4.4 Article

Evidence of the radioactive fallout in France due to the Fukushima nuclear accident

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 54-60

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2012.01.024

关键词

Fukushima accident; Radioactive fallout; Radioiodine; Radiocesium; France

资金

  1. R2DS programme (Ile-de-France Region)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Radioactive fallout due to the Fukushima reactor explosion in Japan was detected in environmental samples collected in France. The presence of I-131 in aerosols (200 +/- 6 mu Bq m(-3)) collected at the Pic du Midi observatory, located at 2877 m altitude in the French Pyrenees, indicated that the Japanese radioactive cloud reached France between 22 and 29 March, i.e. less than two weeks after the initial emissions, as suggested by a Cs-137/Cs-134 ratio of 1.4. Cesium radioisotopes (Cs-134 and Cs-137) were not detected in this sample but they were present in the aerosol sample collected the next week, i.e. between 29 March and 05 April (about 10 mu Bq m(-3)). We also report I-131 activities measured in grass (1.1-11 Bq kg(-1): fresh weight) and soil samples (0.4 Bq kg(-1)) collected in the Seine River basin between 30 March and 10 April. The Cs-134 from the damaged Fukushima power plant was also detected in grass collected in the Seine River basin between 31 March and 10 April (0.2-1.6 Bq kg(-1) fresh weight, with a Cs-137/Cs-134 ratio close to 1, which is consistent with Fukushima radioactive release). Despite the installation of a network of nested stations to collect suspended matter in the upstream part of the Seine River basin, I-131 was only detected in suspended matter (4.5-60 Bq kg(-1)) collected at the most upstream stations between 30 March and 12 April. Neither I-131 nor Cs-134 has been detected in environmental samples since the end of April 2011, because of the rapid decay of I-131 and the very low activities of Cs-134 (about 400 times lower than after Chernobyl accident). (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据