the first X-ray diffractometer to be flown to another planet.
NASA recently selected a mission to return samples from a primitive
asteroid, of a spectroscopic class that may contain phyllosilicates, in
the coming decade.
The August 2011 issue of Clays and Clay Minerals assembles five papers
on clay and phyllosilicate minerals in extraterrestrial materials. Four
are case studies of mineral assemblages detected by orbital spectroscopy
of the surface materials on Mars; the fifth reviews the occurrence and
significance of serpentine-group phyllosilicates in one class of carbonaceous chondrites. This thematic issue embodies the overlapping
interests and emerging connections between planetary geologists and
clay mineralogists.
Michael Velbel, Michigan State University
The challenges facing sub-Saharan Africa have many social, political,
economic, and historical causes, but the fragility of their soils has been
a major factor reinforcing the poverty trap. We are wise to remember
the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, “A nation that destroys its soils
destroys itself.” But we must also bear in mind that Iowa was endowed
with resilient soils, while Africa was given fragile soils; the difference
is in the mineralogy.
David Laird ([email protected])
President, The Clay Minerals Society
E lements
227
J une 2012
International Association of GeoChemistry
www.iagc-society.org
2012 IAGC Awards
Vernadsky Medal to Robert A. Berner
The Vernadsky Medal is awarded biennially to honor a distinguished
record of scientific accomplishment in geochemistry over the course
of a career.
Robert A. Berner obtained his BS and MS
degrees from the University of Michigan and
his PhD from Harvard University. He then
went to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography
as a Sverdrup Postdoctoral Fellow. In 1963 he
joined the faculty at the University of Chicago
and later moved to Yale University, where he
was promoted to professor in 1971. He remains
at Yale as an emeritus professor, after retiring
in 2007. Dr. Berner is a member of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences. Among his
many awards are the 1991 Doctor Honoris Causa, Université AixMarseille (France), the 1991 Huntsman Medal in Oceanography
(Canada), the 1993 Goldschmidt Medal of the Geochemical Society,
the 1995 Arthur L. Day Medal of the Geological Society of America,
and the 1996 Murchinson Medal of the Geological Society of London.
One of the most internationally recognized and valuable research
accomplishments of Dr. Berner, along with colleagues Bob Garrels and
Tony Lasaga, has been the now famous BLAG model of atmospheric
CO2 variations through the Cretaceous. Dr. Berner has gone on to refine
this model by extending it to the beginning of the Phanerozoic in the
GEOCARB models. His modeling efforts have been confirmed by various
proxies, such as the density of stomata in fossil plant leaves. Dr. Berner’s
current research deals with computer modeling of the carbon and sulfur
cycles, emphasizing their coupling to controls on atmospheric CO2 and
O2, the effect of CO2 on paleoclimate and of O2 on biological evolution,
the role of plants in rock weathering and their controls on atmospheric
CO2 oscillations in the Phanerozoic, and weathering of kerogen in fossil
shales as a measure of the modulation of atmospheric O2 . Dr. Berner
has tackled a number of other significant problems as well. This work
includes studies of the kinetic behavior of carbonates in the ocean,
experiments on the stabilities and kinetics of carbonate minerals and
other sedimentary mineral types, field observations of the processes of
early diagenesis, and studies of geochemical cycles.
Distinguished Service Awards to Ernest E. Angino
and Luca Fanfani
The Distinguished Service Award recognizes outstanding service by an
IAGC member to the Association or to the geochemical community
that greatly exceeds the normal expectations of voluntary service.
Ernest E. Angino is being honored for his
dedicated service to IAGC as treasurer from
1980 to 1994. He was a professor and is now
an emeritus professor in the Department of
Geology at the University of Kansas. Ernie did
research and teaching in the area of aqueous
geochemistry. He contributed significantly to
the understanding of the aqueous geochemistry of trace metals and the chemistry of
Antarctic lakes and participated in the development of the important research area of geochemistry and health. During his tenure as chair of the Department
of Geology at the University of Kansas, he was instrumental in organizing the alumni association, which has resulted in significant gifts
to the department. Ernie brought his organizational and management
E lements
skills to IAGC during his time as treasurer. He worked to increase the
assets of IAGC, handing to his successor, D. T. Long, an association in
an extremely stable financial state. He also proved to be an invaluable
resource for the president and secretary of IAGC, as he contributed to
negotiations with the publisher of the society’s journal, Applied
Geochemistry, worked with international collaborators, and helped in
the formulation of the various awards bestowed by the society. Ernie’s
dedicated service to IAGC went well beyond that of being treasurer.
Luca Fanfani’s career as a geochemist-mineralogist has spanned more than 40 years. He
has been full professor at the University of
Cagliari, Italy, since 1976 and dean of the
Faculty of Sciences since 2009. Luca is an active
member of the committee of the Water–Rock
Interaction Working Group (WRI) and, as general secretary, organized the WRI-10 conference in 2001. He served as a mentor to many
young geochemists in Italy and other countries. He has authored or coauthored more than
60 scientific articles, addressing a wide range of geochemical issues. He
recognized, long before most of his colleagues, the important connection between geochemistry and mineralogy for understanding the
transport and fate of harmful and toxic elements in the near-surface
environment. Luca has had a strong impact on the foundation of environmental mineralogy and geochemistry in Italy. He created a research
group that became a nationwide reference, stimulating the birth and
growth of similar groups around the country. Luca was also a pioneer
in understanding the importance of international cooperation and
interaction. He stimulated scientific cooperation with less-developed
countries, giving rise to several projects in Latin America and North
Africa, and he contributed significantly to the progress of environmental geochemistry.
Urban Geochemistry Working Group
The IAGC is reinvigorating the Urban Geochemistry Working Group
under the leadership of Dr. Berry Lyons (The Ohio State University,
USA). The group will be cochaired by Dr. David Long (Michigan State
University, USA). To kick off this new working group, Dr. Lyons and
Dr. Russell Harmon (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) will be guest editors
of the December 2012 issue of Elements, which will feature urban geochemistry as the thematic topic. Additionally, Dr. Lyons and Dr. Long
will be cochairing a session devoted to urban geochemistry at the
annual Geological Society of America (GSA) meeting in November 2012
in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. If you would like to be involved in
this exciting, newly reorganized working group, please contact the
IAGC business manager, Chris Gardner, at [email protected]
Elsevier/IAGC Student Research Grants
The Elsevier/IAGC Student Research Grant Program is designed to assist
PhD students in geochemistry in undertaking and acquiring geochemical analyses in support of their research. Selection is based upon a
meritorious proposal. In addition to their grant stipend, each student
receives a one-year membership in IAGC. This year’s recipients are:
Alice DuVivier, Durham University, UK ($2500) – “Using Ca isotopes
to evaluate the weathering influx in seawater: Implications for the
driving mechanisms of the Cenomanian–Turonian boundary oceanic
anoxic event (OAE 2)”
Jill Ghelerter, Georgia State University, USA ($2000) – “Enhanced
bioremediation of oiled salt marsh sediments using clay minerals”
Peter Tollan, Durham University, UK ($1500) – “Modern arc peridotites – Analogues for continental-root evolution”
228
J une 2012
Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland
www.minersoc.org
The key aim of this meeting is to bring together workers from academia
(mineralogy, chemistry, ‘materials’ and others), industry and regulatory
bodies to discuss mineralogy under the following four themes:
Become a Chartered Scientist Now!
The Mineralogical Society has become a body licensed to award the
Chartered Scientist status to its members. We are now ready to begin
receiving applications. The benchmark route is the successful completion of a programme of study leading to an MSc (visit our website to
read about ‘M’-level equivalence).
All candidates need to have at least four years of postgraduate experience in the practice, application or teaching of science. Additionally
applicants must have undertaken continuing professional development
commensurate with the level of attainment required for a minimum
of two years immediately prior to the application.
Applicants must demonstrate that their scope of practice requires them to:
ƒƒ Demonstrate a systematic understanding of knowledge, and show
critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights in their
area of mineralogical science
ƒƒ Have a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to
their scope of practice and the ability to critically evaluate current
research
ƒƒ Deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make
sound judgements in the absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist
audiences
ƒƒ Exercise self-direction and personal responsibility in solving problems, and exercise personal autonomy in planning and implementing tasks at a professional level
ƒƒ Continue to advance their knowledge, understanding and competence to a high level
Visit www.minersoc.org/chartered.html for more details and an application form. Members of long standing may be particularly interested in
our ‘fast-track’ method of application. There is an initial cost of £50
plus a charge of £45 per year thereafter.
Major meetings in 2013
The Society will be involved in two major meetings in 2013. Details
are given below below and on the Society website.
Volcanism, Impacts and Mass Extinctions:
Causes and Effects
On 27–29 March 2013, London’s Natural
History Museum will host an international,
multidisciplinary conference that brings
together researchers from across the geological, geophysical and biological disciplines to assess the state of research into the
causes of mass extinction events. The main
goal of this conference will be to evaluate
the respective roles of volcanism, bolide
impacts, sea level fluctuations and associated climate and environmental changes in major episodes of species extinction. More details
are available at http://massextinction.princeton.edu/. This event is supported by the Volcanic and Magmatic Studies Group and the
Mineralogical Society.
Strategically Important Mineral Resources includes the sustainability of
mineral resources, such as strategically important elements (considering
both primary and secondary sources), ethically/responsibly sourced
metals and gems, and related topics such as resource recovery and
management. The recycling of minerals will be addressed here as
appropriate.
Functional Materials and Minerals deals with nano-, micro- and mesoporous materials (both synthetic and natural), such as zeolites, pillared
clays and the like; thin films of (or on) mineral surfaces; and mineral
catalysts. This topic may include any ‘functional’ mineral application
(or mineral-derived material), such as sensors and transducers, sorbents,
ion-exchange media, cements and others.
Minerals for Environmental Protection includes both nuclear and nonnuclear applications. It considers the use of minerals as retarding media
in engineered chemical barriers, alongside physically engineered subsurface structures such as mineral liners; permeable reactive barriers;
and examples of environmental remediation in which mineral technology has had significant impact. Carbon capture and storage is
another important part of this theme.
Biological Processes in Mineral Science and Technology includes a range of
biological processes, both naturally occurring and industrially applied.
These will include biomining and bioremediation applications, and
also emerging biological synthesis routes for commercially useful materials. Other geologically important biomineralization processes, in both
prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems, will also be of interest.
Go to www.minerals-for-life.org for more information.
Clays Used in Beadmaking
Modern lampwork* glass beadmaking can trace its lineage back 500
years to the Italians (e.g. Murano glass), who made beads by wrapping
hot glass around copper wire. After the glass cooled, the bead was cut
off with the copper wire still inside. It was then dropped into a caustic
solution that dissolved the copper wire, leaving a clean hole behind.
The American lampwork bead
movement started around the
1970s. Glass-bead artists
found they could use techniques similar to those of the
Italian beadmakers by wrapping molten glass around a
mandrel (a piece of stainless
steel welding rod) that had
been dipped in a sludge (generally a mixture of clay, water
and other ingredients, called bead release) beforehand and dried so
that the bead could be twisted off after cooling.
When I started making lampwork beads in 1991, I had problems getting
the beads off the mandrels and I decided to try to make my own bead
release. It took 6 months of experimenting and testing to settle on a
good basic formula using kaolin as the main ingredient. It’s been eight
years since the first test batches of bead release were handed out in
pickle jars. Now I have three formulas sold in many parts of world.
Robin J. Foster
Minerals for Life: Overcoming Resource Constraints
On 17–19 June 2013, our ‘Minerals for Life’ meeting will be held in
Edinburgh. The meeting is a collaborative venture with the Geological
Society, the British Zeolite Association and the Institute of Materials.
E lements
* A type of glasswork that uses a torch to melt rods and tubes of clear or colored
glass; the molten glass is then shaped with tools, gravity and hand movement.
229
J une 2012
Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences
http://jams.la.coocan.jpe_index.html
Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences
Awardees
The Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences (JAMS) is proud to
announce the recipients of its 2011 society awards. The Japan
Association of Mineralogical Sciences Award is given to a maximum of two scientists per year for exceptional contributions to the
mineralogical and related sciences. The Manjiro Watanabe Award,
named in honor of Professor Manjiro Watanabe, a famous Japanese
mineralogist, and funded by his contribution, is presented yearly to a
scientist who has contributed significantly to mineralogical and related
sciences over his/her career. The Japan Association of Mineralogical
Sciences Research Paper Award is given annually to the authors
of two excellent papers in the Journal of Mineralogical and Petrological
Sciences (JMPS) and Ganseki-Kobutsu-Kagaku (GKK) published in the last
three years. Congratulations to all the winners!
Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences Award
to Tetsumaru Itaya
Tetsumaru Itaya, from Okayama University of
Science, Japan, is a leading expert in the geochronology of orogenic belts around the world. His
research spans a wide range of subjects, in addition to geochronology , including studies of volcanic, metamorphic, and plutonic rocks, accretionary complexes, and fault rocks for predicting
earthquake activity; ore petrology and mineralogy; the development of high-quality analytical
techniques; contributions to anthropology and
archeology; and paleomagnetic studies related to global tectonics.
Highlights of his recent research include the following:
ƒƒ Discovery of a very large excess of argon in kyanite and of the
regional excess argon wave occurring in a Barrovian-type metamorphic belt
ƒƒ Elucidation of the mechanism underlying argon depletion from
phengites during ductile deformation accompanying the exhumation of high-pressure metamorphic rocks and the formation of
excess-argon-free phengites in ultrahigh-pressure metamorphism
His research has contributed to the understanding of orogenic processes
around the world. The most challenging part of his research has been
revealing the precise K–Ar chronology of Holocene volcanic rocks,
which allows for dating island-arc volcanic rocks using a few grams of
a sample with 2 wt% potassium, while applying a precise correction
for the mass fractionation of argon isotopes.
Japan Association of Mineralogical Sciences Award
to Kazumasa Sugiyama
Kazumasa Sugiyama, from the Institute for
Materials Research (IMR), Tohoku University,
Japan, is a mineralogist whose research concerns
the development of new functional materials. He
started his scientific career by focusing on the
application of X-ray diffraction to the structural
analysis of natural minerals with complex structures. His research interests also include the elucidation of the structure of amorphous materials.
Conventional X-ray diffraction has a drawback in
that it is not useful for distinguishing between elements with similar
atomic numbers. Kazumasa Sugiyama used anomalous X-ray scattering
(AXS) to address the above-mentioned problem and obtained finestructural information for materials with complex structures. This new
E lements
approach is one of the most promising methods for the structural
analysis of disordered materials, including nanoscale natural minerals.
He also developed new equipment for the fine-structural analysis of
high-temperature liquids by energy-dispersive X-ray diffraction (EDXD),
and he used the equipment to obtain structural images of a variety of
liquid materials. Recently, he extended his research to the structural
analysis of minerals with more complex structures. He also developed
an advanced AXS-RMC (reverse Monte Carlo) method and solved the
structures of complex and disordered materials. His research has contributed significantly to the advancement of fundamental Earth science
knowledge and the development of new functional materials.
Manjiro Watanabe Award to Fumiyuki Marumo
Professor Fumiyuki Marumo started his scientific research studying the crystal structure of
harmotome by single-crystal X-ray diffraction
under the supervision of Prof. R. Sadanaga at the
University of Tokyo in 1955. In 1961, he moved
to the University of Bern in Switzerland and pursued structural research on sulfosalt minerals
from Lengenbach. He solved many complicated
structures and contributed to the determination
of the structural scheme of arsenic-bearing sulfosalts. He also reported three new sulfosalt minerals from Lengenbach.
He returned to Japan in 1966 and continued structural research at the
Institute for Solid State Physics at the University of Tokyo. He was
engaged in the structure determination of crystals of metal complexes,
charge-transfer organic complexes, and natural organic materials, and
he obtained valuable results in these fields. In 1972, he was offered a
faculty position at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, where he started
a structural investigation of crystals of ferroelectrics, ferroelastics, ionic
conductors, transition metal silicates, etc. Most importantly, he confirmed the anisotropic distribution of 3d electrons, which was suggested
by crystal-field theory, by determining accurate electron-density distributions in a series of spinel-type transition metal silicates using X-ray
diffraction. This research attracted the attention of numerous inorganic
crystal chemists. He also succeeded in growing high-quality nonlinear
optical crystals of the low-temperature form of BaB2O4 from a supercooled melt of pure BaB2O4, by making the melt temperature about
100 °C higher than the phase transition point between the low- and
high-temperature forms of BaB2O4.
Japan Association of Mineralogical
Sciences Research Paper Awards
Tetsuo Kawakami and Tomokazu Hokada (2010) Linking P-T path
with development of discontinuous phosphorus zoning in garnet
during high-temperature metamorphism—an example from the
Lützow-Holm Complex, East Antarctica. Journal of Mineralogical and
Petrological Sciences 105: 175-186
Tetsuo Kawakami
230
Tomokazu Hokada
J une 2012
Masayuki NISHI, Tomoaki KUBO and Takumi KATO (2009) Metastable
transformations of eclogite to garnetite in subducting oceanic crust.
Journal of Mineralogical and Petrological Sciences 104: 192-198
Koichi Momma (left) and Katsumi Nishikubo
Masayuki Nishi
Tomoaki Kubo
peaks attributable to other guest molecules, such as CO2, N2, or H2 S,
were not detected. Therefore, the ideal formula of chibaite is SiO2 ∙n(CH4,
C2H6, C3H8, i-C4H10 ), with nmax = 3/17.
Takumi Kato
The Discovery of Chibaite
Koichi Momma, a mineralogist from the National Museum of Nature
and Science, has found and described a new silica clathrate species,
“chibaite,” in collaboration with other members of JAMS. The new
mineral incorporates hydrocarbon molecules such as CH4, C2H6, C3H8,
and i-C4H10 in its silica framework. In 1998, Chibune Honma, a fossil
collector, discovered white quartz in tuffaceous sediments of Early
Miocene age (Hota Group) in the southern Boso Peninsula, Chiba
Prefecture, Japan. Naoki
Takahashi from the National
H i stor y
Mu s e u m
a nd
Institute, Chiba, analyzed the
quartz specimen, which had
an unusual, thick, hexagonal,
platy shape; however, electron microprobe analysis
revealed the presence of ordinary, simple silica. A few
years
l at e r,
K at s u m i
Nishikubo, a mineral collector from Chiba, collected
Chibaite
more specimens. Masayuki
Takada, a mineralogist from Kyoto, studied the crystal morphology of
the distinctive quartz and revealed it to be a pseudomorph composed
of {111} twins of octahedral crystals with cubic symmetry. Nishikubo
sent some transparent euhedral crystals to Tohoku University, where
Momma was studying silica minerals under the supervision of Toshiro
Nagase and Yasuhiro Kudoh. Momma carried out Raman spectroscopic
analyses on the crystals and detected methane and other hydrocarbons
occluded in the crystals. X-ray investigations revealed that the crystal
structure of Nishikubo’s sample is different from that of melanophlogite, the only silica clathrate mineral hitherto known. Chibaite
has been approved by the IMA Commission on New Minerals,
Nomenclature and Classification (#2008-067) and is described in detail
in Momma et al. (2011)1.
The Hota Group includes fore-arc sediments related to the Paleo-Izu
arc deposited near the plate margin at the triple junction of the Pacific,
Philippine Sea, and North America plates. Veins containing chibaite
fill fissures related to minor faults, in which thermogenic hydrocarbons
were deposited from fluids originating from deeply buried sediments.
Silica clathrate minerals store hydrocarbons that have vanished from
sedimentary rock and, therefore, provide new evidence for geological
carbon cycling at active plate boundaries.
1 Momma K, Ikeda T, Nishikubo K, Takahashi N, Honma C, Takada M, Furukawa Y,
Nagase T, Kudoh Y (2011) New silica clathrate minerals that are isostructural with
natural gas hydrates. Nature Communications 2: 196 (7 pages)
Chibaite is isotopological to the cubic structure II gas hydrate. It is
epitaxially intergrown with a minor amount of another, as-yet-unnamed
silica clathrate mineral, which is isotopological to the hexagonal structure H gas hydrate. Chibaite is colorless, has a vitreous luster, and has
no cleavage. Its refractive index, Mohs hardness, and calculated density
are 1.470(1), 6.5–7, and 2.03(1), respectively. The empirical formula
derived from the electron microprobe data is Na0.99 (Si134.53Al1.63)O272,
excluding the guest gas molecules in the cages. These constituents
comprise 90−92 wt% (average: 90.89 wt%), and the gas molecules comprise the remaining 8−10 wt%. Four types of hydrocarbons—CH4, C2H6,
C3H8, and i-C4H10 —were confirmed from the Raman spectra. Raman
E lements
231
Journal of Mineralogical and Petrological
Sciences Vol. 107 no 2, April 2012
Diffusion-controlled melting in granitic systems at 800–900 °C and
100–200 MPa: Temperature and pressure dependence of the minimum diffusivity in granitic melts
Takashi Yuguchi, Takashi Yamaguchi, Manji-rou Iwamoto, Hibiki
Eguchi, Hiroshi Isobe, and Tadao Nishiyama
Development of a fully automated open-column chemical-separation
system—COLUMNSPIDER—and its application to Sr-Nd-Pb isotope
analyses of igneous rock samples
Takashi Miyazaki, Bogdan Stefanov Vaglarov, Masakazu Takei,
Masahiro Suzuki, Hiroaki Suzuki, Kouzou Ohsawa, Qing Chang,
Toshiro Takahashi, Yuka Hirahara, Takeshi Hanyu, Jun-Ichi
Kimura, and Yoshiyuki Tatsumi
Silica dissolution catalyzed by NaOH: Reaction kinetics and energy
barriers simulated by quantum mechanical strategies
Osamu Tamada, Gerald V. Gibbs, Monte B. Boisen Jr., and J. Donald
Rimstidt
Finding of prehnite-pumpellyite facies metabasites from the
Kurosegawa belt in Yatsushiro area, Kyushu, Japan
Kenichiro Kamimura, Takao Hirajima, and Yoshiyuki Fujimoto
TES microcalorimeter SEM-EDS system for rare-earth elements
analyses
Seiichiro Uehara, Yasuhiro Takai, Yohei Shirose, and Yuki Fujii
Rhabdophane-(Y), YPO4 ·H2O, a new mineral in alkali olivine basalt
from Hinodematsu, Genkai-cho, Saga Prefecture, Japan
Yasuhiro Takai and Seiichiro Uehara
Raman and NMR spectroscopic characterization of high-pressure
K-cymrite (KAlSi3O8.H2O) and its anhydrous form (kokchetavite)
Masami KANZAKI, Xianyu XUE, Julien AMALBERTI, and Qian ZHANG
J une 2012
German Mineralogical Society
www.dmg-home.de
Siemens Research Center on Rare Earth
Elements at RWTH Aachen University
EMPG XIV in Kiel, Germany
The fourteenth Experimental Mineralogy, Petrology, and Geochemistry
(EMPG) Conference took place between March 4 and 7 at the Christian
Albrechts University in Kiel and was organized by the Department of
Mineralogy of that institution. More than 260 participants from 30
countries found their way to northern Germany, thus fulfilling the organizers’ intention to bring together researchers from all fields of experimental geosciences. Altogether, 230 abstracts were submitted (104 posters
and 126 oral presentations). The whole range of experimental research,
including geochemical, mineralogical, and petrological aspects, was covered. Because of the long distance to Kiel, the participation of some
attendees was made possible with the support of the European
Mineralogical Union (EMU) and the German Mineralogical Society
(DMG); this support is gratefully acknowledged by the organizers.
A wide range of topics was covered during the conference, including
the evolution of terrestrial planets and the early Earth, subduction zone
processes, and the deep Earth. Another theme concentrated on new
frontiers and developments in experimental applications and applied
geosciences. Examples were found in sessions dealing with the capture
and storage of CO2 and the exploration and disposal of energy-related
and hazardous materials.
During the last EMPG Conference, in Toulouse in 2010, an effort was
made to encourage closer links between theoretical simulations and
experimental approaches. Especially in topics like diffusion, reaction
kinetics, and small-scale deformations, stronger collaborations might
have great potential. During EMPG XIV, researchers with numerical
backgrounds presented their research in at least two sessions. Hopefully,
this effort will be continued or even enlarged in future conferences.
In their first research program
at a university anywhere in the
world, the Siemens group is
providing €6 million in
funding for a program of strategic collaboration on rare
earth elements with RWTH
Aachen University. The main
objective of the research proPeople at the Siemens Rare Earth Element
gram is the development of
Research Center at RWTH Aachen University
methods and processes for
ensuring an environmentally
friendly and efficient supply of rare earth elements for permanent magnet
production. This strategic project is a result of a long-term cooperative
agreement between Siemens and RWTH Aachen, a partner university in
the international Center of Knowledge Interchange (CKI) program.
The Siemens Research Center (SRC) follows the program structure of
the German Research Foundation (DFG) “Collaborative Research
Centers” (CRC). Like a CRC, it concentrates and coordinates RWTH
resources in the fields of economic geology and mineralogy, ore
dressing, metallurgy, and recycling, and enables researchers to pursue
a long-term research program across discipline boundaries. Taking part
in the SRC are five departments from RWTH Aachen University, another
from Forschungszentrum Jülich, and experts from Siemens’ Industry
Sector. At least nine PhD students will conduct their research under
the auspices of the program over the next four years.
The organization of this conference was exemplary. From the efficient
online registration, through the icebreaker event, to the conference
itself and the conference dinner, many helping hands made sure that
everything was working perfectly. Let’s not forget the many small
details, like continuously available coffee and cake, the friendly staff
in the cloakroom, and the speakers’ ready room. Special thanks go to
Philipp Kegler, Astrid Holzheid, their team, and all the helpers.
The SRC involves RWTH, Siemens, and experts in the supply chain
from REE minerals, ore deposits, ore processing, and metallurgical
refining to products. Thus, the research focus spans a “mine to magnet”
approach, from the identification of alternative REE deposits with
­detrimental components, through the development of environmentally
friendly and sustainable processes for recovery and extraction, to the
design of efficient methods for recycling and life cycle analyses. The
aim is to extend rare earth supply through improved mineralogical
resource information and ore beneficiation, and innovative separation
and recovery technologies.
Bastian Joachim
Michael Meyer
The First European Mineralogical Conference will be held at the Goethe-University in Frankfurt, Germany, 2-6 September 2012.
The contributing societies are:
DMG
MinSoc
MinSocFin
ÖMG
PTMin
RMS
SEM
SFMC
SIMP
SSMP
Deutsche Mineralogische Gesellschaft
Mineralogical Society of Great Britain & Ireland
Mineralogical Society of Finland
Österreichische Mineralogische Gesellschaft
Mineralogical Society of Poland
Russian Mineralogical Society
Sociedad Española de Mineralogía
Société Française de Minéralogie et de Cristallographie
Società Italiana di Mineralogia e Petrologia
Swiss Society of Mineralogy and Petrology
The themes for the conference are as follows: Mantle petrology and geochemistry; Magmatism and volcanology; Metamorphism; Applied
mineralogy; Mineral physics; Mineralogical crystallography; Planetary materials; Mineral deposits and raw materials; Low T geochemistry;
Geochronology; Geobiochemistry; Advanced analytical techniques; Archaeometry, care and preservation; Open session.
Invited lectures will be given by Hilary Downes, Thomas Stachel, Rod Ewing, Tim Elliott, and the IMA medallist David Green.
The scientific committee consists of one representative of each society.
WEB: emc2012.uni-frankfurt.de
The local organizing committee: Gerhard Brey, Heidi Höfer
E lements
232
MAIL: [email protected]
J une 2012
Mineralogical Association of Canada
www.mineralogicalassociation.ca
GAC-MAC Winnipeg 2013
The 2013 joint annual meeting of the
Geological Association of Canada and the
Mineralogical Association of Canada will be
held from May 22 to 24 at the Convention
Centre in downtown Winnipeg. The city is
located 29 km west of the longitudinal center
of North America and sits on the sediments of
the immense glacial Lake Agassiz. It is just a
short distance from one of the world’s largest
rare-metal pegmatites at Tanco, spectacular
outcrops of Paleozoic carbonate rocks in the
Interlake region, Precambrian rocks of the
Superior craton and Trans-Hudson orogen, and
a score of other geological attractions. As is
customary at a GAC-MAC meeting, the field
trip offering is exceptional. Here is a great
opportunity to discover the Tanco pegmatite,
the Flin Flon mining district, the Thompson
nickel belt, for example. Several short courses
will be offered before and after the meeting.
Details on registration, programs, and events
are available at:
www.gacmacwinnipeg2013.ca
Here are some of the symposia, special sessions, and field trips that will be of great
interest to the mineralogy–geochemistry–
petrology community. Check the website for
the full list.
Uranium: Cradle to Grave
Mineralogical Association of
Canada Short Course
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
May 20–21, 2013
Magmatic Ni-Cu-PGE-Cr Deposits: OreForming Processes with Implications
for Exploration
Michel Houlé, Valérie Bécu, Doreen E. Ames, Xue-Ming
(Erik) Yang, Paul Gilbert
Metamorphism in the Ore Environment
Chris Couëslan, Doug Tinkham, David Pattison,
Simon Gagné
Geomicrobiological and Biogeochemical
Advances in Environmental Systems
Ian Power, Lachlan MacLean
Impact Cratering: A Geological Process
Gordon Osinski, Richard Grieve
Terrestrial Analogues for Comparative
Planetary Geology and Astrobiology
Ed Cloutis, Gordon Osinski
Symposia
Earth Materials, Petrological
and Geochemical Processes
(in Honor of Frank C. Hawthorne)
Elena Sokolova, Norman Halden
Granitic Pegmatites – From Fascinating
Crystals to High-Tech Elements
(in Honor of Petr Černý)
Milan Novák
Special Sessions
Diamond: From Birth in the Mantle to
Emplacement in Kimberlite
Maya G. Kopylova, Yana Fedortchouk
Uranium: Cradle to Grave
Peter Burns
Rare Earth Elements in Melts, Fluids,
and Crystal Structures
Anton Chakhmouradian, Ian Coulson
The focus of this short course, which will immediately precede the GAC-MAC meeting, will be
the many aspects of uranium, an element that
changed the course of the world like no other.
Content will span the mineralogy, geochemistry,
and ore deposits of uranium, and will include
nuclear waste challenges and solutions, weapons
proliferation, and nuclear forensics for attribution and nuclear security. The short course will
bring together a panel of international experts
focused on educating graduate students, earlycareer scientists, and researchers seeking a
deeper involvement in the field. We invite you
to join us and enjoy topics central to this fascinating element’s history, complexity, environmental impact, and importance in global security. Topics and confirmed speakers/authors
include:
History of Uranium – Jessica Beard,
University of Notre Dame
Mineralogy and Crystallography – Sergey
Krivovichev, Saint Petersburg State University
Field Trips
Ore Deposits and Economic Geology –
Mostafa Fayek, University of Manitoba
The Tanco Mine: Geological Setting,
Internal Zonation, and Mineralogy of
a World-Class Rare Element Pegmatite
Deposit
Tania Martins, Paul Kremer, Peter Vanstone, Gary
Poetschke, Blair Skinner
Thermochemistry of Uranium Minerals
and Compounds – Alexandra Navrotsky,
University of California–Davis
Neoarchean Mafic-Ultramafic Intrusions
in the Bird River Greenstone Belt: Tectonic
Setting and Economic Significance
Paul Gilbert, James Scoates, Jon Scoates, Erik Yang,
Caroline Mealin, Michel Houlé, Carey Galeschuk
Precious and Rare Metals in the
Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Environment
Patrick Mercier-Langevin, Harold Gibson, Simon Gagné
The Volcanological and Structural
Evolution of the Paleoproterozoic Flin Flon
Mining District: The Anatomy of a Giant
VMS System
Harold Gibson, Bruno Lafrance, Sally Pehrsson,
Michelle Dewolfe, Kelly Gilmore, Renée-Luce Simard
Testing Links among Large Igneous
Provinces, Iron Formations, and
Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposits
Andrey Bekker, Richard Ernst
Metamorphosed Alteration Zones and
Regional Metamorphism: Examples from
the Trans-Hudson Orogen
Chris Couëslan, Doug Tinkham, Al Bailes, Simon Gagné
Layered Intrusions: New Paradigms and
Approaches to Understanding Magmatic
Processes
James S. Scoates, Jim Miller
Tectonic Evolution of the Thompson Nickel
Belt, Manitoba: Sedimentation, Structure,
and Magmatism in a Continent-Continent
Collisional Zone
Josef Macek, Herman Zwanzig, Chris Couëslan
E lements
Organizers : Peter C. Burns and Ginger E. Sigmon,
University of Notre Dame
233
Aqueous Geochemistry of Uranium –
Jeremy Fein, University of Notre Dame
Materials at the Nanoscale – Peter Burns,
University of Notre Dame
Mine Tailings Characterization and
Remediation – Michael Schindler, Laurentian
University
Ceramic Waste Forms for Actinides –
William Weber, University of Tennessee, and
Rodney Ewing, University of Michigan
Subsurface Uranium Mobility – John
Zachara, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Spent Nuclear Fuel – David Shoesmith,
University of Western Ontario
Actinide Borate Waste Forms for
Actinides – Thomas Albrecht-Schmitt,
University of Notre Dame
Pre-Detonation Nuclear Forensics –
Ian Hutcheon, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Post-Detonation Nuclear Forensics –
Antonio Simonetti, University of Notre Dame
J une 2012
Sociedad Española de Mineralogía
www.ehu.es/sem
STUDENT TRAVEL GRANTS
Thirteen travel grants worth 200 € each and financed by the Spanish
Mineralogical Society (SEM) will be available to help qualified master’s
and PhD students, as well as recent PhDs, attend the following
meetings:
SEM-SEA 2012 (5 grants). This conference is the joint scientific
meeting of the Spanish Mineralogical Society (SEM) and the Spanish
Clay Society (SEA). It will be held in Bilbao (Abandoibarra Paraninfo,
Bizkaia Aretoa Building) from 27 to 30 June 2012. This conference will
be the 32nd meeting of the SEM and the 22nd meeting of the SEA. The
local organizing committee is composed of members of the Department
of Mineralogy and Petrology of The Basque Country University (UPV/
EHU). An international seminar entitled “Archaeometry and Cultural
Heritage: The Contribution of Mineralogy” will be held on 27 June
2012. Two optional post-congress geological field trips in the Bizkaia
region will be organized: “Intracretaceous Volcanism in the Basque
Cantabrian Basin” and “Mineralogy of the Carranza Valley.”
First European Mineralogical
Conference (emc2012) (5 grants).
This meeting will be held in Frankfurt
am Main, Germany, on 2–6 September
2012. Registration and abstract submission are now open. More information is available on the emc2012 website, http://emc2012.uni-frankfurt.de.
Fourth EuCheMS
(3 grants). This
conference will be
the 4th congress of
the
European
A ssoc iat ion for
Chemical and Molecular Sciences. It will take place in Prague, Czech
Republic, on August 26–30, 2012. More information is available on the
4th EuCheMS website, http://euchems-prague2012.cz.
The travel grants will be awarded on the basis of the quality of the
submitted abstract, the absence of other sources of support available
to the recipient, and previous travel grants provided to attend meetings.
Applicants must send a copy the submitted abstract, their CV, and a
copy of the registration fee bank receipt to SEM Secretary Salvador
Morales ([email protected]).
Lyell_ad_185x135mm_v1_10-2011_Layout 1 07/10/2011 11:22 Page 1
New developments for 2012
Geological Society publications online
What is the Lyell Collection?
Launched in 2007 the Lyell Collection is an online collection
comprising the Society’s journal titles, Special Publications and
key book series. Cutting edge science sits alongside important
historical material, all captured and presented to the highest
electronic standards and benefiting from the extensive
functionality of HighWire Press’ H20 platform.
With 240 000 peer-reviewed pages, 25 000 articles and 1000
volumes, the Lyell Collection is an invaluable tool for the
researcher and student alike.
• Full text in HTML and PDF format
The Society is collaborating with Elsevier to launch a Lyell
Collection module on Geofacets. Selected titles will be available
on Geofacet’s searchable database of georeferenced geological
maps that enables geoscientists working in the early stages of
upstream exploration to assess a region’s or basin’s geological
characteristics.
• Intuitive search features designed for geoscientists
• Map overlays
• Access to thousands of georeferenced maps
• Links to associated articles
• For further information please contact [email protected]
Special Publication archives
• Actively linking to cited references
• Free public access to alerts, search functions and abstracts
• Selected open access articles
• Hosted by Highwire Press
Online archives of the first 300 volumes of the Geological
Society’s Special Publications are now available for sale on a
one-off, perpetual access basis. Prices include a 10% discount
for those purchasing the full archive (volumes 1–300)
New titles
The Geological Society
The Geological Society of London was founded in 1807 and
is the UK national society for geosciences, with over 10 000
members. It is a global leader in Earth science publishing,
dedicated to providing a high-quality service throughout
the world.
Two new archival titles will be launched and made available to
Lyell Collection Complete subscribers at no additional charge.
• Transactions of the Edinburgh society
• Transactions of the Glasgow society
To order the Lyell Collection or individual journal titles, or request further information or a free trial, please contact:
In UK and Europe: Email: [email protected] Telephone: +31 71 524 7630
In USA and Canada: Email: [email protected] Telephone: +1 617 395 4065
In Korea: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 82-2-598-2571 (ext. 230)
In Japan: Email: [email protected] Telephone: +81 (0)3 5327 5273
In Australian and New Zealand: Email: [email protected] Telephone: +61 7 5453-7675
In Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, SE Asia: Email: [email protected] Telephone: +886 2 8786 0601
In South America: Email: [email protected] Telephone: +55 (21) 3431-3430
All other regions: Email: [email protected] Telephone: +44 (0)1225 445046
Foundation Sponsors
For more information visit: www.lyellcollection.org
E lements
234
J une 2012
Association Internationale pour l’Étude des Argiles
www.aipea.org
E lements
235
J une 2012
MEETING REPORTS
Gordon Research Conference
Isotopes in Biological &
Chemical Sciences
Georges Pédro Day
The Société Française de Minéralogie et de Cristallographie sponsored
a day of talks on the theme “Georges Pédro and Soil Clays,” in Paris
on December 15, 2011. The meeting was organized by Christian Feller,
director of research at the Research Institute for Development (IRD), on
behalf of the French Association of Soil Studies (Association Française
pour l’Étude du Sol, AFES) and the French Clay Group (Groupe Français
des Argiles, GFA). About 100 colleagues and former students from near
and far came to share this special day. Georges Pédro is a world-scale
figure in clay mineralogy and soil science. He was a precursor in the
domains of nanoparticles, biogeochemical cycles and light chemistry.
He is a member of several academies, among which are the Academia
Europaea, the French Academy of Sciences and the Agriculture Academy
of France. He has long been a scientific advisor in agronomic sciences
The Gordon Research Seminar and Conference on Isotopes in the
Biological and Chemical Sciences met in Galveston, Texas, USA, on
February 5–10, 2012. The conference celebrated both the centennial
of the first observation of a stable isotope, the detection of Ne-22 by
Francis Aston, and the contributions of Jacob Bigeleisen to the calculation and interpretation of isotope effects on physical and chemical
processes. Isotopes in biogeochemical processes were prominently featured in sessions organized by Thomas Hofstetter and Ariel Anbar. In
the initial session, devoted to biogeochemistry and pollutant dynamics,
Thomas Hofstetter provided an introduction to the types of studies
that employ isotope-effect measurements. Martin Elsner (Institute
of Groundwater Ecology, Helmholtz Zentrum München) and Daniel
Hunkeler (University of Neuchâtel) presented research on isotopic fractionation in the environment attributable to microorganisms and the
interpretation of the mechanisms of decomposition. Alex Sessions (Cal
Tech) and Karen Casciotti (Stanford University) communicated data on
the use of H and N isotope fractionation to infer pathways of microbial metabolism.
On the second day, the presentations veered more towards the geochemical. Edwin Schauble (University of California, Los Angeles) gave a talk
on isotope thermometry requiring high-precision measurements. This
was followed by presentations by Laura Wasylenki (Indiana University)
on metal ion coordination and David Johnston (Harvard University)
on sulfur fractionation.
The Gordon Research Conference on isotopes has long focused on the
development and application of the theory of isotope fractionation. The
introduction and adaptation of the “Bigeleisen equation” was covered
by Alex van Hook, and other contributions toward the calculation of
isotope effects were presented by Steven Schwartz and Piotr Paneth.
The synergy of studying isotope fractionation in the environment coupled with the determination of isotope effects on enzyme systems was
apparent during the discussions at this meeting.
The Geochemical Society (through its Meeting Assistance Program),
the Biological Chemistry Division of the American Chemical Society,
and Thermo Fisher Scientific provided support for the conference. The
next planned meeting will be held in early February 2014 in Galveston.
Vernon Anderson
Conference Chair
at the OECD and a member of the DGXII Committee at the EEC. A
close friend of George Brindley and Jacques Mering, Georges Pédro
made pioneering contributions in clay science, including (1) the crystal
structure of clay minerals, (2) the spatial organization of weathering
profiles, (3) the global distribution of soils and weathering covers with
their specific mineral composition as related to the major climatic processes and (4) the protection of the soil resource and the role of soils
in sustainable development. He was the first to use extensively experimental approaches to constrain the physicochemical parameters governing weathering. He was among the first to use modern mineralogical
techniques to understand the nature, crystal chemistry and state of
hydration of clays and associated minerals in soils. He demonstrated
how the texture of soils, defined as an organized system, is directly connected to environmental conditions and affected by anthropic actions.
During the morning session, colleagues spoke of their interactions with
Georges Pédro at various stages of his 55-year-long career: Christian
Feller, André-Bernard Delmas, Daniel Tessier, Hélène Paquet, Alain
Ruellan, Adrien Herbillon, Jean-Paul Legros and Jean-Claude Leprun.
The morning session ended with a talk by Georges Pédro entitled
“Vision on a Life Devoted to Investigating Clays and Soils.” The afternoon session illustrated some recent developments: properties of soil
clays (Laurent Caner, University of Poitiers), interactions among clays,
organic matter and biological activity (Claire Chenu, AgroParisTech,
Grignon; Christian Feller, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement),
clays and health (Hervé Quiquampoix, Agronomic Research Institute,
Montpellier; Nicole Liewig, University of Strasbourg; Michel Rautureau,
University of Orléans), and clays as nanomaterials (Claudine Noguera,
University Pierre and Marie Curie). With a cocktail reception at lunch
time and extensive discussions at the end of the meeting, this special
day was an occasion for transmitting experience among generations of
scientists working on clays, soils and the environment.
Georges Calas and Hélène Paquet
E lements
236
J une 2012
BOOK REVIEW
Nature’s Nanostructures*
The Earth system, comprising geologic, hydrologic, biologic, atmospheric, and anthropic
subsystems, cannot be studied effectively
without crossing many traditional disciplinary
boundaries. Nature’s Nanostructures is a strategically named volume, edited by Amanda S.
Barnard and Haibo Guo, that exemplifies not
only the ease with which boundaries can be
crossed but also the necessity of doing so.
There is a natural tendency in nanogeoscience to want to show how nanoparticles are
“special” in that their chemical behavior differs from that of their macroscopic structural
counterparts. While interesting and important, this can sometimes lead to the impression that nanoparticles are merely idiosyncratic, an oddity. Overall, this book gives a
different impression—that nanoscale materials
and structures are a major part of the world we
live in. Nature’s Nanostructures includes explorations into biomaterials, photonic crystals,
extraterrestrial particles, aerosols, and anthropogenic/engineered particles in the environment. The book consists of an introductory overview and 20 chapters grouped into
four categories: Nanominerals and Mineral
Nanoparticles (with an emphasis on inorganic nanomaterials and aqueous settings),
Biominerals, Nanoparticles in Space and in the
Atmosphere, and Engineered Nanoparticles in
the Environment. Covering these subjects in
about 550 pages is a feat of brevity, considering
that there are about 130 pages of references,
along with a 9-page index and 20 blank or
title pages between chapters. Separate from the
550-page text is a 32-page section at the end
consisting of color versions of many of the figures in the text. The book is thus an unusually
broad overview and not a deep exploration of
one subject (though certain chapters might be
considered exceptions). While some chapters
delve into moderate mathematical detail, for
the most part the chapters are relatively short
and liberally referenced to encourage further
reading.
An initial chapter attempts a rough quantification of global nanoparticle reservoirs and
fluxes, akin to an elemental geochemical cycle.
Following this are several chapters on oxides,
particularly iron oxides and hydroxides, and a
chapter on pyrite surface energies. Proceeding
along largely inorganic lines, subsequent
chapters deal with noble metal nanoparticles
(including so-called “invisible gold” in sulfide
ore minerals), diamondoids, and “negative curvature” nanoparticles (nanoscale pores) with
a focus on uranium transport. The section
on biominerals then starts with an overview
of nanoscale biominerals of many different
types (from shell and bone minerals to bio-
magnetites). The next two chapters are concerned with magnetic biominerals, including
nanoscale magnetoreceptors in birds and bird
navigation. A theory-based chapter deals with
ways in which organisms can direct nucleation and growth of nanominerals. The last
chapter in the section notes that “all iridescence in nature arises from photonic crystals”
and discusses the case of photonic crystals in
beetles. Anyone who has taught an introductory course in which the origin of the Solar
System is related to literally nebulous “dust
clouds” will appreciate the three chapters at
the beginning of the section on nanoparticles
in space and in the atmosphere. These chapters treat everything from vapor condensation
models and aggregation to dust that enters the
Earth’s atmosphere. The discussion gradually
comes down to Earth (sorry, I couldn’t help
it) in the form of a chapter on the formation
of atmospheric aerosols. Aerosol-formation
events mostly occur in the daytime, emphasizing the importance of photochemistry in
such processes.
The final section covers engineered nanoparticles, although the degree to which nanoparticles are intentionally (as opposed to inadvertently) “engineered” is open to debate. The
section essentially deals with anthropogenic
nanoparticles in the environment. Diesel
engines and bioparticles (including everything from viruses to pollen) exemplify inadvertent nanoparticle production. Chemical
processes in industry taking advantage of
chemical vapor deposition, particle deposition, and aggregated particle deposition result
in nanomaterials that can also enter the environment. The final paragraphs in this chapter
deal with the relatively new field of nanotoxicology. Allophane and imogolite in soils are
treated next (with relevance to soil organic
matter and carbon sequestration), followed
by a final chapter focusing largely on organic
nanomaterials in the environment and their
transformations (one section even deals with
engineered quantum dots and their effect on
algal photosynthesis).
This is not a textbook in which one will find
separate chapters on the chemical and physical underpinnings of nanoscience. No chapters are devoted to the origin of quantum size
effects, to the nature of the aqueous electric
double layer around nanoparticles, or to the
lack of band bending and potential differences
between the surface and interior of small particles. Some of this information is scattered
throughout the chapters, of course, but the
book largely assumes basic familiarity with
physical chemistry.
Nature’s Nanostructures will be of interest to
those wanting to learn more about the broad
field of nanostructures in the environment.
It will also be useful as a reference source,
in which brief chapters are backed up with
many references. It will be less useful as a textbook on nanogeoscience. That said, the book
occupies an important niche between what
one might call the “primary literature” (the
papers referenced in each chapter of the book)
and basic information that one can obtain in
a few seconds in a Google search. It contains
a great deal of information that is difficult to
assemble in any other form. For anyone even
remotely concerned with nanoparticles and
nanoscience in the environment, this book is
worth reading because it just might change
and broaden one’s perspective.
Carrick M. Eggleston ([email protected])
Center for Photoconversion and Catalysis and
Department of Geology and Geophysics
1000 E. University Ave.
University of Wyoming, Laramie,
WY 82071, USA
* Barnard AS, Guo H (eds) (2012) Nature’s
Nanostructures. Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore,
ISBN 978-981-4316 (hardcover), ISBN 978-981-4364
(eBook), 554 pages
E lements
237
J une 2012
CALENDAR
2012
June 23 Short Course Workshop: The
Role of Metasomatism in Geological
Processes, Montreal, Canada. Web site:
www.vmgoldschmidt.org/2012/index.
htm.
June 24–29 Gordon Research
Conference: Grand Challenge Frontiers
in the Aquatic Environmental Sciences,
Holderness, NH, USA. Web page: www.
grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2012&prog
ram=enviwater
June 24–29 Gordon Research Conference: Flow & Transport in Permeable
Media, Les Diablerets, Switzerland.
Web page: www.grc.org/programs.
aspx?year=2012&program=flow
June 24–29 Gordon Research
Conference: Research at High ­Pressure,
Biddeford, ME, USA. Web page: www.
grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2012&prog
ram=highpress
June 24–29 Goldschmidt 2012,
Montreal, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
goldschmidt2012.org; website: www.
goldschmidt2012.org
June 25–28 Comparative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets, Boulder,
CO, USA. Web page: www.lpi.usra.edu/
meetings/climatology2012
June 27–30 SEM-SEA 2012 Congress
(joint scientific meeting of the Spanish
Mineralogical Society and the Spanish
Clay Society), Bilbao, Spain. Web page:
www.ehu.es/semsea2012/home.htm
July 2–6 4th International Congress
Eurosoil 2012, Bari, Italy. Website: www.
eurosoil2012.eu
July 7–11 49th Clay Minerals Society
Annual Meeting, Golden, CO, USA.
Web page: www.clays.org
July 8–13 Gordon Research Conference: Corrosion – Aqueous, New
London, NH, USA. Web page: www.grc.
org/programs.aspx?year=2012&progra
m=corrosion
rd
July 9–13 Inter/Micro: 63 Annual
Applied Microscopy Conference,
Chicago, IL, USA. Web page: www.mcri.
org
July 13–15 Second Conference on
the Lunar Highlands Crust, Bozeman,
MT, USA. Web site: www.lpi.usra.edu/
meetings/lunarhighlands2012
Applications, New London, NH, USA.
Web page: www.grc.org/programs.aspx?
year=2012&program=solidstate
July 28–August 1 International
Symposium on Zeolites and Microporous Crystals (ZMPC2012), Hiroshima,
Japan. E-mail: [email protected]; web
page: www.zmpc.org
July 28–August 2 American
Crystallographic Association (ACA)
Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, USA. Web
page: www.AmerCrystalAssn.org
July 29–August 2 Microscopy and
Microanalysis 2012, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Web page: www.microprobe.org/events/
microscopy-microanalysis-2012
July 29–August 3 Gordon
Research Conference: Organic
Geochemistry, Holderness, NH, USA.
Web page: www.grc.org/programs.
aspx?year=2012&program=orggeo
July 29–August 3 Gordon
Research Conference: Scientific
Methods in Cultural Heritage
Research: Non-Destructive Imaging
and Micro-Analysis in Cultural
Heritage, West Dover, VT, USA.
Web page: www.grc.org/programs.
aspx?year=2012&program=heritage
August 1–4 6th International
SHRIMP Workshop, Queensland,
Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
au; web page: www.ga.gov.au/minerals/
projects/current-projects/geochronologylaboratory/geochronology-workshop.
html
August 2–10 34th International
Geological Congress, Brisbane,
Australia. E-mail: [email protected]; web
page: www.34igc.org
July 15–20 9th International Symposium on Environmental Geochemistry,
Aveiro, Portugal. Web page: http://9iseg.
web.ua.pt
July 22–27 Gordon Research
Conference: Design and Properties of
Materials for Energy and Environment
August 6–11 ECM-27 – European
Crystallographic Meeting, Bergen,
Norway. Web page: http://ecm27.
ecanews.org
September 1–8 Formation of the
Sierra Nevada Batholith: Magmatic
and Tectonic Processes and Their
Tempos, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA.
Web page: www.geosociety.org/
fieldForums/12sierraNevada.htm
October 7–11 MS&T’12: Materials
Science & Technology Conference and
Exhibition, combined with ACerS 114th
Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Web page: www.matscitech.org
September 3–7 Planet Formation
and Evolution 2012, Munich, Germany.
Web page: www.usm.uni-muenchen.
de/people/preibisch/planets2012/index.
html
September 4–9 MECC2012: 6th MidEuropean Clay Conference, Prague, CZ.
Website: www.mecc2012.org
September 10–12 The Mantle
of Mars: Insights from Theory,
Geophysics, High-Pressure Studies,
and Meteorites, Houston, TX, USA. Web
page: www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsmantle2012
August 12–17 Annual meeting
of the Meteoritical Society, Cairns,
Queensland, Australia. Details: Trevor
Ireland, e-mail: [email protected]
au; web page: http://shrimp.anu.edu.
au:16080/metsoc2012/Welcome.html
September 13–17 ICDP Workshop: Scientific Drilling of the Samail
Ophiolite, Sultanate of Oman, Palisades
NY, USA. www.ldeo.columbia.edu/gpg/
projects/icdp-workshop-oman-drillingproject
August 12–17 Gordon Research
Conference: Water & Aqueous
Solutions, Holderness, NH, USA.
Web page: www.grc.org/programs.
aspx?year=2012&program=water
August 20–24 AGU Chapman
Conference on Hawaiian Volcanoes:
From Source to Surface, Waikoloa, HI,
USA. Web page: www.agu.org/meetings/
chapman/2012/dcall
October 8–12 AGU Chapman
Conference: The Agulhas System and
Its Role in Changing Ocean Circulation, Climate, and Marine Ecosystems,
Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South
Africa. Web page: www.agu.org/meetings/chapman/2012/ecall
October 9–11 Russian Mineralogical
Society Annual Session combined with
the Fedorov Session, Saint Petersburg,
Russia. Web page: www.minsoc.ru/confs.
php?cid=988
October 15–19 7th Annual Short
Course: Fluids in the Earth, Naples,
Italy. E-mail: [email protected];
web page: www.fluidenv.unina.it
October 19–21 Meteorites: Insights
into Planet Composition: 19th Meeting
of the Petrology Group of the Mineralogical Society of Poland, Obrzycko,
Poland. E-mail: [email protected]; web
page: http://ptmin2012.amu.edu.pl
October 22–25 5th International
ANDRA Meeting: Clays in Natural
and Engineered Barriers for Radioactive Waste Confinement, Montpellier,
France. Website: www.montpellier2012.
com
October 22–26 Short Course:
Introduction to Secondary Ion Mass
Spectroscopy in the Earth Sciences,
Potsdam, Germany. Web page: www.
gfz-potsdam.de/portal/gfz/Struktur/
Departments/Department+4/sec42/
Infrastruktur/GFZ+SIMS+Laboratory/
ShortCourse
September 17–20 Geoanalysis 2012,
Búzios, Brazil. Web page: www.ige.
unicamp.br/geoanalysis2012
November 4–7 Geological Society of
America (GSA) Annual Meeting,
Charlotte, NC, USA. Web page: www.
geosociety.org/meetings
September 19–21 Japanese Association of Mineralogical Sciences Annual
Meeting, Kyoto University, Japan. Web
page: jams.la.coocan.jp/e_meeting.html
November 7–9 MEI Process Mineralogy 12 Conference, Cape Town,
South Africa. Web page: www.min-eng.
com/processmineralogy12/index.html
September 23–26 SEG Conference
Latin America: Integrated Exploration
and Ore Deposits, Lima, Peru. E-mail:
[email protected]; web page: www.
segweb.org/activities/PeruConferenceFlyer.pdf
November 16–17 10th Swiss Geoscience Meeting, Bern, Switzerland. Web
page: http://ssmp.scnatweb.ch
September 23–29 4th International
Workshop on Collapse Calderas,
Vulsini, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]
it or [email protected]; web page:
www.gvb-csic.es/CCC.htm
August 19–24 Gordon Research
Conference: Feedback Processes in
Rock Deformation, Andover, NH, USA.
Web page: www.grc.org/programs.
aspx?year=2012&program=rockdef
E lements
October 1–5 Workshop on
Application of Diffusion Studies to
the Determination of Timescales in
Geochemistry and Petrology, Bochum,
Germany. Web page: www.minsocam.
org/MSA/SC/#diffusion
September 5–13 The 4-D Adamello
Conference, Bagolino, Italy. Web page:
www3.unil.ch/wpmu/adamello2012
August 19–23 244th ACS National
Meeting & Exposition, Philadelphia, PA,
USA. Web page: www.acs.org
July 15–20 Gordon Research
Conference: Geochemistry of
Mineral Deposits, Andover, NH, USA.
Web page: www.grc.org/programs.
aspx?year=2012&program=geochem
August 27–31 AGU Chapman
Conference on Communicating
Climate Science: A Historic Look to
the Future, Thira, Santorini, Greece.
Web page: www.agu.org/meetings/
chapman/2012/ccall
September 2–6 Serpentine Days,
Porquerolles Island, France. E-mail:
Gaelle Dufour ([email protected]
fr), web page: http://sfmc-fr.org/spip.
php?article131
August 12–17 Gordon Research
Conference: Solid State Studies in
Ceramics, South Hadley, MA, USA.
Web page: www.grc.org/programs.
aspx?year=2012&program=ceramics
July 15–20 BIOGEOMON 2012:
The 7th International Symposium on
Ecosystem Behavior, Northport, ME,
USA. Web page: www3.villanova.edu/
conferences/biogeomon
September 26–27 11th Geochronological Conference “Dating of
Minerals and Rocks XI”, Kielce, Poland.
Web page: www.ujk.edu.pl/ geochronology2012
September 2–6 First European
Mineralogical Conference, EMC2012:
Planet Earth – from Core to Surface
(joint meeting), Johann Wolfgang
Goethe-University, Frankfurt, Germany.
E-mail: [email protected];
web page: emc2012.uni-frankfurt.de
August 12–17 Gordon Research
Conference: Biomineralization,
New London, NH, USA. Web page:
www.grc.org/programs.
aspx?year=2012&program=biomin
July 15–19 International Congress
on Ceramics (ICC4), Chicago, IL, USA.
Web page: http://ceramics.org/4thinternational-congress-on-ceramics-icc4
August 27–29 7th International
Conference on Mineralogy and
Museums, Dresden, Germany. E-mail:
[email protected]; web page:
www.conventus.de/mm7
September 24–26 2nd Conference
“Contemporary Problems of Geochemistry”, Kielce, Poland. Web page: www.
ujk.edu.pl/geochemistry2012
238
November 18–23 Cities on Volcanoes 7, Colima, Mexico. E-mail: [email protected]
citiesonvolcanoes7.com; website: www.
citiesonvolcanoes7.com
November 25–27 Third Conference on Terrestrial Mars Analogues,
Marrakech, Morocco. Web site: www.
ibnbattutacentre.org/conf/mars2012
November 25–December 3 International School on Fundamental
Crystallography, Uberlândia, Brazil.
E-mail: [email protected]
uhp-nancy.fr; web page: www.crystallography.fr/mathcryst/uberlandia2012.php
Cont’d on page 239
J une 2012
CALENDAR
Cont’d from page 238
November 26–30 MRS Fall Meeting,
Boston, MA, USA. Web page: www.mrs.
org/s_mrs/index.asp
December 1–8 International
Workshop on Magmatic Ore Deposits.
Karnataka, India. E-mail: [email protected]
gmail.com; web page: www.sites.google.
com/site/ptsymposium
December 3–7 AGU Fall Meeting,
San Francisco, CA, USA. Details forthcoming
th
December 5–8 13 European
Meeting on Environmental Chemistry,
Moscow, Russia. Web page: www.europeanace.com/about/meetings
2013
January 16–19 Granulites and
Granulites 2013, Hyderabad, India.
Web page: http://geology.curtin.edu.au/
granulites2013.cfm
January 27–February 1 37th International Conference and Expo on
Advanced Ceramics and Composites,
Daytona Beach, FL, USA. Webpage:
http://ceramics.org/meetings/acersmeetings
June 9–14 Water–Rock Interaction 14 (WRI 14), Avignon, France.
E-mail:[email protected]; web
page: www.wri14-2013.fr/en/home.html
2014
January 26–31 38th International
Conference and Expo on Advanced
Ceramics and Composites, Daytona
Beach, Florida, USA. Details forthcoming
July 2013 11th International
Congress of Applied Mineralogy,
China. Details forthcoming
March 16–20 247th ACS National
Meeting & Exposition, Dallas, TX, USA.
Web page: www.acs.org
July 1–5 1st International Conference on Tomography of Materials and
Structures, Ghent, Belgium. E-mail:
[email protected]; website: www.
ictms.ugent.be
June 9–13 Goldschmidt Conference,
Sacramento, CA, USA. Details forthcoming
July 7–12 17th International Zeolite
Conference, Moscow, Russia. Website:
www.izc17.com
August 10–14 248th ACS National
Meeting & Exposition, San Francisco,
CA, USA. Web page: www.acs.org
July 8–12 11th European Congress
for Stereology and Image Analysis,
Kaiserslautern, Germany. Details: Prof.
K Schladitz ([email protected]
fraunhofer.de)
September 1–5 21st General
Meeting of the International
­Mineralogical Association (IMA2014),
Johannesburg, South Africa. E-mail:
[email protected]; web page: www.
ima2014.co.za
July 20–24 IAVCEI General Assembly
2013: Forecasting Volcanic Activity,
Kagoshima, Japan. Details: Masato Iguchi,
e-mail: [email protected];
web page: www.iavcei.org/IAVCEI.htm
September 7–14 Annual Meeting of
the Meteoritical Society, Casablanca,
Morocco. Webpage: www.meteoriticalsociety.org
July 29–August 2 Annual Meeting
of the Meteoritical Society, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. Web page: www.­
meteoriticalsociety.org
February International DTTG-Workshop on Qualitative and Quantitative
Analysis of Clays and Clay Minerals,
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT),
Germany. Web page: www.dttg.ethz.ch/
home_en.html
March 3–7 TMS Annual Meeting,
San Antonio, TX, USA. Web page: www.
tms.org/Meetings/Meetings.aspx
March 18–22 44th Lunar and
­Planetary Science Conference (LPSC
2013), Houston, TX, USA. Web page:
www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2013
October 12–16 MS&T’14: Materials
Science & Technology Conference and
Exhibition, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Web
page: www.matscitech.org/about/futuremeetings
October 19–22 Geological Society of
America Annual Meeting, Vancouver,
BC, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]; web page: www.geosociety.
org/meetings
The meetings convened by the
societies partici­pating in Elements are
highlighted in yellow. This meetings
calendar was compiled by Andrea
Koziol (more meetings are listed on
the calendar she maintains at http://
homepages.udayton.edu/~akoziol1/
meetings.html). To get meeting
information listed, please contact her
at [email protected]
Parting Quote
It is not enough to have a good mind;
the main thing is to use it well
August ECM-28 – XXVIII European
Crystallographic Meeting, Warwick, UK.
Details forthcoming
R ené Descartes • 1596-1650
August 4–8 Microscopy & Microanalysis 2013, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Web page: www.microprobe.org/events
Advertisers in this Issue
August 25–30 Goldschmidt 2013,
Florence, Italy. Website: www.­
goldschmidt2013.org
AHF Analysentechnik August 26–30 Meteoroids 2013,
Poznan, Poland. Web page: www.astro.
amu.edu.pl/Meteoroids2013/index.php
CAMECA
169
Bruker
178
Inside front cover
CrystalMaker
171
March 27–29 Volcanism, Impacts
and Mass Extinctions: Causes and
Effects, London, England. Web site:
http://massextinction.princeton.edu
September 2–10 10th International
Eclogite Conference, Courmayeur,
Aosta Valley, Italy. Web page: www.
iec2013.unito.it
Excalibur Mineral Corporation
220
April 1–5 MRS Spring Meeting &
Exhibit, San Francisco, CA, USA. Web
page: www.mrs.org/spring2013
September 8–12 246th American
Chemical Society National Meeting &
Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Web
page: www.acs.org
Geological Society of London
234
IMA 2014
220
April 7–11 245th American Chemical
Society (ACS) National Meeting &
Exposition, New Orleans, LA, USA. Web
page: www.acs.org
April 24–28 Basalt 2013 – Cenozoic Magmatism in Central Europe,
Görlitz, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]
senckenberg.de; web page: www.
senckenberg.de/root/index.php?page_
id=15387&preview=true
September 24–27 Whistler 2013:
Geoscience for Discovery, Whistler, BC,
Canada. Web site: www.seg2013.org
May 22–24 Geological Association
of Canada /Mineralogical Association
of Canada Annual Meeting, Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada. Web page: www.
mineralogicalassociation.ca/index.
php?p=35
IsoPrime
175
McCrone Microscopes and Accessories
178
167
Inside back cover
SPECTRO
173
The Geochemist’s Workbench
Back cover
Thermo Scientific
179
job postings
See www.elementsmagazine.org/jobpostings
October 27–31 MS&T’13: Materials
Science & Technology Conference and
Exhibition, Montréal, QC, Canada. Web
page: www.matscitech.org/about/futuremeetings

You have a position to fill at your
­department or lab? Advertise it in
Elements or on the Elements website.

Looking for a job?
November 18–21 26th International
Applied Geochemistry Symposium
2013 Incorporating the New Zealand
Geothermal Workshop, Rotorua, New
Zealand. Web page: www.gns.cri.nz/iags
Check our website
www.elementmagazine.org
December 1–6 MRS Fall Meeting
& Exhibit, Boston, MA, USA. Web page:
www.mrs.org/fall2013
E lements
220
Savillex October 27–30 Geological Society
of America Annual Meeting, Denver,
Colorado USA. E-mail: [email protected]; web page: www.geosociety.
org/meetings
May 19–22 AAPG 2013 Annual
Convention & Exhibition, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA. Web page: www.aapg.org
180
Geochemical Transactions
Rigaku
October 2013 CMM Autumn School:
Moisture Measurement in Porous
Mineral Materials, Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology (KIT), Germany. Web page:
www.cmm.kit.edu/english/index.php
May 5–8 Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum
2013 Conference & Exhibition,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Web page:
www.cim.org/calendar/calender.
cfm?Year=All
FEI 239
J une 2012
PARTING SHOTS
A Ruin and
Two Earthquakes
References
Minoura K, Imamura F, Sugawara D, Kono Y,
Iwashita T (2001) The 869 Jogan deposit and
recurrence interval of large-scale tsunami on
the Pacific coast of northeast Japan. Journal of
Natural Disaster Science 23: 83-88
Satake K, Namegaya Y, Yamaki S (2008) Numerical
simulation of the AD 869 Jogan tsunami in
Ishinomaki and Sendai plains. Active Fault and
Earthquake Center, Report No. 8: 71-89 (in
Japanese with English abstract)
Photo courtesy of Tohoku History Museum and Miyagi
Prefectural Research Institute of the Tagajo site
The photograph shows the ruin of a local
government castle of the Jogan era at Tagajo,
located just north of Sendai, approximately 5
km from the present coastline. It was damaged
during the Jogan earthquake in 869 AD. This
earthquake had an estimated magnitude of 8.3
and caused a tsunami that seriously damaged
the northeastern coast of Japan. The record of
this tsunami and its effects are not only evidenced by the tsunami deposits but are part of
the historical record of that time (see Minoura
et al. 2001). The Jogan tsunami sediments can
be found up to four or even five kilometers
inland from today’s coastline in the deposits
of the Sendai and Ishinomaki plains (Satake et
al. 2008). Tagajo is an old castle town and was
one of the cities hit by the Jogan earthquake
and tsunami; 1000 lives in the old town were
lost due to the tsunami (Minoura et al. 2001).
Board of Education Report No. 167, 1995, in
Japanese), about 300 meters south of the ruin
shown in the photo.
Flood waters from the 2011 tsunami came
within one kilometer of the southern edge of
the district (Geospatial Information Authority
of Japan, www.gsi.go.jp/common/000061572.
pdf). As the coastline was 1 km inland from
today’s coast during the Jogan era, we can conclude that the tsunamis of 869 and 2011 were
comparable in size because the difference in
their flood fronts corresponds to the difference in the coastline between 869 and today.
And a bit of geography
According to the Miyagi Prefectural Research
Institute of the Tagajo site (www.thm.pref.
miyagi.jp/kenkyusyo/explanation_tagajoato.
html, in Japanese), buildings, including the
ruined castle, of the local government of
Tagajo were first constructed in 724 AD (first
stage), repaired in 762 (second stage), and
reconstructed in 780 after fire damage caused
by a local war (third stage). In 869, the local
government buildings were destroyed by the
Jogan earthquake and possibly by the subsequent tsunami, but they were reconstructed
afterwards (fourth stage). Finally, the local
government district (about 1 km × 1 km) was
destroyed in the middle of the 11th century.
The photo, therefore, may not show the ruin
after the Jogan earthquake. The ruin in the
photo is almost in the center of the district.
A road gutter that was probably destroyed by
the Jogan tsunami can be observed near the
south gate of the district (Miyagi Prefectural
E lements
Map showing the 47 prefectures of Japan. They are
grouped into 9 regions, from north to south: Hokkaido,
Tohoku (yellow), Kanto (green), Chubu (blue), Kansai
(dark blue), Chugoku (brown), Shikoku (purple), Kyushu
(grey), and Okinawa. Reproduced from Wikimedia Commons
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Regions_and_Prefectures_
of_Japan_2.svg)
240
J une 2012