MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160339961 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-251

What were the main sources of sediment and associated radiocesium transported during the heavy 2019 typhoons in rivers draining the main Fukushima radioactive plume, Japan ?

2021· article· en· W3160339961 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Evrard, Roxanne Durand, Atsushi Nakao, J. Patrick Laceby, Irène Lefèvre, Yoshifumi Wakiyama, Seiji Hayashi, Cécile Asanuma-Brice, Olivier Cerdan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTyphoonSedimentPlumeLandslideHydrology (agriculture)ErosionRadionuclideEnvironmental scienceDebrisGeologySTREAMSChannel (broadcasting)OceanographyGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineeringMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The Fukushima nuclear accident released large quantities of radionuclides into the environment in March 2011 and generated a 3000-km² plume of soils heavily contaminated with Cs-137. Soil erosion in the region mainly takes place during typhoons generally occurring between July and October (Laceby et al., 2016). During these events, rivers draining the main plume may transport large quantities of sediment and radiocesium. Typhoon Hagibis that occurred in October 2019 was the most intense rainfall event affecting the Fukushima region (rainfall range: 77–558 mm) since the nuclear accident in 2011. It led to extensive landsliding and river overflow.</p><p>The impact of this event on sediment sources and Cs-137 contamination was quantified through the implementation of sediment fingerprinting using geochemistry and spectrocolorimetry as potential input properties. The signature of potential source material (including cropland prepared for recultivation after decontamination, forests and subsurface material originating from landslides and channel bank collapse; n=57) was compared with that of sediment deposits collected in the Mano and Niida River catchments late in October 2019. Results show that cropland supplied the main source of sediment (average: 54%) along with forests (41%). In contrast, the contribution of subsurface material (5%) was much lower, likely because landslides and channel bank erosion mainly took place after the flood peak (Evrard et al., 2020). However, this material that deposited at the foot of hillslopes after the typhoon may be mobilized and delivered to the river network by subsequent rainfall events.</p><p>Overall, this flood did not modify the decreasing trend observed in terms of Cs-137 contamination in sediment transiting these rivers between 2011 and 2019. Concentrations in Cs-137 observed in sediment collected in 2019 were on average 84–93% lower than those measured after the accident in 2011. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of decontamination conducted on agricultural and residential soils in the region (Evrard et al., 2019), although the role of forests – that have not been remediated – as a perennial source of sediment and radiocesium in the region remains to be investigated over the longer term.</p><p>References</p><p>Evrard, O., Durand, R., Nakao, A., Patrick Laceby, J., Lefèvre, I., Wakiyama, Y., Hayashi, S., Asanuma-Brice, C. and Cerdan, O., 2020. Impact of the 2019 typhoons on sediment source contributions and radiocesium concentrations in rivers draining the Fukushima radioactive plume, Japan. Comptes Rendus Géoscience, 352(3): 199-211.</p><p>Evrard, O., Laceby, J.P. and Nakao, A., 2019. Effectiveness of landscape decontamination following the Fukushima nuclear accident: a review. SOIL, 5(2): 333-350.</p><p>Laceby, J.P., Chartin, C., Evrard, O., Onda, Y., Garcia-Sanchez, L. and Cerdan, O., 2016. Rainfall erosivity in catchments contaminated with fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20(6): 2467-2482.</p><p> </p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207