Tracking the Fukushima radioactivity plume across the Pacific

ocean
Credit: Tiago Fioreze / Wikipedia

How long did it take a radioactive plume to travel the waters of the Pacific from Fukushima, Japan, to the shores of North America?

The answer, according to a new study published in PNAS, is about 2.1 years.

After an earthquake-triggered tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in March 2011, a team of Canadian scientists saw an opportunity to put models of Pacific Ocean current speeds to the test.

After the tsunami struck, the plant released cesium 134 and cesium 137 into the ocean. The researchers knew that a small percentage of this radioactive material would be carried by currents across the Pacific, eventually reaching the of North America.

Computer models could predict when this might happen, but by taking actual samples of the and testing them for cesium 134 and cesium 137 the scientists could see for certain when it happened.

"We had a situation where the radioactive tracer was deposited at a very specific location off the coast of Japan at a very specific time," said John Smith, a research scientist at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and the lead author of the paper.

"It was kind of like a dye experiment," he added. "And it is unambiguous - you either see the signal or you don't, and when you see it you know exactly what you are measuring."

Just three months after the tsunami, Smith and his team began sampling ocean water from as far as 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) off the coast of British Columbia. They took measurements from the same sites every June from 2011 to 2013, collecting 60 liters of water and then analyzing it for traces of cesium 134 and .

In June of 2011 they detected no signature from the Fukushima disaster at any of the test sites. In June of 2012 they found small amounts of the Fukushima radiation at the westernmost station, but it had not moved any closer to shore. By June of 2013, however, it had spread all the way to the continental shelf of Canada.

The amount of radiation that finally made it to Canada's west coast by June 2013 was very small - less than 1 Becquerels per cubic meter. (Becquerels are the number of decay events per second per 260 gallons of water.) That is more than 1,000 times lower than acceptable limits in drinking water, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Computer models that match fairly closely with the hard data that Smith collected suggest that the amount of radiation will peak in 2015 and 2016 in British Columbia, but it will never exceed about 5 Becquerels per cubic meter.

"Those levels of 137 are still well below natural levels of radioactivity in the ocean," said Smith.

Because of the structure of the currents, the radiation levels in Southern California are expected to peak a few years later, but by that time they will be even smaller than the highest levels of radiation expected in Canada.

"Even when levels are small like this, it is important to collect systematic data so we can better predict how another event might move through the ocean," said Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, who was not involved in the study.

Buesseler leads a citizen scientist group called Our Radioactive Oceans, to track the arrival of the Fukushima radioactivity plume in the U.S. He noted that his group's results matched Smith's.

"What we really need for understanding what happens after events like Fukushima is data like this on a regular basis," he said.


Explore further

Fukushima radioactivity detected off North American West Coast

©2014 Los Angeles Times
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Citation: Tracking the Fukushima radioactivity plume across the Pacific (2014, December 31) retrieved 17 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-12-tracking-fukushima-radioactivity-plume-pacific.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 31, 2014
I'm sure some people are disappointed the water is safe....

Dec 31, 2014
I thought nukes were safe!

I was told by nuclear apologists there was no pollution!

MM will clean it up!

Dec 31, 2014
I thought nukes were safe!

I was told by nuclear apologists there was no pollution!

MM will clean it up!


Clean what up?


Dec 31, 2014
Here's a link that supports what the article says...

http://radioactiv...1215.pdf

The water is fine as empirical data shows...as opposed to an anti-nuke hack site.

cheers :)

Dec 31, 2014
Even you know that is not true. The Japanese government has classified the information from and about Fukushima, and passed a law making it a crime to report bad things about it. Want the references?

Dec 31, 2014
Even you know that is not true. The Japanese government has classified the information from and about Fukushima, and passed a law making it a crime to report bad things about it. Want the references?


I know no such thing. Neither do YOU, unless you can prove it. It's like those people who believe in a sky fairy...the assertion puts the burden of proof on you. Prove your histrionic claims, or kindly quit making them.

References from credible sources with the ACTUAL data that's been falsified would be required.

But I suppose the people who tested the water in this article are "in on it" too eh? How far does this evvvviiiill conspiracy stretch it's black fingers of hysteria...not holding my breath ;)


Dec 31, 2014
NONE of those prove anything...not a thing.

You actually have to produce the numbers to prove the point your making, not provide links to innuendo articles which don't prove a thing.

Here's a CREDIBLE source that refutes my source...

http://www.japant...deckyYqc

But even those levels are FAR below dangerous...so my point still stands.

Can't believe I have to do your work for you...I feel like I'm shadowboxing...

Dec 31, 2014
You are playing in the dark, if that is what you mean. I gave you the references to the law prohibiting the release of information deleterious to nuclear technology. Do you STILL refute it?

And do you believe the numbers given out by those with huge axes to grind? Shall I show you some of the lies?

Dec 31, 2014
You are playing in the dark, if that is what you mean. I gave you the references to the law prohibiting the release of information deleterious to nuclear technology. Do you STILL refute it?


Of course. Innuendo isn't proof and it ISN'T data that supports your claims...it's just that simple.

You have to find a credible source that gives data which shows dangerous levels of radiation. The veracity of government statements is virtually irrelevant to the argument unless someone can produce the documents AND those documents showed they hid data that actually showed dangerous levels of radiation.

What you're IGNORING is what the article is stating...remember the SCIENTIFIC article you just read? It STATES as a FACT that the water is SAFE...it even SAID so (didn't require you to look up what safe levels are). Deal with it...seriously.

Dec 31, 2014
NO amount of radiation is "safe". You are hoping the rates are sufficiently low they are difficult to track, but we KNOW the effects of that radiation on living things.

You just keep on believing those heavily invested in nukes. They count on it.

Have you looked up the rise in Thyroid cancers world-wide since Fukushima?

Check it out.

Dec 31, 2014
NO amount of radiation is "safe". You are hoping the rates are sufficiently low they are difficult to track, but we KNOW the effects of that radiation on living things.

You just keep on believing those heavily invested in nukes. They count on it.

Have you looked up the rise in Thyroid cancers world-wide since Fukushima?

Check it out.


We know exactly how much radiation is safe. If no amount is safe we'd all be dead :)

If you have credible links to ANY of the above, provide them. Otherwise kindly quit spreading misinformation.


Dec 31, 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster


So 4,000 people. That's pretty much the official and credible view. Compared to other sources of power...including wind (if you count the cancer villages in China where they refine the rare earth's needed for wind power) that's VERY safe. And Chernobyl is an example of just how bad it can POSSIBLY get.

Here's a peer reviewed credible and independent source

http://www.ewp.rp...tems.pdf

page 17....

Dec 31, 2014
Sorry, page 15....

Dec 31, 2014
That is an "analysis" given by the nuclear industry. What do you think they are going to say?
Look how it is presented, with deaths from coal mining, but no long-term deaths from radiation.

Do we have to guard coal residue for 240,000 years? Do we have to STAY AWAY from it for hundreds of thousands of years? When a wind turbine fails, does it ruin the place with radiation?

Did you actually read the molten salt "experiment"? It was not a full working reactor, it had many differences. Why are they not building them, if they are so safe and neat?

Dec 31, 2014
ATTENTION!!

A massive plume of wind turbine waste is drifting over the Great Plains!

Hide!!

Meanwhile, a Sun Spill has caught people outside in it! Are they crazy?

Dec 31, 2014
That is an "analysis" given by the nuclear industry. What do you think they are going to say?


The same thing YOUR source said...

Look how it is presented, with deaths from coal mining, but no long-term deaths from radiation.


The long term effects were included in the study. They give virtually identical numbers to your source. Re-read it.

Do we have to STAY AWAY from it for hundreds of thousands of years?


Pripyat is at one microsievert per hour...is your math off a tad?

Did you actually read the molten salt "experiment"? It was not a full working reactor, it had many differences. Why are they not building them, if they are so safe and neat?


Because of political hysterics like YOU ;)

Dec 31, 2014
ATTENTION!!

A massive plume of wind turbine waste is drifting over the Great Plains!

Hide!!

Meanwhile, a Sun Spill has caught people outside in it! Are they crazy?


That's pretty heartless and caviler given that thousands of Chinese have died so you can feel good about your wind power. What an incredibly insensitive person.

Dec 31, 2014
"That's pretty heartless and caviler given that thousands of Chinese have died so you can feel good about your wind power. What an incredibly insensitive person."
--------------------------------------------

Died for my sins, did they?

Where did I hear that nonsense before, . . . ?

Dec 31, 2014
I do not understand how some people can be so selfish as to leave the nasty and deadly residues of our nuclear follies for others to clean up! This stuff lasts essentially forever in Human terms, and it does NOT go away in other types of reactors. And they still want to make more!

Send them to Hanford!

Send them to Chernobyl!

Send them to Fukushima!

Dec 31, 2014
All three of those places display safe radiation levels except for the actual buildings that house the material....

Dec 31, 2014
Then, GO!

Come and report back to us.

Do you think you will even be allowed onto Fukushima? Can you stroll in without intensive, layered protection, including respirator?

Show me one person there not with full protection.

Dec 31, 2014
"All three of those places display safe radiation levels except for the actual buildings that house the material...."
-----------------------------------------------

The deadly stuff at Hanford is not in buildings. It is in the ground, in leaking tanks, below the cracked Wanapum Dam on the Columbia River.

Dec 31, 2014
"All three of those places display safe radiation levels except for the actual buildings that house the material...."
-----------------------------------------------

The deadly stuff at Hanford is not in buildings. It is in the ground, in leaking tanks, below the cracked Wanapum Dam on the Columbia River.


At safe levels, as I've already shown in the other thread...

The highest levels of tritium measured there are at 2,100 Bq/L which is well under the exposure limit...

Dec 31, 2014
I am NOT talking about Tritium. Where did you get that? Tritium comes from operating reactors, and I am talking about liquified high-level waste, which keeps on eating its way out of our tanks.

We have MILLIONS of gallons of it, and we cannot even store it.

Dec 31, 2014
I am NOT talking about Tritium. Where did you get that? Tritium comes from operating reactors, and I am talking about liquified high-level waste, which keeps on eating its way out of our tanks.

We have MILLIONS of gallons of it, and we cannot even store it.


"Since 2003, radioactive materials are known to be leaking from Hanford into the environment. "The highest tritium concentration detected in riverbank springs during 2002 was 58,000 pCi/L (2,100 Bq/L) at the Hanford Townsite. The highest iodine-129 concentration of 0.19 pCi/L (0.007 Bq/L) was also found in a Hanford Townsite spring."

http://en.wikiped...concerns



Dec 31, 2014
"The theoretical basis for the nuclear meltdown, or "China Syndrome" as its popularly called, is an unchecked loss of coolant accompanied with an unchecked loss of moderation.

Ultimately, so the theory goes, the core melts and forms at the bottom of the reactor vessel where, due to ever increasing temperature, along with increasing criticality due to smaller geometry, melts through the vessel, into containment, through the containment, into the ground, and "all the way to China".

Modern reactor and supporting systems design makes this highly unlikely, if not impossible. There are multiple levels of protection, each at multiple levels of redundancy, and reactor shutdown and containment is expected to occur long before the protection systems are exhausted. "
---------
What BS.

Dec 31, 2014
Here is another analysis of how likely nuclear powerplants are to meltdown:

"The design of the plant systems is intended to reduce the likelihood of such an event occurring (e.g. once in 250 years for the 400+ reactors with current designs). It is impossible to say, with 100% certainty, that a fuel melting event will not occur. The redundancy and diversity of plant design, NRC regulations, plant Technical Specifications, plant operating procedures and operator training and qualification provide the defense in depth."
--------------------------------

Well gosh, how many have we had, and it has only been 50 years?

Check this out:
http://www.cnbc.c...112536#.

Dec 31, 2014

Dear Dr. Chu,

I am writing to you to make you aware of a little-known tragic mistake that was made by the medical community and physicists like myself during the early years of the Cold War that has been playing a major role in the enormous rise of the incidence chronic diseases such as cancer and diabetes, and thus the cost of healthcare in our nation. The mistake was to assume that the radiation exposure to the public due to the small amount of fallout from distant nuclear weapons tests or the operation of nuclear reactors would have no significant adverse effect on human health.


Dec 31, 2014
This assumption was based on our experience with a half-century of studies that showed no detectable increase in cancer rates for individuals given one or two diagnostic X-rays. What was not understood at the time was that the radioactive elements created in the fission of uranium did not just produce a small increase in the external dose as received from the natural background sources. Instead, the particles and gases produced in the fission process released into the environment would lead to vastly greater radiation damage than from diagnostic X-rays or the gamma rays in background sources because the radioactive fission products and uranium oxides were inhaled and ingested with the milk, the drinking water and the rest of the diet, concentrating in critical organs of the body.


Dec 31, 2014
gkam, you've seen the statistics first hand...you yourself provided the source. Fewer than 6,000 people have died as a direct result of nuclear power operation worldwide since its inception...I'll put that up against ANY other power source (especially coal). Piss and moan about THEM first. Then worry about nuclear. You are ruled by your hysteria over something that, quite honestly, you CLEARLY don't understand.

prothopectore,

Please, by all means, provide your PEER REVIEWED studies which show anything less than 100 mSv/a cause a detectable increase in cancer rates. We all await with baited breath...

Dec 31, 2014
Thus, the radioactive Iodine-131 seeks out the thyroid and damages the production of key growth hormones as well as thyroid cancer, Strontium-90 concentrates in bone where it irradiates the bone-marrow, causing leukemia in newly forming red blood cells as well as damage to crucial white cells of the immune system that fight cancer cells and bacteria. Cesium-137 collects in soft tissue organs such as the breast and the reproductive organs of males and females, leading to various types of cancer in the individuals and their children as well as in later generations.


Dec 31, 2014
The mistake was compounded by the fact that in the early 1950's when bomb tests began on a large scale in Nevada, it was not known that the adverse effect of radiation is tens to hundreds of times more serious for the developing infant in the mother's womb and young children than for the adults studied following medical X-ray exposures. Nor was it discovered until the early 1970's that protracted radiation exposures as from long-lived fission products accumulating in the body, is much greater than from the same total dose received in a short X-ray exposure.


Dec 31, 2014
As a result of this lack of knowledge at the time, government officials were able to reassure a concerned public that the small levels of nuclear fallout from the Nevada tests would produce no adverse effects, and point out the potential benefits of the peaceful atom. Thus, in the mid-1950's, President Eisenhower was able to declare that dirty coal power plants could be replaced by " clean nuclear energy too cheap to meter."


Dec 31, 2014
Prothopectore,

We've known about the various effects of radioactive isotopes for many years. Iodine and the thyroid, Sr 90 and bones, etc etc etc....

You are saying NOTHING new, shy of some actual scientific data supporting your throwing ashes in the air what you are saying is no better than some religious zealot who demands you believe his book simply because he says so. Kindly quit spreading lies and disinformation...which discredit yourself and an entire industry, which might very well SAVE humanity from it's folly.

You are a disgrace sir....

Here is a CREDIBLE source detailing the amount of radiation actually introduced in the environment via nuclear testing....

http://en.wikiped...adiation

Dec 31, 2014
Thus, a program of building a large number of nuclear plants was begun which were permitted to discharge small amounts of fission products comparable with the levels of fallout from atmospheric weapons testing. This was also the time the Cold War had begun and thousands of nuclear weapons were produced and tested as a necessary deterrent to keep the large armies of the Soviet Union from overrunning all of Europe. Therefore, when it was discovered in the 1960's that small amounts of fission products produced much greater damage than had been expected, and not only leukemia and other forms of cancer but also premature births, low birth-weight and infant mortality, it was kept secret by our government for fear that it would endanger the deterrent value of the nuclear arsenal.


Dec 31, 2014
. Therefore, when it was discovered in the 1960's that small amounts of fission products produced much greater damage than had been expected, and not only leukemia and other forms of cancer but also premature births, low birth-weight and infant mortality, it was kept secret by our government for fear that it would endanger the deterrent value of the nuclear arsenal.


PROVE your assertions with actual data, otherwise one might report you for being libel...

Scratch that...the mood I'm in, I WILL report you to the NRC for libel...

Have a good day :)

https://www.eff.o...famation

Dec 31, 2014
Moreover, when a rise in healthcare costs began with the start of large-scale atmospheric weapons testing that increased sharply with the construction of some one hundred nuclear plants beginning in the 1950's, this was blamed on the inefficiency of the system and the greed of the drug companies, and not on the large rise of releases from the nuclear plants built near the large cities, contaminating the milk produced in the nearby dairies.

The details of this story can be found in my book "Secret Fallout" that can be downloaded free from the Radiation and Public Health web-site www.radiation. org as well as a list of some two dozen papers published in scientific journals and five books published by members of RPHP.


Dec 31, 2014
prothop, I have been looking in my old Bulletins of the Atomic Scientists for the articles on this from decades ago. But even if I find them, folk will have an excuse or will change the subject.

Dec 31, 2014
http://www.nrc.go...tus.html

:)

Thankfully, in a free society there is recourse for this kind of thing....

Dec 31, 2014
Fortunately, the recent rapid development of alternative energy makes it possible to see an end to this tragedy, since it is possible to convert the aging nuclear plants to operate with natural gas. This can be done at a small fraction of the cost of new power stations until the alternative solar, wind, geothermal and hydro sources can take their place, as demonstrated by the case of the Fort St. Vrain nuclear plant near Denver, Colorado, now using natural gas.

If our nation that built the first reactors and nuclear weapons were to announce the goal of phasing out nuclear fission reactors that also produce the plutonium and tritium needed for nuclear weapons while developing nuclear fusion power and other non-polluting sources of energy, it will also make it easier to achieve the stated goal of President Obama of a world free from nuclear weapons.


Dec 31, 2014
MMJ, are you so screwed up, you will try to get this guy for posting a letter? I suggest you read the definitions first. Hey, folk, if MM does not like what you post, he threatens to go after you.

Some people are REALLY weird.

Dec 31, 2014
MMJ, are you so screwed up, you will try to get this guy for posting a letter? I suggest you read the definitions first. Hey, folk, if MM does not like what you post, he threatens to go after you.

Some people are REALLY weird.


So, you don't agree with libel laws. I'm actually making the call as I type this.

on edit: well I got a recording, but it IS the holidays. Rest assured I will bring this to the attention of the authorities though...

Dec 31, 2014
Thus it is possible to look forward to a world free from the danger of the annihilation of human life by nuclear weapons using enriched uranium or plutonium that is only produced in nuclear fission reactors, together with the highly toxic nuclear wastes that remain deadly for thousands of years.

Sincerely yours,
Ernest J. Sternglass, Ph.D.


Dec 31, 2014
dear modernmystic,
please, when you're on the phone with the NRC, relay this little gem verbatim to them;

Regulatory Capture

Regulatory Capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called "captured agencies".

The NRC is what is known as a "captured agency".

The NRC makes scientific decisions based on the profit motives of the industry.

tell 'em prothopectore says hello ;)


Dec 31, 2014
http://en.wikiped...ernglass

Ahhh, the man's research has been questioned...not surprising...

tell 'em prothopectore says hello ;)


Will do ;)

Dec 31, 2014
Article Published in Open Journal of Pediatrics (PEER REVIEWED)

by admin on 28. Nov, 2013 in Environmental Health, Fukushima, Radiation

Janette Sherman, Joseph Mangano and Christopher Busby have published an article in the Open Journal of Pediatrics about the link between radiation exposure and thyroid disease.

Radiation exposure has been linked to increased risk of congenital hypothyroidism (CH) for decades. CH is a relatively uncommon condition, occurring in about 1 of 2000 US births. Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) levels for each child born in California permitted an analysis of combined confirmed and borderline CH cases. Borderline/confirmed CH cases are more than seven times greater than just confirmed cases.

(continued)

Dec 31, 2014
Airborne levels of gross beta nuclear radiation in the US were elevated in the period starting several days after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown, especially in west coast states like California. The borderline/confirmed CH rate for newborns during the last 9.5 months in 2011 (exposed to Fukushima in utero) vs. births during other periods in 2011 and 2012 (not exposed) was significantly elevated, suggesting that adverse health effects to the newborn thyroid were not restricted to just a small number of confirmed CH cases. The sensitivity of the fetus to radiation exposure, plus the presence of thyroid-seeking radioiodine, suggest further analysis of Fukushima's potential to cause adverse health effects in newborns is needed.


Dec 31, 2014
So, Dr. Sternglass

How do you account for no significant increase in cancer rates amongst citizens of Ramsar Iran when they're exposed routinely to levels MUCH higher than what you're characterizing? Was it voodoo?

Dec 31, 2014
prothopectore, don't you understand, . . he is going to TELL ON YOU!

And MM, do you really think all disintegrations are alike? All the same energy? All in the same place on or in the body?

You are displaying your ignorance. Sue me.

Dec 31, 2014
PEER REVIEWED ;)

Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society's journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.

The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe …. "Pooling across multiple studies, in multiple areas, and in a rigorous statistical manner provides a tool to really get at these questions about low-level radiation."


Dec 31, 2014
PEER REVIEWED ;)

Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society's journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.

The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe …. "Pooling across multiple studies, in multiple areas, and in a rigorous statistical manner provides a tool to really get at these questions about low-level radiation."



Show them...

I'm unclear how a PHILOSOPHICAL society's studies are valid...please explain.

YOUR peers clearly don't agree with you sir...

Dec 31, 2014
Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society's journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.

The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe …. "Pooling across multiple studies, in multiple areas, and in a rigorous statistical manner provides a tool to really get at these questions about low-level radiation."


Dec 31, 2014
Somebody explain to MM the difference between an Alpha particle hitting him on the skin and one hitting him in the lung. Hint: 5.4 Million electron Volts.

Then, we can move on to Beta and Gamma.

Dec 31, 2014
Mousseau and co-author Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud combed the scientific literature, examining more than 5,000 papers involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for quantitative comparison. The selected studies all examined both a control group and a more highly irradiated population and quantified the size of the radiation levels for each. Each paper also reported test statistics that allowed direct comparison between the studies.

The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large preponderance of human subjects. Each study examined one or more possible effects of radiation, such as DNA damage measured in the lab, prevalence of a disease such as Down's Syndrome, or the sex ratio produced in offspring. For each effect, a statistical algorithm was used to generate a single value, the effect size, which could be compared across all the studies.


Dec 31, 2014
Somebody explain to MM the difference between an Alpha particle hitting him on the skin and one hitting him in the lung. Hint: 5.4 Million electron Volts.

Then, we can move on to Beta and Gamma.


And those effects are cumulative, not singular...please explain that to gkam

Dec 31, 2014
They are not. That is the point. Every one is a probability, as well as a possibility. There is no threshold.

Dec 31, 2014
Mousseau and co-author Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud combed the scientific literature, examining more than 5,000 papers involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for quantitative comparison. The selected studies all examined both a control group and a more highly irradiated population and quantified the size of the radiation levels for each. Each paper also reported test statistics that allowed direct comparison between the studies.

The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large preponderance of human subjects. Each study examined one or more possible effects of radiation, such as DNA damage measured in the lab, prevalence of a disease such as Down's Syndrome, or the sex ratio produced in offspring. For each effect, a statistical algorithm was used to generate a single value, the effect size, which could be compared across all the studies.



I'll reiterate Ramsar Iran. Explain it.

Dec 31, 2014
The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.

"When you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects."

"It also provides evidence that there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation," he added. "A theory that has been batted around a lot over the last couple of decades is the idea that is there a threshold of exposure below which there are no negative consequences. These data provide fairly strong evidence that there is no threshold — radiation effects are measurable as far down as you can go, given the statistical power you have at hand."


Dec 31, 2014
They are not. That is the point. Every one is a probability, as well as a possibility. There is no threshold.


Which has been statistically compiled and is probabilistic. You wouldn't drive your car otherwise...

You're subjected to radiation ALL the time, yet you're 70 and not dead. Explain it if a single incident should kill you...

Dr. Sternglass, you haven't answered the question. That may fly in some circles, but we notice when you dance around a topic without actually addressing it here...

Dec 31, 2014
worth repeating, and in summary;

"When you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects."

"It also provides evidence that there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation," he added. "A theory that has been batted around a lot over the last couple of decades is the idea that is there a threshold of exposure below which there are no negative consequences. These data provide fairly strong evidence that there is no threshold — radiation effects are measurable as far down as you can go, given the statistical power you have at hand."

:)

have a happy new years eve everyone. stay safe, and don't ingest any ionizing radiation! because the curses of "genomic instability" don't care about new years resolutions ...


Dec 31, 2014
have a happy new years eve everyone. stay safe, and don't ingest any ionizing radiation! because the curses of "genomic instability" don't care about new years resolutions ...


Happy New Year to you too. I certainly won't worry about ingesting ionizing radiation as that's impossible. I won't worry about ingesting any significant amount of nuclides which might give me cancer (which is theoretically possible).

I hope the NRC tells me to bugger off...for your sake...

Dec 31, 2014
So, MM

While it remains unclear exactly what "action" you intend to initiate against @prothopectore, what is clear is that those posts struck a raw nerve within you, which goes quite a way towards confirming my suspicion that you are yet another example of those posters here who are the complete tools of Nuke'n'Fossil.

It goes without saying that this automatically illuminates your ethically and morally compromised character, and goes even further to illustrate the highly suspect character of the vast majority of your posts in this forum.

It goes even further still to confirm my long-held suspicion that you are simply a dick, as well.

However, since you have failed to make plain your exact intentions, perhaps this analysis is a bit premature.

So, why don't you uncloud this matter for us, and state explicitly just what you intend to do and/or have done as recourse by virtue of your membership in a free society.

There's a good lad.


Dec 31, 2014
There's a good lad.


Indeed I am ;)


Dec 31, 2014
I think it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater isn't it?

Why is that?

Dec 31, 2014
If anyone wants an acceptable and global/international view of the situation in Fukushima look no further...

http://www.who.in...0228/en/

"A comprehensive assessment by international experts on the health risks associated with the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (NPP) disaster in Japan has concluded that, for the general population inside and outside of Japan, the predicted risks are low and no observable increases in cancer rates above baseline rates are anticipated. "

Cranks aside....

Dec 31, 2014
" I certainly won't worry about ingesting ionizing radiation as that's impossible."
------------------------------------------------

The 22 who breathed in the Americium and Plutonium at WIPP will show you otherwise, but it will take time for cancers. You only count those who go from vertical to horizontal immediately.

Want proof they ingested ionizing radiation?

Dec 31, 2014
"I think it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater isn't it? Why is that?"
----------------------------------------

Because the goobers panic, . . like they did when the draft-dodgers in their Undisclosed Locations screamed "WMD!".

Dec 31, 2014
The 22 who breathed in the Americium and Plutonium at WIPP will show you otherwise, but it will take time for cancers. You only count those who go from vertical to horizontal immediately.

Want proof they ingested ionizing radiation?


Well, let me explain gkam, Americium and Plutonium are nuclides....they are NOT ionizing radiation. If you idiots can't even get your terms straight you should be held to legal account for your blatant slander...

While I don't think the NRC would hold someone with such limited knowledge as you've demonstrated here to account, they WILL hold a PhD to account...don't think they won't read ALL posts here though....

Happy new year :)

Dec 31, 2014
Why do they think it's going to peak in 2015 and 2016, when the most of the reactors are still leaking contaminated water into the ocean?

Dec 31, 2014
Why do they think it's going to peak in 2015 and 2016, when the most of the reactors are still leaking contaminated water into the ocean?


And all tests have shown they are far below a dangerous level :)


Dec 31, 2014
Hey Caliban,

Where are you on this subject? Are you a good lad, or are you fomenting falsehoods and...well...should I report you too?

note that they can get your ip address etc etc etc :)

note, I'm only interested in the TRUTH here, if I'm wrong so be it, I recant...but if people here are LYING and spreading disinformation to panic people You WILL be held to account...

Dec 31, 2014
Attention everybody:
MM posted this:
"Well, let me explain gkam, Americium and Plutonium are nuclides....they are NOT ionizing radiation. If you idiots can't even get your terms straight you should be held to legal account for your blatant slander..."
-------------
I think you need to look up Plutonium, its half-life, and the products of its decay, including that 5.4 Million electron Volt particle. Then, look up how many disintegrations a single microgram can produce.

You really do not understand it, do you?

Why are wasting our time?

Hold me "to legal account", . . PLEASE!!

Dec 31, 2014
Attention everybody:
MM posted this:
"Well, let me explain gkam, Americium and Plutonium are nuclides....they are NOT ionizing radiation. If you idiots can't even get your terms straight you should be held to legal account for your blatant slander..."
-------------
I think you need to look up Plutonium, its half-life, and the products of its decay, including that 5.4 Million electron Volt particle. Then, look up how many disintegrations a single microgram can produce.

You really do not understand it, do you?

Why are wasting our time?

Hold me "to legal account", . . PLEASE!!


Indeed, I will, I'll now mention you too. Actinides are substances, they produce ionizing radiation to varying levels depending on isotope. If you yell fire, you will be held to account...at least I hope our government protects us to that extent at least....

Dec 31, 2014
Glad you finally looked up what the rest of us already knew.

Dec 31, 2014
Glad you finally looked up what the rest of us already knew.

I, and the NRC (I suspect) will have differing views....

Dec 31, 2014
I promise if you send it in, one of us will be on one kind of their lists or another, . . and it probably won't be me.

You threatened, now you have to go through with it. Please keep us informed.

Meanwhile, please send me the Magic Fuel Cycle you keep on trumpeting.

Dec 31, 2014
I promise if you send it in, one of us will be on one kind of their lists or another, . . and it probably won't be me.

You threatened, now you have to go through with it. Please keep us informed.

Meanwhile, please send me the Magic Fuel Cycle you keep on trumpeting.


I've done so before, simply look up past threads or look it up independently...

Dec 31, 2014
Be specific. Which one?


Dec 31, 2014
Okay, I read the one you sent. Here is a part you must have missed:

http://en.wikiped...t_wastes

Dec 31, 2014
Hey Caliban,

Where are you on this subject? Are you a good lad, or are you fomenting falsehoods and...well...should I report you too?

note that they can get your ip address etc etc etc :)

note, I'm only interested in the TRUTH here, if I'm wrong so be it, I recant...but if people here are LYING and spreading disinformation to panic people You WILL be held to account...


MM, why do you not answer the very forthright question I asked of you?

Has the running dog lost it's teeth?

And you claim to be a good lad?

Slander, by definition, means making a false statement about an individual or entity.

A difference of opinion or viewpoint doesn't fit this definition either literally or in a legal sense.

Much less in terms of trying to ascertain either the facts or the simple truth.

Now, answer the question.

And do not threaten me again, fucktard.


Dec 31, 2014
No, Caliban, . . make him "report" you.

Here's what I got from him:
"I'm sure many criminals have said the same until the knock at the door...
Whatever else happens rest assured the NRC has been contacted about YOU......"


Dec 31, 2014
""I'm sure many criminals have said the same until the knock at the door..."
---------------------------------------------

I hope you're not sending otto.

Dec 31, 2014
Dont listen to these guys saying nothing to worry about. While there isnt much we can do about it now, hopefully people get the fallacy of man down pat.

I followed fukushima from the beging and spent many hours reading. An none of it is any good. Fukushima is by far and large our worse ever nuclear accident. Each core that melted had 50 tons of material in them, lastest estimates was that 15-35% of the core material went up in the first few weeks of the accident. This came about from a study of fine black dust around japan that was identified as core material. So anywhere from 20 tons of material on the low side and 50 tons of material was put into the enviorment. That leaves 100 tons still missing, possibly in the earth. How can they say any of this is safe when small amount is deadly

On the ocean. If you seeing it on the west coast, then its from west coast to japan, not just some diluting plume. Secondly, if they are telling you this, then things are not good.

Dec 31, 2014
And do not threaten me again, fucktard.


Why would you consider something a threat if you're telling the truth. All I'm doing is letting someone in authority know of your statements. If they're TRUE you have nothing to worry about I'm sure...

Just interested in the truth here...aren't we all?

Dec 31, 2014
This is REALLY hilarious.

Ridiculous charges, silly statements, preposterous assumptions, and foolish acts, . . . yup, you sure showed us.

Dec 31, 2014
Why would you consider something a threat if you're telling the truth. All I'm doing is letting someone in authority know of your statements. If they're TRUE you have nothing to worry about I'm sure...

Just interested in the truth here...aren't we all?


MM, you can exclude yourself from the group of truth seekers WRT the content of this article since you have already illustrated by word and ratbastardly deed that you consider yourself beyond the need to take into consideration any viewpoint that doesn't agree with your passive acceptance of the fatuous, facile official version, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

Since you seem to have appointed yourself the keeper of the official truth, and have stated:

note that they can get your ip address etc etc etc :)


Take care to note that this is a threat which can be seen to cut both ways.

All this done for an agency that won't give two hoots in hell about these comments.


Dec 31, 2014
And just so my meaning is clear --by "...All this done for an agency that won't give two hoots in hell about these comments."-- I mean I don't mean that you actually feel that the standing of the NRC is in any way jeopordized by the comments here.

No, what actually causes your sanctimonious alarm is that what is jeopordized by the viewpoints and research discussed here in these comments is the safety of your investments, you callow twat.

Jan 01, 2015
Not a surprise. Cesium does not swim very well. No one is monitoring the bottom of the Sagami- Izu-Ogasawa trench which is in all likelihood is where the waste is collecting.

Jan 01, 2015
I think it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater isn't it?
Why is that?
@MM
yes & no & depends
this describes that better than i would have
an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can't merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own.
...
if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others' safety
http://civil-libe...421.html
also it's not very relevant, is it?

the point of that was...?

Jan 01, 2015
...should I report you too?

note that they can get your ip address etc etc etc :)

note, I'm only interested in the TRUTH here, if I'm wrong so be it, I recant...but if people here are LYING and spreading disinformation to panic people You WILL be held to account...
@MM
1- given that this site allows anonymizers, it wouldn't do any good to track the IP address
2- even if Cal is NOT using an anonymizer, a dynamic IP would only get you within the region
3- what was so bad that they would be held to account for?
4- it is not very likely that anything will be done by the site: they still allow cantdrive, realitycheck, rygg, uba, Zephir, jvk, deliriousneuron and all those to continue posting pseudoscience blatantly
5- if you are suggesting legal ramifications, they will have to be initiated by you, and that is costly

what is so bad that you would warn of legal ramifications anyway?
especially in such an aggressive threatening manner?

Jan 01, 2015
"It was kind of like a dye experiment" - Makes me want to puke!

"how another event might move through the ocean" - ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A FIFTH GRADER? This event has not stopped, they only have one place to dump the water. Figure it out for yourself!

Crap science at it's finest....

Jan 01, 2015
I just want to apologize to everyone here for my behavior yesterday. I'm going to bow out of the community here. I've come to realize I'm not being very good for my fellow human beings here, or good for myself. I

Please accept my unreserved apology, I wish I could unsay a lot of things.

Sincere wishes for a happy new year to you all...

MM

Jan 01, 2015
MM, Don't go.

We are all flawed.

Why don't these posts show up?

Oh, . . this is the fourth attempt.

Jan 01, 2015
Is anybody else having trouble posting here?

If so, just post here and tell us.


Jan 01, 2015
Here is some recent information on the plume from Chernobyl:
http://www.global...er/20908

Jan 01, 2015
I just want to apologize to everyone here for my behavior yesterday. I'm going to bow out of the community here. I've come to realize I'm not being very good for my fellow human beings here, or good for myself. I

Please accept my unreserved apology, I wish I could unsay a lot of things.

Sincere wishes for a happy new year to you all...

MM


That won't be neccesary, MM.

Apology accepted.

You, unlike the obdurate ideologues that plague this site(you know who you are), have always seemed pretty open-minded, and have shown that your viewpoint and understanding are capable of modification when new information or insight becomes available.

Which, I humbly submit, is the whole purpose of this website and most of its commentors.

Happy New Year.

Clean slate.

May we learn much.

Jan 01, 2015
gk,

Took four retries to post that. So it appears to be site-specific problem.

Excellent Chernobyl link, by the way. Nuke'n'Fossil always --always-- attempt to bamboozle the public with the untruth that only the immediate, acute damages are caused by their stupid, incompetent, greed.

I, for one, see no difference between their horrendous acts and BioTerrorism.


Jan 01, 2015
MM, get your puny patoot back here. All that other stuff was last year, . . (and SO 2014!).

We're starting over.

BTW, holding down the submit button for several seconds seems to work for posting.

Jan 02, 2015
All three of those places display safe radiation levels except for the actual buildings that house the material....


That is NOT true. You cannot safely stay in Pripyet for more than about two and a half hours without wearing protection, you can't leave the paths and you can't touch any plants or objects outside the buildings. Did you know that there is a shortage of wild boar meat in Europe because central-European wild boars are above the legal limit of radioactive cesium from eating mushrooms still carrying matter from the '86 Chernobyl disaster?

Jan 02, 2015
NO amount of radiation is "safe".


You can't be this stupid surely? Were exposed to radiation just walking outside. Banana is the most radioactive food we eat ( i think ). And were all perfectly fine.

Low levels of radiation is fine - we evolved through hundreds of thousands of years with a continuous level of radiation.

You can also be exposed to a moderate amount of radiation if it is for a short amount of time too.

Jan 02, 2015
Good lord. You can always count on any article regarding nuclear power in any way to bring out all the tin-foil hat types.

Jan 02, 2015
Fukushima Radiation Can't Be Compared to Bananas or X-Rays

The human body is born with potassium-40 [the type of radiation found in bananas] in its tissues and it is the most common radionuclide in human tissues and in food. We evolved in the presence of potassium-40 and our bodies have well-developed repair mechanisms to respond to its effects. The concentration of potassium-40 in the human body is constant and not affected by concentrations in the environment.

The amount of potassium (and therefore of 40K) in the human body is fairly constant because of homeostatsis, so that any excess absorbed from food is quickly compensated by the elimination of an equal amount.

Jan 02, 2015
"You can always count on any article regarding nuclear power in any way to bring out all the tin-foil hat types."
------------------------------

Yup, especially those who never learned to look behind the scenes, or had experience. How many folk are ignorant of the size of the Fukushima disaster? Most. How many of those understand the technology sufficiently to comment?

Most of them do not understand the implications of using MOX in Unit Three, or the evidence of Cobalt 60, an Activation Product, in the steel of Fukushima Dai-ini, kilometers away.

Most have no idea of the construction and operation of the GE Mark I BWR, or the safety systems involved. These folk are the fools of the industry, believing them again, instead of the reality of the situation.

Most folk do not know some of the Corium is only inches from the Earth and the watertable. Ask them what will happen when it hits it.

Jan 02, 2015
It follows that the additional radiation exposure due to eating a banana lasts only for a few hours after ingestion, namely the time it takes for the normal potassium contents of the body to be restored by the kidneys.

Geoff Meggitt—a retired health physicist, and former editor of the Journal of Radiological Protection—worked for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and its later commercial offshoots for 25 years. He says there's an enormous variation in the risks associated with swallowing the same amount of different radioactive materials—and even some difference between the same dose, of the same material, but in different chemical forms.


Jan 02, 2015
It all depends on two factors:

1) The physical characteristics of the radioactivity—i.e, What's its half-life? Is the radiation emitted alpha, beta or gamma?

2) The way that the radioactivity travels around and is taken up by the body—i.e., How much is absorbed by the blood stream? What tissues does this specific isotope tend to accumulate in?

The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use, Meggitt says, because the potassium content of our bodies seems to be under homeostatic control. When you eat a banana, your body's level of Potassium-40 doesn't increase. You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40. The net dose of a banana is zero.

And that's the difference between a useful educational tool and propaganda. Bananas aren't really going to give anyone "a more realistic assessment of actual risk", they're just going to further distort the picture.


Jan 02, 2015
Most "Background Radiation" Didn't Exist Before Nuclear Weapons Testing and Nuclear Reactors

Nuclear apologists also pretend that we get a higher exposure from background radiation (when we fly, for example) or x-rays then we get from nuclear accidents.

In fact, there was exactly zero background radioactive cesium or iodine before above-ground nuclear testing and nuclear accidents started.

Caesium-137 is unique in that it is totally anthropogenic. Unlike most other radioisotopes, caesium-137 is not produced from its non-radioactive isotope, but from uranium. It did not occur in nature before nuclear weapons testing began. By observing the characteristic gamma rays emitted by this isotope, it is possible to determine whether the contents of a given sealed container were made before or after the advent of atomic bomb explosions. This procedure has been used by researchers to check the authenticity of certain rare wines, most notably the purported "Jefferson bottles".

Jan 02, 2015
Cesium-133 is the only naturally occurring isotope and is non-radioactive; all other isotopes, including cesium-137, are produced by human activity.

Similarly, iodine-131 is not a naturally occurring isotope. As the Encyclopedia Britannica notes: The only naturally occurring isotope of iodine is stable iodine-127. An exceptionally useful radioactive isotope is iodine-131…

(Fukushima has spewed much more radioactive cesium and iodine than Chernobyl. The amount of radioactive cesium released by Fukushima was some 20-30 times higher than initially admitted. Japanese experts say that Fukushima is currently releasing up to 93 billion becquerels of radioactive cesium into the ocean each day. And the cesium levels hitting the west coast of North America will keep increasing for several years. Fukushima is still spewing radiation into the environment, and the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl.)

;)


Jan 02, 2015
Good stuff, prothopectore.

Jan 02, 2015
"How many of those understand the technology sufficiently to comment?"

The real problem isn't people who know nothing, but rather people who spout off, or simply copy and paste, falsehoods they get from extremist anti-nuclear sources. Prothopectore even copies and pastes information that is irrelevant, even when true.

And that you, gkam, can state that "NO amount of radiation is safe" demonstrates that you are completely ignorant of the health physics involved.

It is quite clear from your comments that neither of you are interested in learning any truth, but only in spouting your paranoid talking points.

Jan 02, 2015
thanks gkam. you too. it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.
I enjoy how pro nukers wanna bash people who are trying to save their next of kins lives by trying to inform the general public of the dangers of nuclear power plants and the nuclear weapons industry. we just get no respect...
;)
except from each other.

the nuclear priesthood would love for us to shut up so they can propagandize their genomic instability agenda. who can blame 'em? nuclear industry shareholders make a nice tidy profit off of the kindness of the middle class American tax payer. the nuclear industry is tax payer subsidized cradle to grave......literally.


Jan 02, 2015
No paranoia here, Scott, my concerns come from some experience with it.

How about you?

Jan 02, 2015
1300 radioactive isotopes......most top secret because that's the way the department of defense likes it.

all we know about are a few like;
uranium-235 has a half-life of 703,800,000 years.
plutonium -239, with a half-life of 24,110 years.
americium-24, with a half-life of 432.7 years.
strontium-90, with a half-life of 29.1 years.
tritium, with a half-life of 12.3 years.
cesium-137, with a half-life of 30.17 years.
cesium-134 has a half-life of 2.0652 years.
iodine-131 has a half-life of about 8 days.
iodine-129 has a half-life of 15,700,000 years.

and there are about 1300 more (remember from earlier up) radioactive isotopes released from melting down reactors.

the nuclear priesthood likes to keep its secrets to itself.

...and thats just a start on the isotope list thats created. AND you have to add in "bioaccumulation" and "biomagnification" because the situation isnt static;)


Jan 02, 2015
@gkam: And what might your experience be?

And to answer your question: I'm a health physicist, so radiation safety is my profession. I expect you'll accuse me of being part of the Conspiracy now.

@prothopectore: Most radioactive isotopes are top secret? All we know about are a few? Which lunatic website did you get this garbage from, assuming you're not just making it up yourself? There's nothing secret about the list of unstable nuclides. Anyone can buy a table of nuclides that contradicts your claims and mount it on their wall, or just look it up online. You are completely full of it.

And by the way, copying and pasting half-life data to give the false impression that you know what you're talking about doesn't fool anyone.

Jan 03, 2015
I am a former utility engineer who previously tested the safety systems of GE Mark I & II BWRs. The units at Fukushima Dai-ichi were (past tense) Mark I systems.

Jan 03, 2015
why try to discredit me through attacks on my character and the info I've posted?

oh, that's right, that's all you can do because you know the information I've posted is true and correct.

not a very good display of sportsmanship on your part scott l.

:)


Jan 03, 2015
@prothopectore: I dispute the info you've posted because it's nonsense. You make dogmatic assertions which are demonstrably untrue. Radioisotopes whose existence is Top Secret? What rubbish. You can find a full list of radioisotopes with half-lives greater than 1 hour on any table of nuclides. There's nothing secret about them - you can even find interactive versions of the table online. You also flood the comment section with long-winded statements filled with information which is often irrelevant to the issue at hand. For example, simply listing a number of radioisotopes and their half-lives? What, exactly, was that supposed to prove, or even argue for?

@gkam: I assume, then, that you're familiar with the controversy surrounding the LNT model? And since you believe that any dose, no matter how small, is dangerous, I can only assume that you avoid CT scans, dental x-rays, air travel, etc.

Jan 03, 2015
I think Scott does not know the difference between a Cosmic ray and an inhaled piece of Plutonium spitting out 5.4MeV Alpha particles.

Jan 03, 2015
I am a former utility engineer who previously tested the safety systems of GE Mark I & II BWRs. The units at Fukushima Dai-ichi were (past tense) Mark I systems.
Warning: this poster lies about his qualifications in order to lend weight to disinformation about nukes.

Gkam was never an engineer, by his own admission. He was a job shopper with an inflated title, one of the many many jobs he has held and lost. And yet he continues to pretend that no one here is aware of this.

Jan 03, 2015
Otto, I do not know what your pathetic game is, but it has grown old. If you do not have anything within the topic, please go away and troll some place else.

Did you tell these good folk how you are going to locate and deal with the Corium? Hmmmm?

Do you know what it is? Even after I told you?

Jan 03, 2015
Here is aninteresting article abstract, or part of it.
PLUTONIUM ISOTOPES IN THE OCEAN OFF JAPAN AFTER FUKUSHIMA
K. Buesseler (1), E. Black (1), S. Pike (1), T. Kenna (2), P. Masqué (3)
(1) Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, (2) Lamont-Doherty Earth Obseratory, (3) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

The Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants (NPPs) are known to be an unprecedented accidental source of 137Cs, 134Cs and other volatile radionuclides to the ocean. Much less is known however about the extent of input of refractory radionuclides such as plutonium to the environment.

" . . In 2011, in surface ocean waters, we found ratios 240Pu/239Pu >0.3, which implies a component of Fukushima Pu had been delivered to the ocean, given NPP derived end-member ratios of 0.35-0.45."

Jan 03, 2015
http://www.whoi.e...tid=5122

Here is a report by Wood's Hole, but I have not yet watched it.

Jan 03, 2015
All I got to say is that it took less than a year for a fishing trailer from japan to reach US waters.

Jan 03, 2015
Airborne stuff got here first followed by floating materials, followed by the radioactive plume in the ocean currents.

Jan 03, 2015
Greenpeace volunteers made a video of nearby Japanese provinces. Their Geiger counters read hotspots 200X and 500X times normal background radiation

Jan 03, 2015
The background at my house is normally about 0.08 microSieverts/hr, but has been as high as 0.24, I noticed. I did not plot out the record, so I don't know how high it got.

Jan 03, 2015
good thing nuclear power plants give out iodine tablets to people living within a 50 mile radius of a nuke plant. during a melt down those iodine tabs will go a long way to protect peoples thyroids.

so what about a plutonium tablet? how about a strontium tablet? a tritium tablet? a cesium tablet? an americium tablet?

so my thyroid will be a little bit protected, but my bones, my heart muscle, my circulatory system, etc...... won't have any prophylactic means of avoiding damage from the radiation.

please do post up your list of isotopes scott. because everyone but me knows all 1300 man made isotopes that get released from melting down reactors, but I especially want the isotope list that spewing from the melted down MOX fuel reactor.

nothing i've posted here yet is irrelevant to the topic buddy boy;)


Jan 03, 2015
ScottL says: "And to answer your question: I'm a health physicist, so radiation safety is my profession."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yet he seemed to think all disintegrations are the same, all radiation is the same, all probabilities are the same, all biological reactions to radiation the same.

Tell us, Scott, the difference between that Cosmic Ray against your scalp in the airplane and the particle of Plutonium or Americium in your lung.

Jan 03, 2015
Otto, I do not know what your pathetic game is, but it has grown old. If you do not have anything within the topic, please go away and troll some place else
The game is, you lie about your qualifications and I expose your lies. And we will keep playing it until you stop lying.
I am a former utility engineer who previously tested the safety systems of GE Mark I & II BWRs
Validation procedures are designed by real engineers. You were hired as a temp to follow their written instructions, read their meters, and fill out their forms. And when you were done you were let go. Right?

Form filling does not give special insight into how systems are designed or how they are meant to function.

You never 'tested anything'. So stop lying about it.

Jan 03, 2015
Tell us about the Corium, otto.

Stop hiding behind me and my experience. I want to hear how you plan on making it "safe".

Jan 03, 2015
Tell us about the Corium, otto.

Stop hiding behind me and my experience. I want to hear how you plan on making it "safe".
Tell us why you have this compulsion to lie about yourself.

And BTW Im not qualified to discuss corium beyond what I can find on the net from experts. And neither are you. Stop stealing their info and pretending you got it from personal experience.

Jan 03, 2015
Let's get back to the topic. How are you going to deal with the hundreds of tons of radioactive water flushed into the sea every day?

I want to hear how you are going to make it "safe". Really. Tell us.

Jan 03, 2015
Let's get back to the topic. How are you going to deal with the hundreds of tons of radioactive water flushed into the sea every day?

I want to hear how you are going to make it "safe"
Oh I think we have a more immediate problem to address. We have a fraud here at physorg who misrepresents himself...
I am a former utility engineer who previously tested the safety systems of GE Mark I & II BWRs
-Sorry, no rational discussion until this more pressing issue can be resolved.
Really. Tell us
Tell us why you have the compulsion to lie about yourself. Really. Has this been a problem your entire life? Is this why you were never able to hold a steady job?

Jan 03, 2015
No more personal diversions. Stand up like a man, otto and face the issue: How are you going to "save" us from Fukushima and the hundreds of tons of radioactive water they dump into the ocean every day?

Jan 03, 2015
I am a former utility engineer who previously tested the safety systems of GE Mark I & II BWRs. The units at Fukushima Dai-ichi were (past tense) Mark I systems.


@Gkam - will you stop talking out your god damn ass. If you worked on these things then you clearly should know what you are talking about when it comes to radiation.

Yet you previously stated further back in the comments the following:
NO amount of radiation is "safe".


How can some one working in such a field say such a ridiculous statement. Even high school kids know this is complete nonsense. There is radiation EVERY WHERE and for the most part it is perfectly safe for all living things on earth.

If the Japanese are covering up what ever is happening at the plant every single god damn comment that has been pasted, is pure speculation. To suggest you know better is to suggest you some how hacked their systems and stole data like some kind of wiki leaks hero. Which you clearly are not.

Jan 03, 2015
"@Gkam - will you stop talking out your god damn ass."

It just sounds like it because your head in yours.

Stop this silliness. Tell me how you expect to get the Corium out of any of the three reactors.

Jan 03, 2015
No more personal diversions
I agree. Quit posting lies about your personal history.
Stand up like a man, otto and face the issue: How are you going to "save" us from Fukushima and the hundreds of tons of radioactive water they dump into the ocean every day?
Others have addressed these misperceptions. You ignore their argumants and continue to post misinformation, and you do it while claiming to be what you are not.

Stand up like a man. Admit you have a problem. Quit lying.


Jan 03, 2015
"Yet he seemed to think all disintegrations are the same, all radiation is the same, all probabilities are the same, all biological reactions to radiation the same."

You know, gkam, if you're going to make stuff up, you should limit yourself to things readers can't just scroll up to find the truth about. In fact it is you and your ilk who act as if all radiations are the same, all doses are the same, all activity levels the same - dangerously high.

You know, if you decide you want to give up the con-man game and actually learn something, I can recommend some books for you.

Jan 03, 2015
Sorry Scott that was supposed to be a 5/5.

Jan 03, 2015
There actually is a safe amount of ionizing radiation: zero

Jan 03, 2015
No, Scott, you equated the radiation you get from a ride in an airplane to the inhaled particle of Plutonium. You implied they were all alike. I reminded you of the differences between a cosmic ray stopped by the epidermis to bombarding the soft tissues of the lung with 5 MeV particles.

Jan 04, 2015
There actually is a safe amount of ionizing radiation: zero


Well at least you're educated enough to specify a radiation type. As for gkam. No idea what his excuse is. How ever, radiation therapy can be beneficial. So saying zero is a bit close minded given were talking science here. It has a benefit when applied as needed.

@gkam If japan are covering this stuff up how do you know what is going on there? You don't, so stop talking on things you have no evidence to back it up.

Jan 04, 2015
@Otto: No worries. I appreciate the sentiment.

@gkam: No, YOU brought up cosmic rays vs. Plutonium and I didn't address it at all. And even in that example, you failed to specify the quantity of Plutonium inhaled, which is required to calculate the actual dose to the lungs. Depending on the activity, the consequences could range from negligible all the way up to very serious.

You also betray your ignorance, once again: the consequences of radiation from internally deposited radionuclides are exactly the same as external radiation exposure, yet you insist that they are totally different. 100 rem to the lungs from an external source is the same as 100 rem from an internal source. And before you go off claiming that I think an alpha particle is the same as a gamma photon, I'll point out that the rem calculation already includes a weighting factor for the radiation type. But as an expert you knew that already, right?

Jan 04, 2015
There actually is a safe amount of ionizing radiation: zero

WHO presented in 2009 a recommended reference level (the national reference level), 100 Bq/m3, for radon in dwellings. The recommendation also says that where this is not possible, 300 Bq/m3 should be selected as the highest level.

Jan 04, 2015
"(Becquerels are the number of decay events per second per 260 gallons of water.)"
Wrong. A Becquerel is one decay per second, whatever the volume.

Jan 04, 2015
NO amount of radiation is "safe".

Nonsense. The natural background should be defined as "safe".

Jan 04, 2015
"Nonsense. The natural background should be defined as "safe"."
--------------------------------------------------------

Not with the lung cancer rate where it is, mostly due to atmospheric nuclear testing.

Jan 04, 2015
NO amount of radiation is "safe".
Nonsense. The natural background should be defined as "safe".
It's not safe. Airline crew have much higher brain cancer working in natural background radiation. It's safer than Fukushima or Chernobyl, but you are nobody to tell us what is safe. Moreover natural background radiation varies by three magnitudes depending upon location. I will tell you what is safe for me, thank you

Jan 04, 2015
kochevnik offered
It's not safe. Airline crew have much higher brain cancer working in natural background radiation
Although I agree with U that ANY radiation is NOT safe, I am curious of your report re higher brain cancer of airline crew - any actual studies ?

kochevnik claimed
It's safer than Fukushima or Chernobyl, but you are nobody to tell us what is safe
Again I agree its not up to random commenters to tell us what is safe by any means but, I am curious re my other Q to U as to the source of your claim its safer than F + C etc ?

kochevnik offered
Moreover natural background radiation varies by three magnitudes depending upon location
Very likely to be the case, if at least by way of intuition, bearing in mind Eg for me in Western Australia where we have high thorium in mineral sands etc - so again any actual study U are referring to & if not just where did U get this - from a lecturer at a Uni (yes it happens, they too make claims) or data ?

Jan 04, 2015
my2cts claimed
Nonsense. The natural background should be defined as "safe"
NO !
If you actually understand what is mean by radionucleotides & the nature of background radiation as; alpha, beta, gamma & occasional neutrons U would be so angry to have ANY bullets of that type Impacting U - as that is what they R !

How many micro bullets do U think r safe, say 100,000 per hour for each 24hr period, would that be ok as it contributes to your aging & cancerous Demise ?

Radionucleotides & Relativity, for that matter, R top on my list of hobbies, so U had better offer SOME actual hard data ie Evidence that radiation for ANY period is ever deemed SAFE ?

Who R U my2cts ?

Idle commenter without an education or a mouthpiece for nuclear power ?

Own up my2cts or STFU & go away !

What idiot would EVER suggest a 'natural' background level could EVER be defined safe ?

& for who & under what circumstances & over what period & in what environment ?

my2cts; Banana Dose !

Jan 04, 2015
Especially for Scott_L & my2cts
There is this thing called 'background radiation', some of it contributes to aging, mutations, noise etc It makes sense to minimise it because, Y would U want micro-bullets tearing your tissues offering increased risks of all sorts, want to have children ?

This might tickle your fancy guys, yes there is/has been a "Banana Dose"
https://en.wikipe...ent_dose

Blimey, Education is so very important (sigh)

Now, as it happens there is a source of non-ionising radiation which has shown some evidence of ameliorating protein plaques re alzheimers & guess what they came from older type mobile phones at around 918MHz, this essentially becomes heat but, obviously has a resonant aspect re its so called target, as long as the intensity is low it may be tolerable & may be beneficial but hey, its still a lot less than IR & certainly NOT ionising (at that energy/frequency) as is the radiation from nuclear releases...

Jan 04, 2015
The difference between radiation emitters – external and internal

The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.

How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation

George Monbiot and others at best misinform and at worst distort evidence of the dangers of atomic energy

Helen Caldicott guardian.co.uk, 11 April 2011

1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation.


Jan 04, 2015
The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]

Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer.

Jan 04, 2015
Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.

The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.

2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.

Jan 04, 2015
3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.

Jan 04, 2015
Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.

Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations.

Jan 04, 2015
In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the 'affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl." ..

…Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity.

Jan 04, 2015
As we have seen, he (Monbiot) and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health."

;)


Jan 04, 2015
"Nonsense. The natural background should be defined as "safe"."
--------------------------------------------------------

Not with the lung cancer rate where it is, mostly due to atmospheric nuclear testing.
More lies.
http://www.webmd....r-causes

-Not even on the list you freak.

Jan 04, 2015
Otto, you are hilarious. Did you stay up all night to find that?

"A medical look at plutonium: Plutonium dust may cause lung and bone cancer.
If somebody inhales plutonium dust, he won't notice anything special. Only 10 to 50 years later is it possible that lung and bone cancer may develop. Once in the lungs, the plutonium dust stays there for many years: sparks that fail to extinguish. Ten per cent of the original dose in the lungs can still be found there after fifteen years. Very slowly the particles move to the lymph nodes of the lungs. When it appears in the blood plutonium "seeks" the bones and the liver. Even when the concentration of the plutonium dust in the air is very low, accumulation of this plutonium in the lung may become a serious burden. . They found that as little as a 27 millionth of one gram of plutonium dust (27 micrograms of 239Pu oxide) is enough to cause a lung cancer.

Jan 04, 2015
I've been looking in the Bulletin for specific articles on the health effects of Plutonium in the atmosphere. So far, I have yet to find them, but will persist.

Jan 04, 2015
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics
1984, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 171-177
Microscopic dose distribution around PuO2 particles in lungs of hamsters, rats, and dogs

J. H. Diel,
J. A. Mewhinney,
R. A. Guilmette

Summary

Syrian hamsters, Fischer rats and Beagle dogs inhaled mono-disperse aerosols of PuO2 and were scarificed during the first 16 days after exposure. The microscopic distribution of radiation dose and tissue-at-risk to alpha irradiation around individual particles in lung was studied using autoradiographs of lung tissue sections. The dose distributions in dogs and rats were more diffuse than in hamsters. A slightly greater tumor incidence was calculated for rats and dogs than for hamsters on the basis of dose distribution using the same dose-effect model for all three species.

Jan 04, 2015
The small differences in tumor incidence predicted on this basis do not explain the extremely large differences in tumor incidences observed in these species after inhalation of PuO2.

*Research performed under U.S. Department of Energy Contract Number DE-AC04-76EV01013. Research conducted in facilities fully accredited by the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care


Jan 04, 2015
Hi everyone. Best wishes for the new year. I haven't time for more than read-only lately, but I felt impelled to make the following observations for the sake of this discussion.

1) When reading "No level of nuclear radiation exposure is safe" it should be understood that the normal background levels are already a given, and that any ADDITIONAL exposure levels only make that 'normal' situation worse.

2) BIOTA within the whole Oceanic/Land ecosystem ALSO concentrates such 'above-the-normal' radionuclides released into it, and it shows up eventually in our food. In this case the rate of accumulation in biota of the whole water column and across vast reaches should be closely monitored to identify developing 'unsafe levels' hot spots.

3) Individual's peculiar physiologic/metabolic/medical status, genetic predispositions, lifestyle habits (smoking etc) will affect people differently/sooner/later even if everyone exposed to unsafe levels at same time/levels/ways.

Good luck all!

Jan 04, 2015
Hi everyone.


Well Hi for you too Really-Skippy, how you are Cher?

Good luck all!


I'll give up my portion to the other all-Skippys. I don't use it that much, but thanks anyway.


Jan 04, 2015
What is all this skippy nonsense?

Jan 04, 2015
Too much of anything is always bad........

Jan 05, 2015
After reading most comments here it just makes me sick to see all these people have no clue what's going on. It's not about the radiation that zaps your skin. NOBODY should be talking about dose and how much the body can take!!! You have to worry about the tiny little particle that you can't see and it's not going to set off a geiger counter that much. The little thing that you inhale and gets stuck in you lung and you can't sneeze it out. It's a roll of the dice, you can sneeze it out or it may lodge and never come out. It just lies there firing it's radiation at your tissue forever. You will be buried with this particle and when your body has decomposed to nothing but bones that little particle will still be firing right next to your skeleton. They want you to think of it like a xray and how much yearly dose you can get. How many nuclear power plants would there be if everyone thought about the particles flying around? Go ahead and ignore it! You can always blame it on smoking.

Jan 05, 2015
Go ahead and ignore it! You can always blame it on smoking.

Or blame it on radon which is ever present in the atmosphere in much greater quantities than any man made particles.

Jan 05, 2015
ekim claimed - rather oddly with no data
Or blame it on radon which is ever present in the atmosphere in much greater quantities than any man made particles
What did U read which forces that opinion on which U are then compelled to have to pass on without qualification ?

ie. A source for that claim please especially as 222Rn has a short half life of ~4 days & decays to metals ie Which fall to ground & rather quickly too as they are solid at NTP ????

I don't dispute Radon exists & its known especially in some places in USA where it builds up in basements ostensibly from seepage below ground from iirc granite or basalt of particular types but, how much is in the atmosphere so anything to support your "arbitrary" claim please

Some details re Radon here:-
https://en.wikipe...ki/Radon

Jan 05, 2015
None of the pro nuclear folk here will tell me how they plan to even see the Corium. Most never even heard of it, yet they assure us we are "safe".

We are still washing hundreds of tons of highly-radioactive water into the Pacific every day!

Jan 05, 2015
We are still washing hundreds of tons of highly-radioactive water into the Pacific every day!
People need to see the radioactive plume visually. Could some visors convert ionizing radiation into visible spectrum? Unfortunately much of it is absorbed in water but the plant surroundings should offer possibilities, perhaps with modified Google glasses. Otherwise it's like talking to your cat

Jan 05, 2015
ekim claimed - rather oddly with no data
Or blame it on radon which is ever present in the atmosphere in much greater quantities than any man made particles
What did U read which forces that opinion on which U are then compelled to have to pass on without qualification ?

Some details re Radon here:-
https://en.wikipe...ki/Radon

"Typical domestic (radon) exposures average about 48 Bq/m3 indoors, though this varies widely, and 15 Bq/m3 outdoors"
From your wikipedia link.
"The amount of radiation that finally made it to Canada's west coast by June 2013 was very small - less than 1 Becquerels per cubic meter."
From the article above.
Seems like you are ignoring the elephant in the room.

Jan 05, 2015
I've been looking in the Bulletin for specific articles on the health effects of Plutonium in the atmosphere. So far, I have yet to find them, but will persist.
-because they dont exist? Are you still claiming that plutonium is raining down on idaho?

I gave you a source which lists the causes of lung cancer. Fallout is not on the list. And yet you stand by your statement that it is the MAIN cause...
Not with the lung cancer rate where it is, mostly due to atmospheric nuclear testing
-What makes you think you know something that the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society dont? Besides self-delusion coupled with senility that is?
None of the pro nuclear folk here will tell me how they plan to even see the Corium. Most never even heard of it, yet they assure us we are "safe"
Gkam croaks corium every time he is caught in a lie, as if corium gives him the excuse to lie about whatever he wants.

Jan 05, 2015
Otto, shut the hell up. If you have nothing to say, say it somewhere else.

This topic is Fukushima, and the radioactive plumes heading for us, thanks to nuke proponents. Have you any education in this area? Any experience? Been in one? Then, you have NO IDEA of what you speak, do you?

Now, let's get back to how the goobers let the nukers pollute the pacific Ocean with radioactivity.


Jan 05, 2015
ekim claimed
.. wikipedia link.
"The amount of radiation that finally made it to Canada's west coast by June 2013 was very small - less than 1 Becquerels per cubic meter."
From the article above.
Seems like you are ignoring the elephant in the room
Beg pardon, U R quoting Radon getting to Canada is small, well fine, it doesn't invalidate my question for U to clarify your claim, U stated earlier of
Or blame it on radon which is ever present in the atmosphere in much greater quantities than any man made particles
There are lots of 'man made particles' eg diesel particulates, smog, industrial emissions etc. But, how is Radon in "much greater quantities", did U mean by mass or gaseous volume or what ?

Did I miss context of your claim, what assumptions were U making for that odd one liner ?

Are U saying Radon from Fukushima is higher or substantially lower than Canada's report but, either, how does that relate comparatively to "much greater quantity" Eg Mass ?

Jan 05, 2015
This topic is Fukushima, and the radioactive plumes heading for us
-So WHY did you post some bullshit about fallout being the main source of lung cancer?

Did you forget you said it?

You should thank me for flagging these delusions of yours. This is similar to keeping people with dementia out of traffic, a public service to both the senile and to the people who might run into them..

Jan 05, 2015
I think otto's fixation on me has gone too far. This verbal vandalism usually leads to more concrete measures.

Get help.

Jan 05, 2015
kochevnik asked
People need to see the radioactive plume visually
But, after all this time what might we see & spread over how large an area & with all the turbulence etc.
Pu is pretty heavy & most by far will be in the oceans & hopefully sink low down, well depending on its chemistry it might be similar to other elements & be taken up biologically...

kochevnik added
.. but the plant surroundings should offer possibilities, perhaps with modified Google glasses
Visual processing forms of FLIR therma graphs would be nice but, thats some pretty heavy infrastructure to visualise a random field of particle motions, they have to strike U to be observed or strike the detector you have on your eyepieces, not something I want to take any further by going there to try. Though I will look at the engineering design, anything that can provide a nice observable material flash from an alpha particle borne in air would be nice but, hey most alpha emitters are not gaseous...

Jan 05, 2015
I think otto's fixation on me has gone too far. This verbal vandalism usually leads to more concrete measures.
Did you say that fallout causes lung cancer OR NOT?? WHY do you think you should be allowed to post whatever nonsense you want, without being called on it?

And are you threatening me here on physorg?

I told you. You post crap and I will expose you. This is not your home where you can bully family members into tolerating your eccentricities.

The ONLY WAY to shut me up, is to stop posting crap and to stop lying.

Are we clear on that?

Jan 05, 2015
Once again, I want to hear how otto and the nuke apologists are going to "clean up" radiation which does not go away.

Get off the character assassination, otto and be a man. How are you going to do it? Do you even understand the design of the GE Mark I BWR?

Jan 05, 2015
Once again, I want to hear how otto and the nuke apologists are going to "clean up" radiation which does not go away.

Get off the character assassination, otto and be a man. How are you going to do it? Do you even understand the design of the GE Mark I BWR?
Croak.

Did you say that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer OR NOT?? WHY do you think you should be allowed to post whatever nonsense you want, without being called on it?

Jan 05, 2015
"Did you say that fallout causes lung cancer OR NOT??"

Yes, I did, and it does. Want the references? My god, otto, your fixation on me is scary.

http://www.scienc...71800576


Jan 05, 2015
Beg pardon, U R quoting Radon getting to Canada is small, well fine, it doesn't invalidate my question for U to clarify your claim, U stated earlier of
Or blame it on radon which is ever present in the atmosphere in much greater quantities than any man made particles
There are lots of 'man made particles' eg diesel particulates, smog, industrial emissions etc. But, how is Radon in "much greater quantities", did U mean by mass or gaseous volume or what ?

Did I miss context of your claim, what assumptions were U making for that odd one liner ?

Are U saying Radon from Fukushima is higher or substantially lower than Canada's report but, either, how does that relate comparatively to "much greater quantity" Eg Mass ?

Radon is naturally occurring in the environment.
48 Bq/m3 and15 Bq/m3 are larger numbers than, less than 1 Bq/m3
It should read man made "radioactive" particles to distinguish from non-radioactive pollution.

Jan 05, 2015
"Did you say that fallout causes lung cancer OR NOT??"

Yes, I did, and it does. Want the references? My god, otto, your fixation on me is scary.

http://www.scienc...71800576


-Gkam the expert of field-derived experience and osmosis, cites an article which says...

"information suggests a possible increased prevalence of carcinoma of the lung in highly exposed survivors of the atomic bombs"

-and think that 'highly exposed survivors' equates with
the lung cancer rate where it is, mostly due to atmospheric nuclear testing
-Ive got to ask... How stupid are you? Are you stupid enough to think that the people here are too stupid to recognize your lies?

And next time quote what I said, not what you think I said.

Jan 05, 2015
Modernmystic claimed
We know exactly how much radiation is safe
NO !
Get to grips with Actuarials, relative risk assessment. Small amounts of ionising radiation as per so called 'background' are tolerable but never completely Safe, its a matter of comparative thresholds & over what period for your lifespan.

Modernmystic added
If no amount is safe we'd all be dead :)
Yes we R all going to die, not much doubt but, think about it, would U prefer NO background radiation or some so called 'safe' background radiation, contributing to aging, cysts, genetic errors, deformities, cancers etc

Ioniosing radiations R like bullets & disrupt biochemical processes requiring anti-oxidants & enzymes to work hard to clean up proteins & DNA/RNA errors, the more mess the more risk of these protective measures failing as U age.

Modernmystic, reply which would YOU rather have, a 'safe' background level in your food U eat each day OR there being NONE ?

How many bullets r OK ?

Jan 05, 2015
Otto, I'll find your links, so you can sleep tonight with a fresh spate of hate-dreams of me.

Jan 05, 2015
ekim offered
Radon is naturally occurring in the environment
Sure but, not wanted obviously, so do what you can to ameliorate & minimise risk, isnt that a 'no brainer' ?

ekim added
48 Bq/m3 and15 Bq/m3 are larger numbers than, less than 1 Bq/m3
Yeah so the so called natural sources are higher than that added by Fukushima in respect of Radon alone. No problem with the relative numbers but, U are missing the point that ALL ionising radiation is cumulative. Besides what region is any Radon from nuclear disasters covering ?

I'm not sure just how much Radon is left as its shortlived ~4 days, so not 'that' bad but, clearly why accept addition when you can have elimination be virtue of not risking with nuclear to start with ?

Isnt that a 'no brainer' & especially so when NOW we have declining costs of Solar etc

ekim added
It should read man made "radioactive" particles to distinguish from non-radioactive pollution
Hmm, reason to avoid Coal's radiation !

Jan 05, 2015
First, we understand the effects of radiation in concert with smoking. It is due to the loss of the celia which normally sweep clean the lung. Here is a link documenting the link between smoking, which gets the credit for lung cancer, and the radioactive pollutants we put into our "Breathing Zone"

http://www.scienc...71800576

Now, I will go after the articles from the 1970's when we did those analyses during weapons testing regarding Plutonium, Americium and the other residue from atmospheric testing. When we did the Hardening Manual, I worked with one of the technicians from Castle Bravo.

Jan 05, 2015
So what makes you think you will find a reputable link which will put fallout-derived lung cancer at the TOP of a list which does not even include it? This list begins with 'cigarette smoking, with about 90% of lung cancers arising as a result of tobacco use'.

You say that
we understand the effects of radiation in concert with smoking
-is what causes tobacco-related cancer, while the experts at the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society clearly state that tobacco smoke contains

"over 4,000 chemical compounds, many of which have been shown to be cancer-causing, or carcinogenic. The two primary carcinogens in tobacco smoke are chemicals known as nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons"

-which are what cause lung cancer. Sorry, plutonium and americium are not on that list.

Jan 05, 2015
Hang on, otto.


Jan 05, 2015
Now, I will go after the articles from the 1970's when we did those analyses during weapons testing regarding Plutonium, Americium and the other residue from atmospheric testing. When we did the Hardening Manual, I worked with one of the technicians from Castle Bravo
-And this is a good example of why amateurs should not be doing science, or be allowed to pretend to know how to do science.

LOOK at the webmd info I posted. Do you see americium or plutonium anywhere on that list??

It doesnt MATTER what you did as some dumfuk technician's ASSISTANT 50 years ago. Fallout is not the MAJOR source of lung cancer. Its not a factor AT ALL.
Hang on, otto
Like I say, the fact that you believe there is info out there to prove your point, despite the list I provided, shows how ignorant you are. And why both dunning and kreuger pegged you as a basket case a long long time ago.
http://code.tutsp...et-22227

Jan 05, 2015
While otto is waiting:

http://www.dec.ny...2008.pdf

Jan 05, 2015
Besides what region is any Radon from nuclear disasters covering ?

I'm not sure just how much Radon is left as its shortlived ~4 days....

Did you answer your own question?
Hmm, reason to avoid Coal's radiation !

Burning coal doesn't create radioactive particles. Any radiation present in coal is naturally occurring.

Jan 05, 2015
Burning coal puts those radionuclides in our breathing zone as particulates. They bombard the lung tissue with high-energy particles.

Jan 05, 2015
Sorry, got lost in the old issues of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Will find that post.

Jan 05, 2015
Burning coal puts those radionuclides in our breathing zone as particulates. They bombard the lung tissue with high-energy particles.
Sorry thats not on the list either.
Will find that post.
No you wont. If fallout was the major cause of lung cancer it would be in the list I posted.

Its not.

Jan 05, 2015
I'd just like to add a new "word of the day" for everyone reading.

the word for today kids is;

Endofullerenes

little bucky balls of internally mixed up isotope goodness. its a good word for everyone here to know and understand. go look it up on the web. especially since they were pumping sea water into the melting down reactors.....the endofullerene production was strong with the triple fukushima daiichi meltdown.

;)


Jan 05, 2015
Hi Ghost. :) Did you read where I pointed out that additional-to-natural-background radiation/radionuclieds is what the real problem is? The 'natural background has been with us all thrugh our evolution, and our natural mutation-rate/repair mechanisms can handle only so much 'onslaught'. If we ADD to that 'background' onslaught all the Coal particulates (including radioactive particles), then it is a NEW problem. Both the cal-burning and the nuclear fission power plants effectively concentrate the normally diffuse distribution of radiation/radioactive-particles via the localizing processes at the plants. It is the further movement and re-accumulation of said radioactive particles in our food and our local air that creates new hazards above 'background'. And the individual's affected may respond differently in time/severity depending on prior existing conditions/predispositions/lifestyle factors etc.

Try not to get personal/pedantic in this new year, mate. See the bigger picture. :)

Jan 05, 2015
Hi gkam et al. :) I take this opportunity to applaud your positive efforts/discussion; and to encourage your optimism by letting you know that I have been working on a fully-integrated, clean, technologically/economically feasible industrial-environmental solution to the problems of climate change, environmental damage and fossil/nuclear dependence for energy/transportation.

It is a complex 'web' of chemistry/technology solutions which has the added attraction of avoiding most if not all those bad unintended side-effects which current proposed 'solutions' are plagued by in addition to unsustainable cost/implementation factors.

This complex integrated-solutions project has been on my 'back-burner' for a decade while I concentrated on finalizing my Complete Reality-based Maths-Physics ToE.

But I resurrected/expedited work on this project (even though it is delaying a little my finalizing/publishing my ToE) because the situation has become more urgent.

[continued...]

Jan 05, 2015
Double posting. Now deleted by me. My apologies.

Jan 05, 2015
[...continued]

I am trying to get my solutions into 'presentation' shape in time for the next major International Climate Change Conference sometime this year. Sorry to all those left hanging a few months more for my ToE publication, but this GW solutions project has now become too urgent for me to leave it on the backburner any longer in all good conscience. Hang in there, guys! In both cases. The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not. Good luck, good thinking, and better new year to us all in the meantime. Try to be less negative and more constructive in your thoughts, words and deeds, everyone. Else all is lost and for nought in humanity/science terms, hey? Like I said. Busy. Can't stay. So...Bye again for now, gkam, everyone. :)

Jan 05, 2015
I am trying to get my solutions into 'presentation' shape in time for the next major International Climate Change Conference sometime this year.


I'm sure they will not mind to put things off for a few weeks while you polish him up.

Sorry to all those left hanging a few months more for my ToE publication, but this GW solutions project has now become too urgent for me to leave it on the backburner any longer in all good conscience.


Take all the time you need so that your diligence gets done properly. That's all that matters.

Hang in there, guys! In both cases.


We'll to muddle our way through in the mean time.

The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue,


Thanks, that is comforting.

believe it or not.


Who could doubt the Really-Skippy.

Try to be less negative and more constructive in your thoughts, words and deeds, everyone.


We'll try but if you stick around we'd have an example to follow.

Jan 05, 2015
Poor poor insensible Uncle sot.

Tried that already, but you and your gang of nutters and twits missed it all.

It was like 'pearls before swine' in your case because you vote-bot instead of listening and understanding when something important is being explained/proven to you. But you just didn't care. So now you can wallow in your trollish ignorance and shame while others get on with it for those who have brains enough to know the difference between 'entertainment' and 'important information' to be understood and acted upon properly without idiots like you poisoning the well of free and open discussion with your bot-vote crap and spoiling troll posts.

You are irrelevant at every stage. No redeeming qualities of actions whatsoever from you so far.

Do better in this new year if you want to be more than an inane inconsequential dummy annoying the grownups while they are discussing important matters out of your depth.

Good luck with that, you poor irrelevant bot-voting twat.

Jan 05, 2015
Burning coal puts those radionuclides in our breathing zone as particulates. They bombard the lung tissue with high-energy particles.

Just like radon.

Jan 05, 2015
RC
A clean replacement fuel system for the world, a theory of everything, climatology solved, a very busy lad. We should genuflect in your general direction it seems.

When do plan to you cure cancer and why are you dragging your heels on sorting out Ebola? I'm sure the WHO is waiting by the phones desperate to hear from you and I'm not talking about the band, unless of course you have a new riff they can use.

Jan 05, 2015
ekim being obtuse
Did you answer your own question?
Huh ? You still haven't offered a context re your initial point which I commented on ?

Were you claiming that, as Radon is natural, its perfectly fine get exposed to it all the time ?
OR
Natural Radon is already higher than anything added by Fukushima so we shouldn't care, if so then bring on more nuclear so its all going to be fine even if they fail discharging more ?

What point were U alluding to in your comment which I first replied to ?

ekim stated the obvious
Any radiation present in coal is naturally occurring
Are U claiming that because its natural its ok, even if otherwise it would be kept away underground ?

Do u now know the cumulative effect of radionucleotides, do U want added naturally occuring dangers added to your exposure or is it preferable to limit ANY ionising radiation exposure ?

Can U articulate your position more appropriately please - I think U know mine ?