Researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Studies (NIES) had their paper published in the electronic version of "Geophysical Research Letters" published by the American Geophysical Union on August 11, and they announced the result of their research in Japan on August 25.
The paper was submitted on June 27, and they kept quiet until the research was published. The researchers at this government institute therefore knew all along how bad the contamination was all over southern Tohoku and all of Kanto and part of Chubu.
Abstract of the paper titled "Atmospheric behavior, deposition, and budget of radioactive materials from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011" by Yu Morino, Toshimasa Ohara,* and Masato Nishizawa, Regional Environment Research Center, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2, Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8506, Japan:
To understand the atmospheric behavior of radioactive materials emitted from theFukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant after the nuclear accident that accompanied the great Tohoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011, we simulated the transport and deposition of iodine-131 and cesium-137 using a chemical transport model. The model roughly reproduced the observed temporal and spatial variations of deposition rates over 15 Japanese prefectures (60–400 km from the plant), including Tokyo, although there were some discrepancies between the simulated and observed rates. These discrepancies were likely due to uncertainties in the simulation of emission, transport, and deposition processes in the model. A budget analysis indicated that approximately 13% of iodine-131 and 22% of cesium-137 were deposited over land in Japan, and the rest was deposited over the ocean or transported out of the model domain (700 × 700 km2). Radioactivity budgets are sensitive to temporal emission patterns. Accurate estimation of emissions to the air is important for estimation of the atmospheric behavior of radionuclides and their subsequent behavior in land water, soil, vegetation, and the ocean.
No other nuclides are discussed in the paper. But just for these two, if you look at the deposition and concentration simulation maps below, you see that at least half Fukushima Prefecture is "red", not just along the coast, which means the highest deposition of both iodine-131 and cesium-137 in high concentration. Southern Miyagi is just as bad as Fukushima , so is part of Ibaraki and Tochigi.
From their paper (page 19) - top row is the cumulative surface deposition amount of iodine-131 and cesium-137 from March 11 to 29; the bottom row is the average concentration of iodine-131 and cesium-137, again from March 11 to 29:
Now that their paper has been safely published, I wonder if these researchers will speak up (or the government will allow them to speak up) on the subject of radioactive contamination in much of Tohoku and Kanto. I doubt it, but I hope so. I wish they had spoken up much earlier, but I understand that having their paper published by a prestigious foreign academic society is very important for a scientific researcher.
(While I do understand the restriction on the researchers like not allowing them to publish the data before the paper is peer-reviewed and published, but I do wonder if the academic society or the magazine would have given them some sort of waiver. The paper was not about Chernobyl cesium deposition 25 years after people were evacuated from the area; it is about an on-going disaster where many people's lives may be at stake. Oh well.)