Fukushima radioactive material “has reached the west coast as of June 2013 by ocean transport”

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.

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)

But Jtonn, the volume of the ocean is negated by bioconcentration in biomass and the fact that this is the leading edge (the first influx) of radioactive waste being dumped into the ocean. This might be the first few months (post Fukushima) worth of radioactive waste reaching us and being detected...what about the remaining 2 years and nine months worth of radioactive waste to date that hasn’t arrived yet? Logically, the concentration must go up. And then note that the tons of radioactive water can’t be stopped. The corium is going to be washing into the ocean for an unknown number of years - all scientists can say at this point is there is no known way to stop it from happening. How about 10 more years. Logically the concentration is going to go up.
In between my undergrad and graduate degree, I was employed as a marine biologist. There is no basis for believing that the radioactive waste will be evenly distributed in the water column. There are currents and upwellings just as nutrients useful to living things are not evenly distributed in the water column, neither are contaminants.
My opinion is that we don’t know what the sum of the impact will be but logically, it has to be more than it currently is and yet there’s the desire to say that a) we’ve seen the impact and b) it is harmless.

Well I did take years of science, physics, anatomy and experimented with CS-137 but it wouldn’t matter if I had zero formal training in science and radiation - the average American can participate knowledgeably in discussions regarding Fukushima. “specific degreed course in medical uses of radiation as it pertains to humans” is not impressive. I debated numerous “nuclear engineers” and “radiologic specialists” before I realized that neither had ever realized that their dosimetry calculations are irrelevant to the impact of ionizing radiation on human health. The fact that running dosimetry calucations using bananas and comparing those same calculations using plutonium always resulted in the false appearance of bananas being safer than plutonium. The “experts” never wondered how that could be possible or if maybe the formula was wrong. Some of the engineers were sincere - they learned “dose is dose” and they repeat it by rote. While that might be true when talking about external exposure to nuclear fuel with similar energy levels, its completely false when talking about isotopes like Strontium and Cesium etc.

I would disagree that the frame of reference is relevant. The isotopes used in medicine have much shorter half lives and “travel” less through the body. Cesium is not used for injectable tests in humans because it travels throughout the body and is often found in muscle, and the heart is a muscle, and there is evidence (Chernobyl study) that cardiac arrest is associated with living in regions contaminated with radioactive waste. Many of the “liquidators” of Chernobyl were noted to have “early dementia” believed to be caused by those isotopes which migrate throughout the body and may settle in regions like the brain and with the longer half life, continuously irradiate the brain for years.
Medical tests do raise risk of cancer and other illnesses associated with radiation - it’s just that we make a “trade” with risk (increase the risk of cancer to see if you have cancer or a lethal heart ailment etc.)

Bananas? Were you not here when the FR community discussed over the course of several months why bananas are not in any way comparable to exposure to radioactive wastes from Fukushima? The nature of radioactive potassium and the body’s response to it is simply not comparable to radioactive cesium, strontium etc. That’s why bananas are harmless compared with radioactive fuels or waste.

approximately 1 bq/m3 is not laughably small. Director of a Japanese institute of isotope therapy was shaking with rage when he queitly demanded to know what Japan was thinking when they set out such high “safe” levels of radioactive waste in food and water etc. stating that medically, bladder cancer rates increase at 2 beq’s per m3 and that’s just in humans. Every living thing in the food chain can be more or less sensitive to radiation in water. And as I’ve said - we haven’t seen the full concentration of Fukushima water yet - we’re just getting the leading edge of a three year dumping of radioactive waste and this will continue for years and years....

BwanaNdege,
Your exposure and that of seawater/Fukushima are not comparable. I’m glad you sailed through your heart scans. You did so with isotopes carefully selected for physical properties that would make them most suited for medical use. You did increase your cancer risk a little and risk is cumulative. But when the short half-life isotopes in your body decayed in a matter of a few hours or days, you stopped increasing your radiation risk via injectable medical isotopes.
But, for example, cesium-137 will, if it gets in your body and lodges in tissue, be there irradiating tissues for years so your dose would continue. As cesium enters the food chain, you continue to get doses of it. Cesium tends to lodge in muscle and distribute throughout the body.

Cesium From Wiki: “It is among the most problematic of the short-to-medium-lifetime fission products because it easily moves and spreads in nature due to the high water solubility of caesium’s most common chemical compounds, which are salts.”

[[PS: Here’s an side note from the same Wiki: In July 2011, meat from 11 cows shipped to Tokyo from Fukushima Prefecture was found to have 1,530 to 3,200 becquerels per kilogram of Cs-137, considerably exceeding the Japanese legal limit of 500 becquerels per kilogram at that time.[7] In March 2013, the Japanese utility that owns the tsunami-damaged nuclear power plant said that it had detected a record 740,000 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive caesium in a fish caught close to the plant. That is 7,400 times the government limit for safe human consumption.[8]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137

The type of energy released, the decay energy, the behavior of the isotope in the body, the longevity of the isotope in the body - these were all very different between your medical tests and Fukushima. And releasing radiation from Fukushima into the environment (air, water) where it concentrates in teh food web means humans can be exposed to fresh “doses” in addition to the ones already in the body. Cesium can build up to higher levels in the body compared with your medical test and then stay for years. And it’s associated with cardiac death and a “host of other illnesses” when people live in regions contaminated with it. (Chernobyl)

How many cases of leukopenia or skin erythema from exposure have you seen. How many patients have you ever personally touched.

It’s also quite obvious you don’t debate....you parrot preconceived personal
beliefs.

Nobody is saying Fukushima is not a problem and not a danger.
Those of us who KNOW are aware that the danger is limited to a small area in Japan and and diminishes dramatically with distance and dilution to
the point where it quicky becomes a theoretical, statistical risk for 99+% of the people on this planet . For that massive majority the risks from Fukushima are irrelevant when compared to all the other risks faced on a daily basis.

You are trying to act as if the exposure to radiation all humans are exposed to on a daily basis pre meltdown was safe but now the daily exposure post meltdown is a disaster that will cause massive disease and suffering...and that is bullsh*t. Your position is akin to saying that 2 minutes of daily direct exposure to sunlight is safe and acceptable but 3 minutes a day is a clear and unacceprable danger that we must all panic over....when the difference between the two, while measurable is statistically irrelevant in terms of actual risk.

Either that or your just another agenda driven luddite who can spit words and numbers but has no real comprehension of the subject..

How many cases of leukopenia or skin erythema from exposure have you seen. How many patients have you ever personally touched.
_____________________________________
Irrelevant. I couldn’t personally touch enough patients to reach statistical relevance. I rely on large medical studies and reports like the BEIR VII
_____________________________________

It’s also quite obvious you don’t debate....you parrot preconceived personal
beliefs.
_____________________________________

False. I developed my knowledge over long periods of debate and study. My personal beliefs were initially favorable. I wanted to go into nuclear energy when deciding a major years ago. When Fukushima happened I began to reaquaint myself and was completely shocked that the issues that were raised way back when I was in school had never been addressed and was doubly shocked at the decline in professional standards in the industry. It was a little painful but I turned my back on the ‘road not taken’ as I studied up on what has been happening and how the US nuclear industry was behaving and is behaving. It was never my wish to see the industry do this to itself - I experimented with CS-137 because I was intrigued and it seemed like the industry had nothing but promise at the time.
_____________________________________

False. I separate natural sources (and their risks) from incompetent management and deception and focus my energies on pointing out we don’t have to continue to make bad policy decisions (like having the US prop up and defend the nuke industry - such power arrangements don’t’ work). I am saying we need to pay attention because the ramifications are likely not as rosy as the OP.
______________________________________

“unacceprable danger that we must all panic over”
_________________________________________

Your kind always accuse people who write things you don’t want spoken of or considered (gee - might endless dumping of radioactive waste be a bad thing?) as “panic”
The only ones who cry “panic” are those who wish to falsely portray legitimate interest in this issue as raving irrational behavior.
______________________________________

Either that or your just another agenda driven luddite who can spit words and numbers but has no real comprehension of the subject.
______________________________________

Neither. You aren’t even close. It’s funny though, the nuke industry yells “SHUT UP” and attacks legitimate inquiry as an “AGGENDA!” while portraying itself as the only objective, unbiased observer. HOW would nuke apologists expect to pass for “objective, unbiased observers?”

Professor Tatsuhiko Kodama is the head of the Radioisotope Center at the University of Tokyo. On July 27, he appeared as a witness to give testimony to the Committee on Welfare and Labor in Japan’s Lower House in the Diet.

Anyone wishing to read about the effects of nuclear waste human health and how they are so very different than the medical application of isotopes would benefit from reading this 3 part article. If pressed for time, then part 2 is most relevant to the issue of

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/07/professor-tatsuhiko-kodama-of-tokyo.html
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/07/part-2-professor-tatsuhiko-kodama-of.html
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/07/part-3-professor-tatsuhiko-kodama-of.html

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.