Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fukushima radioactive material “has reached the west coast as of June 2013 by ocean transport”
http://enenews.com/professor-fukushima-radioactive-material-reached-the-west-coast-as-of-june-2013-by-ocean-transport-health-risks-to-be-determined-by-ongoing-monitoring ^

Posted on 01/11/2014 2:44:11 PM PST by truthfinder9

Jay T. Cullen, Associate Professor of marine chemistry at the University of Victoria, Daily Kos diary, Jan. 4, 2014: [...] Fukushima derived Cs has reached the west coast as of June 2013 by ocean transport but [the] concentrations of Cs continue to be well below levels thought to pose environmental or public health threats. There have been a number of popular press articles that [...] report the timing of the arrival of the radionuclides but offer no perspective on the actual levels and the associated risk to residents of the west coast (e.g. link). [...] About 93% of radioactivity in seawater results from the presence of primordial, naturally occurring potassium-40 (K-40) and rubidium-87 (Rb-87). The remaining 7% are radioactive elements deposited to the ocean from past atmospheric nuclear testing. [...] Fukushima derived Cs was detected all the way to the coast in June 2013 with the highest levels of Cs-137 farthest offshore (0.0009 Bq/L or roughly 0.006% of background radiation) and lower levels of 0.0003 Bq/L toward the coast [...] Ongoing monitoring will constrain the likely environmental and health risks posed by ocean transport of Fukushima derived radionuclides.

Note the professor changed the units to Bq/L for Cs-134 and -137, instead of using Bq/m3 as in the source document (pdf). The above amounts must be multiplied by 1,000 to get Bq/m3.

In addition, the figures provided by the professor appear to be inaccurate:

According to the source document, it’s Cs-134, not Cs-137, that measured 0.9 Bq/m3 (or 0.0009 Bq/L if you modify the units like the professor). The professor writes that in June 2013 there were “lower levels of 0.0003 Bq/L toward the coast” — This amount is not in the measurements for 2013, the only mention of it was in 2012: “Levels of 137Cs equal to 0.3 Bq/m3 measured at Sta. P26 in 2012.”

Last month in a Vancouver-area newspaper Prof. Cullen wrote: “the natural level of radioactivity on average in the oceans is about 13 Bq/L, against which radioactivity resulting from human activities and disasters should always be discussed.” What is the basis of this claim that “natural radioactivity levels should always be discussed” when “radioactivity resulting from human activities” is mentioned?

“In the ocean (and human body) different radionuclides have different fate and toxicity,” according to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s senior scientist Ken Buesseler (who mentions his ability to be quoted in media reports downplaying Fukushima-related data).

Also be aware that fish can bio-concentrate cesium-137 at a rate of 100 times the level found in the surrounding water. For seals and sea lions it’s up to 1,000 times. (Source: IAEA)


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Japan; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: bhoasia; death; fukushima; pacificocean; radiation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

1 posted on 01/11/2014 2:44:12 PM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

This is probably not good.


2 posted on 01/11/2014 2:45:58 PM PST by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Hmm..maybe time to consider a move inland from Puget Sound..


3 posted on 01/11/2014 2:50:59 PM PST by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Daily Kos??


4 posted on 01/11/2014 2:52:30 PM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

“This is probably not good.”

Please explain.


5 posted on 01/11/2014 2:55:02 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

It’s TEOTWAWKI!


6 posted on 01/11/2014 2:57:31 PM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

Sure seems like it on FR today.


7 posted on 01/11/2014 2:59:32 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

And I feel fine.


8 posted on 01/11/2014 3:00:27 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

Don’t eat seafood, don’t swim in the ocean. Problem solved. The risk from doing so is very small but not zero. Avoid these activities and the risk returns to the same level it was befor March 2011. People have NO idea how small a Bequerel is....and the amounts being found are measured in fractions of a Bq. If you or anyone you know ever had a perfusion heart scan due to chest pain they received a dose of radioactive technetium.
A typical dose for this procedure is 1,480,000,000 Bequerels.


9 posted on 01/11/2014 3:00:36 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

I’m hoping all the wildly overblown scaremongering will convince people to stop eating fish so I can get it cheaper


10 posted on 01/11/2014 3:02:01 PM PST by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

Three garbage threads on Fukushima in ten minuets...impressive.


11 posted on 01/11/2014 3:02:37 PM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Three Gators in a row!


12 posted on 01/11/2014 3:03:27 PM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

If a Freeper can’t believe what’s in the Daily Kos what can he believe?

How close is the Seattle stadium to the shore? could radioactivity be affecting Brees’ throwing?


13 posted on 01/11/2014 3:04:18 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

“Three garbage threads on Fukushima in ten minuets...impressive.”

But we had a cold fusion thread which means we are all saved.


14 posted on 01/11/2014 3:04:35 PM PST by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

So they have established a baseline?

Fukushima has been pouring hundreds of tons of contaminated water into the ocean every day for 3 years now and if the waste has arrived at North America, this is only the leading edge. The concentration must go up from here because of the continuous dumping that has already occurred (continues to migrate from Fukushima to North America) and daily dumping of contaminated water that will continue to occur for many years (duration uknown - there is no known fix for this problem). So it’s too soon to say “it was sufficiently diluted” because so much of what has already been dumped into the ocean has not made it across the Pacific yet. Also, because even small amounts of exposure to radiation increases risk of serious illness by small amounts. I don’t feel celebratory.


15 posted on 01/11/2014 3:07:08 PM PST by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

LOL. Let me guess, initial small gains of energy showing hope for future use?


16 posted on 01/11/2014 3:07:33 PM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

I think it’s a record.


17 posted on 01/11/2014 3:08:02 PM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Did the ancients know they were ancients? Or did they see themselves as presents?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman

Don’t eat seafood, don’t swim in the ocean. Problem solved.
_________________________________________________

Since the ocean deposits salt and other minerals on the rocks and shoreline, why wouldn’t contaminates end up on our beaches and being blown with sand inland?


18 posted on 01/11/2014 3:09:27 PM PST by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EEGator; dfwgator; TexasGator

It’s a gator-nado!


19 posted on 01/11/2014 3:14:49 PM PST by carriage_hill (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

Sand does not bind with Cs atoms, neither does NaCl. There will likely be a tiny amount of Cs and other isotopes that do get carried distances by the wind.....just as the dust blown around the country from the Colorado plateau has radiactive elements mixed in.....again in vanishingly small concentrations. Such amounts are measures in fractions of a Bq.....an amazingly small amount. The risk is not zero for people......just VERY VERY close to zero. Normalcy bias.....people are freaking out about the one in a million+ chance they will die from Fukushima and ignore the one in a thousand chance they will die in a car crash. They scream about pbysics they simply cannot comprehend while stuffing their faces and bloating from fat to obese....doubling or even tripling the chances they die THIS YEAR from a heart attack. Worry about the things that are truly dangerous to you....not the theoretical risks.


20 posted on 01/11/2014 3:21:01 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson