Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die

reply to post by undo
The biggest problem with Fukushima is for Japan.

Our above ground testing almost certainly caused people to die due to increased cancer rates around the world, but we tested in a remote location to keep those deaths to a minimum.

The radiation being released in Japan is so very close to highly populated areas.

reply to post by Observer99


Explantion: Yes ... but statistically... if 100kg of mox fuel was ejected... the chances of dying just went up 35.25 quadrillion times at the maximum! [ie most extreme WITHIN the ballpark measure]

Now using the 31 deaths from acute radiation poisoning at Chernobyl ... out of 6 Billion people on the planet at that time = 1 death per 200 million people ... Thats the baseline.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now to refine my maths on the mox fuel.

en.wikipedia.org...

Mixed oxide fuel, commonly referred to as MOX fuel, is nuclear fuel that contains more than one oxide of fissile material. MOX fuel contains plutonium blended with natural uranium, reprocessed uranium, or depleted uranium. MOX fuel is an alternative to the low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel used in the light water reactors that predominate nuclear power generation. For example, a mixture of 7% plutonium and 93% uranium reacts similarly, although not identically, to LEU fuel.

Ok then 7% is way lower than 100% ... so lets recalibrate and just focus on the plutonium in the mox fuel.

So whats 7% of 35.25 quadrillion??? = 2469078015000000 atoms ... That's still about 2.5 [rnded up] QUADRILLION atoms of plutonium... per person!

Ok now... lets use your data on 50micrograms per kilo of body weight and average body weight of 80kg.

That means 4milligrams [of plutonium] is enuff to definately kill a single person.

Now 244grams of plutonium was 1 MOLE of plutonium and was

= Avogadro's No# in atoms ie 6.0221415 × 10^23 atoms

/ 244 = 2468090778688524590164 [rnded up] atoms of plutonium per 1gram

/ 1000 = 2468090778688524590 [rnded down] atoms of plutonium per 1milligram

x 4 = 9872363114754098360 [as is] atoms is required to kill a single person GARANTEED!

Now ....

7kg / 0.004g = 1750000 [rnded down] 100% lethal doses in 7kg of plutonium [7% of the MOX fuel remember]

7billion people / 1750000 100% fully lethal doses = 1 in 4000 chance of dying.

Thats an increase in chance of dying of 50000 times compared with the 31 chernobyl deaths. [ie 1 in 200 million]

Thats 5million % increase in chance of DEATH [per person] at the maximum for just the plutonium in the mox fuel.

2211474285432690280000000000 cubic metres of atmosphere AND ocean [(8.5km x earth entire surface area) + (3.79km x earths entire oceanic surface area.) note: both sourced from WIKI and everything converted to cubic meters [a billion fold increase]]

= 0.008 [rnded up] atoms of plutonium [spread evenly throughout the WHOLE atmosphere]

PER 1 cubic metre [ie 1m^3] of atmosphere ... Thats 1 atom of plutonium per ever 5mtrs^3 [ie. 125 cubic metres].

**************************************************************************


So I reduced that maximum extreme ballpark figure from 35.25 quadrillion fold increase per person down to a far more reasonable [? ] 50000 increase in chance of death from plutonium worldwide.

I also showed that if it was ubiquitously spread everywhere it would be inescapable!!!

Now remember how I JUST FOCUSED on the plutonium which was a measily 7% of the 100kg mox fuel figure that I started with [and which was arbitrarily chosen a-priori condition and does not reflect reality in any way at all ok] ... that still leaves 93% [ie 93kg of uranium] at 238grams of uranium per 1 MOLE of uranium.

Personal Disclosure: I have yet to do that maths on that .... Anybody still want to tell me that we are not on the ....

reply to post by OmegaLogos


in what way does this act like nuclear bomb fallout?
i need comparative analysis. they must share something in common.

reply to post by undo


Explanation: I wouldn't have any clue as to that as I didn't base any of my equations on any such data sets.

I approached the situation in an idealized and global manner as much as I could.

I used the acute deaths from radiation sickness data from Chernobyl as a known case of deaths from an event such as Fukushima is.

That gave me a very basic baseline of garanteed deaths world wide from the Chernobyl event.

Everything after that is PURE speculation on my part. I might have speculated accurately or not?

Someone needs to check my maths to confirm or deny the accuracy possesed in my post.

We also need to confirm whether any material was ejected at all and in what amounts.

Personal Disclosure: I am NOT an expert .. in anything! Take my post with a pinch of iodized salt ok!

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by OmegaLogos

 

in what way does this act like nuclear bomb fallout?
i need comparative analysis. they must share something in common.

They are both radioactive?

Nuclear fission articles exist in Wiki.

Fission makes the fuel breakdown and become other elements. Some of these elements are also radioactive. They may also be better at travelling. In a bomb, these reactions happen fast and end fast.

In a pile that is critical, or in this case multiple cases of delayed criticality, the reaction just keeps going and going creating these other radioactive particles. (In controlled burn, I'm sure they are created as well, but they are contained and are being neutralized by the gases/liquids used for containment which are neutron poisons.)

reply to post by Mdv2


Good thing I live on the eastern side of Canada, in Ontario. I heard of the earless bunny story, messed up.
Go figure no one tells a straight story of the danger level, "hey let's just lie to them, until they get radiated and die and tell them at the last minute"

I imagine some people will blow this story way out of proportion. But either way, a health risk to tons of life here on earth, we are ruining our planet, and those making a profit don't give a flying f**k.

We only have one earth, you kill earth, you kill life. Stop trying to f**k us over

Bunnies, like all things, are sometimes born with defects without any help from a melting nuclear reactor guys.

You don't see them so often, because mother bunnies EAT them when they are born.

Rabbits are gross.

Originally posted by Anthony1138
reply to post by Mdv2

 

Good thing I live on the eastern side of Canada, in Ontario.

Oh yeah.... "Good thing"

reply to post by undo


Explanation: Ok here is what OL worked out on the back of a NEW envelope.

Nuclear Fallout [wiki]

After an air burst, fission products, un-fissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues vaporized by the heat of the fireball condense into a fine suspension of small particles 10 nm to 20 µm in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere, particularly if the explosive yield exceeds 10 kt.

Ok lets look at the FALLOUT from 2 dirty nuclear explosions ...

Fat Man [wiki]

The result was that in the Fat Man bomb, about 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) of the 6.2 kilograms (14 lb) of plutonium in the pit (about 17%) fissioned. In this process 1 gram (0.035 oz) of matter in the bomb was converted into the active energy of heat and radiation (see mass-energy equivalence for detail), releasing the energy equivalent of 21 kilotons of TNT or 88 TJ.

And ...

Little Boy [wiki]

It contained 64 kg of uranium, of which less than a kilogram underwent nuclear fission, and of this mass only 0.6 g was transformed into energy. [EDITED to add] It exploded with an energy between 13 and 18 kilotons of TNT (54 and 75 TJ) (estimates vary).

So IF IT HAPPENED as I speculated [ie 100kg of mox fuel ejected] it would be the equivilent of the fallout from BOTH Hiroshima AND Nagasaki COMBINED! But obviously without all the dual man made suns scorching the place up!

Things to deeply consider!

The Nuclear explosion of both types of ww2 dirty nukes seriously both atomizes and spreads the nuclear fallout at a far GREATER level than would have happened at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. [weather conditions ommited]

Say a single mostly whole mox fuel rod was ejected and was recovered intact!

That would seriously drop the potential for death by acute radiation poisoning to almost the background level that existed before the event even occured.

There are so many variables that to give any further comment would be highly misleading!

Personal Disclosure: I hope that my speculations on this can also be qualified and either debunked or confirmed.

P.S. Thanks for asking!

reply to post by Aeons


can you explain how radioactive particles from fukishima differ from radioactive particles from above ground nuclear bomb tests? and what causes them to travel farther and to what extent, while they are travelling farther, they are more radioactive than or as radioactive as, nuclear bomb fallout? i'm not arguing that radioactive stuff is good for humans, cause i know it's not, what i'm trying to determine is just how much we should be worried about this situation, globally, cause if it's as bad as the article suggests and can travel farther (retaining its potency?) it's not just japan, the pacific islands and the west coast that's in danger.

also, i note that some of this may be related to the animal rights groups who were mad at japan for their impact on whales and dolphins, one of whom actually said that the event was punishment for japan because they were hurting whales and dolphins, adding something like "it serves them right!". when in reality, there's a bunch of crap going in the water too that'll hurt marine life of all kinds alot worse than the fishing industry ever dreamed of or intended for that matter. sometimes, the desire to feel justified is stronger than common sense.

reply to post by undo


Ah, see I have no intention of defending the authour of the articles conclusions.

Is there an impact of from the increase in radioactivity? Sure. Does anyone really know what that will do? No.

I don't really see what you are missing about what I said before. Imagine a nuclear bomb going off for 5 months, slowly.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


thank you for the info. do you know if the weather conditions of the time of the fukishima disaster were sufficient to make the initial events equivalent to nuclear bomb fallout or if the conditions, because of variability of weather, have been both sufficient and insufficient to approximate nuclear bomb fallout?

reply to post by Aeons


i know this is going to sound ignorant (and it is, pretty much, that and laziness) but are you saying the thing is still spewing? you mean they haven't attempted to entomb it like chernobyl?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Aeons

 

i know this is going to sound ignorant (and it is, pretty much, that and laziness) but are you saying the thing is still spewing? you mean they haven't attempted to entomb it like chernobyl?

Yes, the reactors (that's multiple) are still going and it is not entombed in anyway. If anything, there is melt through and some of one core has melted into the bedrock where it is being washed in the water from the ocean seeping through the beach.

Awesomeness.

These reactors are not going to be entombed. Tepco and Japan are in the process of active managment of delayed criticality, and this seems to be the way they plan on managing this for the foreseeable future.

reply to post by Aeons

These reactors are not going to be entombed. Tepco and Japan are in the process of active managment of delayed criticality, and this seems to be the way they plan on managing this for the foreseeable future.

You are absolutely correct on all counts here.

I don't see how it is possible to entomb them, situated on the beach as they are. That is obviously something that no one planned for, entombing reactors at nuclear power plants in the event of a meltdown. If they had, we wouldn't have had Three Mile Island melt down in the middle of the Susquehanna River, it was only a gnats butt away from poisoning the Chesapeake Bay forever.

reply to post by Aeons


no long range plans? like, fix them and plug the leak into the bedrock? also, this is yet another ignorant but necessary question: how does slow radiation leak in this case, differ from naturally occuring radioactive rocks in the earth's crust, as far as how it will or will not impact air and water?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Mdv2

 

There are major problems with this Fukushima thing. Reporting on it seems important, but then again, there really isn't anything that anybody can do about it, so what's the point? I suppose people in Japan, and on the West Coast could decide to not get pregnant for awhile, that might delay the affects? They cannot contain the radiation, it is going to travel the world regardless of our actions. It will add to the other toxic things we already breath and ingest. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but premature births and infant deaths have been on the rise for about a decade already! Here in Florida, we are the worst in the nation!

I am mad at the press for not doing their jobs, but then again, there is really nothing any of us can do about this disaster, we just have to ride it out and hope mother nature somehow corrects it.

We still haven't see the full effects of the BP Oil spill yet! It will take a full decade before the statistics support what most of us already suspect. Now we can say the same for the Japanese disaster. 10 or 20 years from now it will be so clear in hindsight.

Greetings:

Please help us understand what you are saying here:

Reporting on it seems important, but then again, there really isn't anything that anybody can do about it, so what's the point?

The point of what? Keeping information about the horrific spread of radioactive Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Xenon-133 - to name just the more prevalent dangers to life as we know it on this planet - from the public view?

Perhaps this will interest you also. (For those of you who might have just tuned in, these are the types of stories we have been discussing here. Some are "fresh" news items plucked from recent headlines and tossed up for discussion. Others are yesterday's news and most interesting when viewed through the lens of time.)

To set today's stage, some recent information from various sources:

25 March 2011
Japan Nuclear Crisis:
The Four Destroyed Reactors at Fukushima Was About 70 Billion Lethal Doses

(San Francisco) – Physics Professor Paolo Scampa announced March 23, 2011 that the four destroyed reactors at Fukushima, Japan was about 70 Billion Lethal Doses, finely divided. Professor Scampa used only official IAEA data (International Atomic Energy Agency).

According to the US Census Bureau, there are approximately 6 Billion, 907 Million people on Earth today.

The wrecked General Electric nuclear reactors contained enough radioactive, highly poisonous fuel to kill every person on Earth about 10 times.

The poison is in the atmosphere and spreading all over the world from Japan in 9  to 10 days.
www.infiniteunknown.net...

The Rhenish Institute for Environmental Research at the University of Cologne, Germany stopped publishing the following caesium 137 map that represented the potential dispersion of the radioactive cloud over the northern hemisphere.

The map shows the caesium 137 which disperses itself mostly in water so the biggest risk areas are around the Fukushima plant. Cs-137 has a half life of 30.17 years.

After entering the body, caesium gets more or less uniformly distributed through the body, with higher concentration in muscle tissues and lower in bones.

The biological half-life of caesium is rather short at about 70 days. Experiments with dogs showed that a single dose of 3800 μCi/kg (approx. 44 μg/kg of caesium-137) is lethal within three weeks.

Please note that these maps are of total column atmospheric concentration.

From their site: "This simulation is a so-called "worst case scenario" with continuous release rate. The value of 0.001 Bq/m3 correspond to approximate one millionth of the concentration at the source.

At distances more than appr. 2000 km away from the source, the concentrations are not harmful to health. The simulation starts fictitious at 15.03. 00 UTC and will continue to run in order to demonstrate the intercontinental transport.

When exact release rates are published we will restart the simulation with reliable values."

25 March 2011
On 25 March, IAEA indicated that in the long term, caesium-137 (with a half-life of 30 years) would be the most relevant isotope as far as doses was concerned and indicated the possibility "to follow this nuclide over long distances for several years."





The organization also said it could take months or years for the isotope to reach "other shores of the Pacific".

Where does this information come from? Previous data suggests that radiation reached the mainland U.S. in a matter of days after 3/11.

The poison is in the atmosphere and spreading all over the world from Japan in 9  to 10 days.

The following map shows the potential release plume of Xenon-133. Although Xenon has been released globally, it is considered a far more inert and harmless form of radioactivity (half life of 5 days) in comparison to the far more dangerous iodine-131 and caesium-137.

The observational data of the CTBTO now show a clear decrease of the worldwide radioactive concentrations outside of Japan.

Therefore we now do not continue with the predictions for the northern hemisphere. We thank you for your lively interest in our work, for many questions and comments.

25 March 2011
US Government Admits Radiation Found In Milk from Washington State

Raw milk is poison, whereas irradiated milk is safe!

(Wall Street Journal) –The U.S. government said Wednesday that traces of radiation have been found in milk in Washington state, but said the amounts are far too low to trigger any public-health concern.

The Environmental Protection Agency said a March 25 sample of milk produced in the Spokane, Wash., area contained a 0.8 pico curies per literlevel of iodine-131, which it said was less than one five-thousandth of the safety safety guideline set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The EPA said it increased monitoring after radiation leaked from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. It expects more such findings in coming days, but in amounts “far below levels of public-health concern, including for infants and children.”

Iodine-131 has a half-life of about eight days, meaning levels should fade quickly. “These findings are a minuscule amount compared to what people experience every day,” the agency said.

26 March 2011
International Commission Recommends Japan Temporarily Increase Radiation Limits For Public

An international advisory body has recommended the Japanese government temporarily raise the annual limit of radiation exposure for the general public in light of the ongoing crisis at the quake- and tsunami-crippled nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture.



The government stipulates that regular citizens in Japan should be exposed to no more than 1 millisievert of radiation per year, but the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) on March 21 recommended the limit be tentatively raised to 20 to 100 millisieverts per year, with the nuclear crisis showing no signs of abating.

The institution pointed out that even if the power plant comes safely out of the critical situation, areas affected by the accident will remain radioactive for many years to come. Therefore, it suggested, even after the power plant crisis is resolved, the government should keep the upper limit at 1 to 20 millisieverts per year before it gradually brings it back to its original 1, in order
to prevent residents of Fukushima Prefecture from abandoning their hometowns.

Both targets proposed by the advisory body greatly exceed the current limit set by the Japanese government, but the ICRP — which normally recommends the annual limit of radiation exposure for nuclear facility workers be set at 50 millisieverts and that for the general public at 1 millisievert — says the proposal is to protect the future of areas facing radioactive contamination.

It is said that radiation exposure in excess of 100 millisieverts per year may slightly increase the risk of cancer.

28 March 2011
EPA Monitoring Continues to Confirm That No Radiation Levels of Concern Have Reached the United States

Release date: 03/28/2011
Contact Information: EPA Press Office [email protected]

WASHINGTON – During detailed filter analyses from 12 RadNet air monitor locations across the nation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified [color=limegreen]trace amounts of radioactive isotopes consistent with the Japanese nuclear incident.

"...consistent with the Japanese nuclear incident."

Newspeak? WTH does this actually mean? Remember, these are the same people who refuse to answer direct questions about the number and locations of these monitors.

Pop Quiz: An EPA Radiation Monitor is placed (outside) (inside) a structure and has an effective range of (3 feet) (300 ft) (3 miles) (30 miles) (300) miles).

(Hint Remember, only 140 of these high-tech devices provide adequate "protection" (monitoring) from radiation for the entire United States, including Alaska and Hawaii.

Some of the filter results show levels slightly higher than those found by EPA monitors last week and a Department of Energy monitor the week before. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are still far below levels of public health concern.

EPA’s samples were captured by monitors in Alaska, Alabama, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands and Washington state over the past week and sent to EPA scientists for detailed laboratory analysis.

Detailed information on this latest round of filter results can be found at: epa.gov...

28 March 2011
EPA: Expect More Radiation in Rainwater

The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday reported finding elevated levels of iodine-131, a product of nuclear fission, in rainwater in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The levels exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) permitted in drinking water, but EPA continues to assure the public there is no need for alarm.
(...)
Note: Since the post was originally published, the Environmental Protection Agency launched a new open-data system where it posts laboratory results from its sampling of air, precipitation, drinking water and milk. The new system can be found here: RadNet Sampling Data.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s RadNet system is designed to detect radiation from accidents like the Fukushima disaster in Japan and from foreign nuclear tests. It displays a map of the United States with monitoring stations highlighted. Click on one for a graphic representation of its data.

EPA U.S. Radiation Monitor Map

Last night the graphs were displaying no data—in the wake of EPA’s revelation that radiation had been detected in rainwater. Above empty frames appeared the message, in bold: “To-date, levels recorded at this monitor have been thousands of times below any conservative level of concern.”

But when the system is working, it collects data from more than 140 monitoring stations that sniff the air at three times the rate of normal human breathing. The stations collect particles on filters, analyze their radioactivity and transmit data hourly to EPA, where officials review the numbers and post the graphs online within two hours.

RadNet also issues a daily report, which almost always says, “EPA’s RadNet radiation air monitors across the U.S. show typical fluctuations in background radiation levels. The levels detected are far below levels of concern.


The radiation you seek to monitor is not here. Move along...

28 March 2011
Radioactive Iodine-131 in Pennsylvania Rainwater Sample is 3300% Above Federal Drinking Water Standard

Governor Corbett Says Public Water Supply Testing Finds No Risk to Public From Radioactivity Found in Rainwater, Pennsylvania Office of the Governor, March 28, 2011:

The [Iodine-131] numbers reported in the rainwater samples in Pennsylvania range from 40-100 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Although these are levels above the background levels historically reported in these areas, they are still about 25 times below the level that would be of concern. The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is three pCi/L. …

On Friday, rainwater samples were taken in Harrisburg, where levels were 41 pCi/L and at nuclear power plants at TMI and Limerick, where levels were 90 to 100 pCi/L.

Corbett emphasized that the drinking water is safe and there is no cause for health concerns. …
“Rainwater is not typically directly consumed,” Corbett said. “However, [color=limegreen]people might get alarmed by making what would be an inappropriate connection from rainwater to drinking water. By testing the drinking water, we can assure people that the water is safe.” …

"...inappropriate connection from rainwater to drinking water..."

We are at a loss for words.

30 March 2011

EPA officials have said they are monitoring the air carefully because of the leaks and explosions at the Fukushima nuclear plant following a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami in mid-March.

Several EPA air monitors across the nation have detected very low levels of radioactive material, consistent with estimated releases from the damaged nuclear reactors, according to www.epa.gov.

EPA also has stepped up monitoring of precipitation, milk and drinking water, and officials said radioactivity detected has been far below levels of public health concern.

So the EPA was prepared with release estimates for an event on the scale that Fukushima appears to be now?

30 March 2011
EU Drastically Raises Radiation Limits For Food!

Berlin / Munich. The consumer organization foodwatch and the Environment Institute Munich eV have criticized the information policy of the federal government on food safety after the nuclear disaster in Japan. Federal Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner as in days of “enhanced control measures” and “special protection standards ” – it informs the public but does not make clear the fact that the EU-wide limit values for the radioactive contamination of foodstuffs from the affected areas in Japan increased over the weekend.

It was previously a cumulative radioactivity of Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 and allowed maximum of 600 becquerels per kilogram, this past weekend up to 20 times higher ceilings of up to 12,500 becquerels per kilogram for certain products in Japan in force.

So according to Foodwatch, the upper limit is now 20 times higher for Cesium-134 and Cesium-137.

And our politicians have been prepared for this disaster since 1987!

They had the ‘new’ regulation already stored in the drawer,  just in case another nuclear disaster would happen! One would have a sure bet if you wager that food reaching the upper radiation limits after Chernobyl would have been considered totally contaminated before Chernobyl.

31 March 2011
Radioactive Iodine-131 in Rainwater Sample Near San Francisco Was 18,100% Above Federal Drinking Water Standard

March 31st, 2011 at 06:33 PM
UCB Rain Water Sampling Results, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Nuclear Engineering:

Iodine-131 was measured in a rainwater sample taken on the roof of Etcheverry Hall on UC Berkeley campus, March 23, 2011 from 9:06-18:00 PDT. The 3 Liters of rainwater collected contained 134 Becquerels of Iodine for an average of 20.1 Becquerel per liter, which equates to 543 Picocuries per liter .

The federal drinking water limit for Iodine-131 is 3 Picocuries per liter, putting the rainwater sample at 18,100% above the federal drinking water limit.

20.1 Becquerel per liter (Bq/L) = 543 Picocuries per liter (pCi/L)

The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is 3 pCi/L.

Conversion calculator here.

And that is a recap (by no means complete) of some of the relevant stories from only
the last six (6) days in March of 2011.

We welcome all participation, comments and suggestions.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

To be continued...

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw

Even a low dose of radiations
are extremelly dangerous
its like death has marked you when you are expose to such amount
especially in Japan .. THEY SHOULD EVACUATE THE ENTIRE ISLAND
they received 5 nuclear bomb in total .. ill let you count the other 2 ..

I dont know but if they care about their future generation not to become mutants suffering from multiple difformities

Japan is now inhabitable in a long term view
they should flee from Japan and its the same for the west of the usa
those place are now wastelands .. Chernobyl is still a toxic wasteland
at Chernoby the difference was only 1 small reactor and no uranium reserves
in Japan they had 3 meltdown core and nothing to cool down the reserve
it is 100-1000 time worst in Japan then Chernobyl

who can confirm this with me ?
might even be 10 000 .. we cant know for sure when the autorities are lying to avoid mass panic
now they talk no more about it on the news
the 15 trillions debts is very weak now .. it can implode at all moment

Radiation levels going off the scale?

Just change the scale.

Problem solved.

Now back to Dancing With the Survivors....

reply to post by thorfourwinds


Explanation: St*rred!

(San Francisco) – Physics Professor Paolo Scampa announced March 23, 2011 that the four destroyed reactors at Fukushima, Japan was about 70 Billion Lethal Doses, finely divided. Professor Scampa used only official IAEA data (International Atomic Energy Agency).

According to the US Census Bureau, there are approximately 6 Billion, 907 Million people on Earth today.

The wrecked General Electric nuclear reactors contained enough radioactive, highly poisonous fuel to kill every person on Earth about 10 times.

The poison is in the atmosphere and spreading all over the world from Japan in 9 to 10 days.
www.infiniteunknown.net...

Now ....

7kg / 0.004g = 1750000 [rnded down] 100% lethal doses in 7kg of plutonium [7% of the MOX fuel remember]

7billion people / 1750000 100% fully lethal doses = 1 in 4000 chance of dying.

Thats an increase in chance of dying of 50000 times compared with the 31 chernobyl deaths. [ie 1 in 200 million]

Thats the difference between 100kg [7kg of plutonium] and the entire power plants entire nuclear fuel load plus all the extra stored nuclear waste material etc.

Its a 40000 times difference between my worst case scenerio and the absolute maximum worse case scenerio.

Thanks for providing linked information that my maths estimate was well within the ball park of whats possible!

Personal Disclosure: And thanks also for providing weather simulations etc.