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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
To: ransomnote
OK. I’ll dispense with civility and say it more bluntly. Those who insist there is a big problem here are flat out ignorant or lying and I wonder why.

There, fixed that for you.

The total radiation detected on the West Coast was on the order of 5-6 Bq/m3. That means the natural background radiation due to Cs-137 is larger than the amount added by the reactor leak. The EPA standard (way lower than even most scientists would say was a safe dosage) for cesium-137 in drinking water is 3700 Bq/m3. That's for continuous use as drinking water. So you either have no clue what you are talking about, or you are lying for some agenda. Which is it?

41 posted on 01/11/2014 4:44:51 PM PST by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Hwaet! Lar bith maest hord, sothlice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
Those who insist there is no problem, nothing to see here are flat out lying and I wonder why.

And your proof of that is?

Sheesh. You're just like the idiots who blew hard over the bioconcentration of pesticides farce.

I post to clarify because people like you intentionally mislead.

I haven't misled anyone on this thread because I am not stupid enough to have posted a strident opinion on it. If you are admittedly unsure of the magnitude of relative risk, when it has been shown to be small compared to others that are known and significant, then STFU until you are more certain.

And no, I'm not involved in any industry in any way affected by nuclear power.

42 posted on 01/11/2014 4:59:30 PM PST by Carry_Okie (0-Care IS Medicaid; they'll pull a sheet over your head and take your home to pay for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
the Daily Kos is what George Washington, could not have been more clear about the 'enemy within' and John Adams stated There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

Pelosi and Reed have the daily cos written across their foreheads................

43 posted on 01/11/2014 5:11:29 PM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

Thank you for sharing that.


44 posted on 01/11/2014 5:12:48 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)

Thanks for that map; it really puts things in perspective.


45 posted on 01/11/2014 5:23:31 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I am free to ignore your vulgar demands that I not post information you don’t like.


46 posted on 01/11/2014 5:44:47 PM PST by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)

I am insisting that we have no proof that it is as harmless as some claim. you implied that I am insisting it’s a Big problem. that’s just your distortion. I can’t view map on my cell right now but I am guessing it’s just more of your distortion.


47 posted on 01/11/2014 5:50:34 PM PST by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

My pleasure.


48 posted on 01/11/2014 5:57:03 PM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
One thing that is hard to grasp is how much water is contained in the Pacific Ocean. A cubic meter of seawater weighs about 2,200 lbs. Close enough to a ton to simplify things. Assuming 500 tons per day for 3 years, this is roughly 550,000 cubic meters of water since the event. Changing this to cubic kilometers (÷ 3000) gives you about 184 cubic kilometers over 3 years. The volume of the Pacific is about 660,000,000 cubic kilometers, leading to a concentration of about 0.00000028%.

Even if you posit that only 1/10,000 of the Pacific is affected, this leads to Fukushima contaminated water making up 0.028%of the total volume.

The original Daily Kos article was actually quite informative. Cs-134 is not much of a worry as its half-life is ~2 years, which means that about 75% has decayed to non-radioactive barium in the subsequent 3 years. Cs-137 is a bigger worry as it has a half-life of about 30 years.

Combine this with the average 14Bq/L as background radiation (due to naturally occurring radiation as well as hundreds of nuclear bomb tests conducted by the US and France in the south Pacific), the Daily Kos author's conclusions seem pretty reasonable.

My personal opinion is that you are putting your life more at risk by eating garlic imported from China than by eating any fish you get from the ocean.

49 posted on 01/11/2014 6:10:23 PM PST by jtonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)

Interesting graphic. I wonder if they were the same 5 years earlier. Do the Baltic and Black sea levels reflect just Chernobyl, or do they reflect problems further back in the USSR as well. The evil empire was a huge toxic waste dump. As for those Irish sea levels, after a few pints I trust you can find a few to blame Cromwell.


50 posted on 01/11/2014 6:28:54 PM PST by JohnBovenmyer (Obama been Liberal. Hope Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer

Hey John, I never heard back from you on the Sowell misquotes I supposedly made.


51 posted on 01/11/2014 7:03:00 PM PST by jazusamo ([Obama] A Truly Great Phony -- Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3058949/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BwanaNdege

Yes, a perfusion scan is a nuclear medicine procedure.

Dose for nuc med exams can be fairly precise because the amount of
material injected is calibrated to a patients weight and the time of the exam
i,e, how long after the dose was prepared the injection occurred.

For other imaging procedures the dosage can vary significantly because of
variations between machine calibrations, patient size/thickness ( the larger a person is the more energy is required to get an acceptable image) machine settings ( KV which determines the energy level of the photon, MA of the tube current which determines the number of photons produced and time of exposure), sensitivity of the imaging receptor....lots of factors affect
the amount of dose and can only really be estimated.

X ray from a machine is similar to but not the same as gamma from an isotope and since it’s not ingested or absorbed has different effects.

There are tables and charts you can Google that give typical exposure ranges for various procedures.


52 posted on 01/11/2014 7:46:09 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote

Go back to school take, years of science including chemistry, physics anatomy and physiology and then take a specific degreed course in medical uses of radiation as it pertains to humans....then come back and MAYBE I’ll consider you knowledgeable enough to hold a rational discussion. You would still be a green roomie however till you put in a few decades of working with ionizing radiation. Otherwise you are just noise vainly attempting to mask signal.


53 posted on 01/11/2014 7:53:25 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman
Don’t eat seafood, don’t swim in the ocean.

Oh sure, no problem. The oceans, shorelines, and the life they contain are only half of the very best things on earth.

54 posted on 01/11/2014 8:23:39 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)

Doesn’t radiation concentrate in the tissues of sea life in in increasingly higher levels the further up the food chain an animal is?


55 posted on 01/11/2014 8:25:58 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

Just saying if someone is paranoid those two risk factors are the only two that while remote are rational fears. Doesn’t stop me and the family from visiting Monterey Bay or eating at the restaurants on the wharf and Cannery Row. But I know the reality.....and I also own the correct instrumentation to survey things.


56 posted on 01/11/2014 8:39:59 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman
But I know the reality

The reality?

You think all there is to know about radiation's effect on life is already known?

You think you can trust the government to tell us if we shouldn't eat seafood or go swimming, when that would damage the economy and turn more people against nuclear power?

57 posted on 01/11/2014 8:53:40 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ransomnote
Hey, you tried. I announced I will not anymore. Didnja know? I'm "Dr. Histrionics" (c/o exDemMom)

The map is propaganda. Don't waste your time.

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.

There are those that will declare this a non-issue, parroting the ignorance about 'dilution', KOS or not. However, rest assured that once birds begin feasting on this contaminated food chain, we will have radionuclide contamination far inland. I've warned about bird droppings since '12; remember that when storms bring seagulls inland...but that's only the beginning (you & I are in the minority, apparently).

(From 'Dr. Histrionics'. The Doctor is OUT)

58 posted on 01/11/2014 9:11:11 PM PST by logi_cal869
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Cesium is a problem and you need to exercise and stay healthy. It affects the heart muscle.

A more serious problem however has just starting coming out of Fukushima.

Strontium levels increased suddenly in the past few months. A 1,000 %increase in off shore and ground water contamination. Exactly as predicted by a study concerning what occurs after melt outs into the groundwater.

TEPCO did not report the levels because they thought they were too high and in error.

Also ambient radiation levels at the outer perimeter of plant now 8 times maximum legal exposure limit. Increase occurred between march and end of year.

Also speculation that xrays are emitting from metal storage tank walls.


59 posted on 01/11/2014 9:18:03 PM PST by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason

Yes. Higher up the food chain, the higher the total amount concentrated. You can thank all the microrganisms that love finding metal in the ocean water.

Bottom line is do not go near dead ocean animals on the beach that the land scavengers are eating.

Btw - The Japanese just found a ocean fish with an incredily high concentration. More then 100 times legal limit. Was found near a freshwater stream entrance.


60 posted on 01/11/2014 9:35:55 PM PST by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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