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)
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?
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.
Pelosi and Reed have the daily cos written across their foreheads................
Thank you for sharing that.
Thanks for that map; it really puts things in perspective.
I am free to ignore your vulgar demands that I not post information you don’t like.
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.
My pleasure.
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.
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.
Hey John, I never heard back from you on the Sowell misquotes I supposedly made.
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.
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.
Oh sure, no problem. The oceans, shorelines, and the life they contain are only half of the very best things on earth.
Doesn’t radiation concentrate in the tissues of sea life in in increasingly higher levels the further up the food chain an animal is?
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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.