Fukushima’s Contamination Produces Some Surprises at Sea

[Fledermaus]

While Mr. Buesseler declined to provide details of the findings before analysis is complete and published, he said the broad results were sobering.

“When we saw the numbers — hundreds of millions of becquerels — we knew this was the largest delivery of radiation into the ocean ever seen,’’ he said. ‘‘We still don’t know how much was released.’’.......................


The scientists had expected to find ocean radiation levels falling off sharply after a few months, as radioactive substances were dispersed by the currents, because, he said, “The ocean’s solution to pollution is dilution.’’

The good news is that researchers found the entire region 20 to 400 miles offshore had radiation levels too low to be an immediate threat to humans.

But there was also an unpleasant surprise. “Rather than leveling off toward zero, it remained elevated in late July,’’ he said, up to about 10,000 becquerel per cubic meter. ‘‘That suggests the release problem has not been solved yet.”

The working hypothesis is that contaminated sediments and groundwater near the coast are continuing to contaminate the seas, he said.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/fukushimas-contamination-produces-some-surprises-at-sea/

[juajen]

1. Well, hell, who needs the oceans? Dumb f**ks!

[FBaggins]

2. So the highest level they've found was 10 Bq/L?

The natural radioactivity of the oceans is about 20% higher than that.

"too low to be an immediate threat to humans." is a wild understatement.

[obxhead]

3. yeah

"Before Fukushima, in 2010, the Japanese coast measured about 1.5 becquerel per cubic meter, he said."

It's only 6 times more polluted than in 2010, no big deal. Hell, TEPCO should even get some kind of an award. :eyes:

[FBaggins]

4. They're giving you the shorthand version.

Which is really a nice way of saying they're hiding the truth. They're likely telling you how much cesium there was in 2010, not how much total radioactivity there was.

It's only 6 times more polluted

You should check your math there. You've just compared Bq/L to Bq/m3. So you're off by three orders of magnitude.

[kristopher]

8. No, it was 100,000Bq/m or 100 Bq/L

"Chernobyl-induced radiation in the Black Sea peaked in 1986 at about 1,000 becquerels per cubic meter, he said in an interview at his office in Woods Hole, Mass. By contrast, the radiation level off the coast near the Fukushima Daiichi plant peaked at more than 100,000 becquerels per cubic meter in early April.
Before Fukushima, in 2010, the Japanese coast measured about 1.5 becquerel per cubic meter, he said."

Or 67,000 times preFukushima levels.

[FBaggins]

10. That was early April. The story is about what they're currently finding.

Sorry if that was too complicated.

[kristopher]

11. You should have been more accurate about what you meant.

Your post #2 couldn't have been more clear, "So the highest level they've found was 10 Bq/L?"

The article was equally clear that the highest level found was 100Bq/L.

It appears you were/are intent on trying to confuse the issue.

[FBaggins]

12. So you're saying that in replying directly to the OP, I should have said

that it was in the context of the OP? (You'll also note that the quote I gave from the OP also clearly referenced a current-day level)

And anything less than that is "confusing the issue"?

Buddy... you're frequently confused... but have only yourself to blame. :)

[kristopher]

13. You deliberately mistated the information in the OP to protect the nuclear industry

It isn't complicated or confusing.

[FBaggins]

14. Nope.

Just because facst are inconvenient to your position... doesn't mean that they cease to be facts.

Something that you'll eventually have to get used to... because it happens constantly.

All I did was translate the units into those that are commonly reported/regulated (Bq/M3 is really an airborn contamination measure if used at all). If anything, they were twisting their reported figure to make it look more significant (as they were when they reported the 2010 radiation reading without letting the reader know that they were intentionally excluding the vast bulk of existing radiation in the sea).

[SpoonFed]

15. nor surprising. n/t

[nilram]

5. "10,000 terabecquerels of cesium 137" released in one instance, 3,500 in another. Time to become

a vegan if you aren't already.

[FBaggins]

6. Because plants don't take up cesium from contaminated soil? n/t

[Nihil]

9. Nah, vegans are just invincible!

(It's all the vitamin supplements that they take that does it!)
:hide:

[kristopher]

7. Here is one we've had time to study in more detail...

Originally posted at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x312645#312645

TED Case Studies: British Nuclear Waste in the Irish Sea
I. Identification

1. The Issue
Sellafield Nuclear Plant is located on the Northwest Coast of England on the Irish Sea. It is a government owned facility that produces about one-fourth of the United Kingdom's energy. Nuclear waste from this facility had turned the Irish sea into one of the most radioactive bodies of water in the world. This pollution threatens the health of the British people as well as inhabitants of Ireland across the Irish Sea. This is a controversial issue because of the environmental degradation of the Irish Sea. This case raises the question of how a country can try to protect it self against invading polution from a neighboring state....

http://www1.american.edu/ted/SELLA.HTM

Sellafield: the most hazardous place in Europe

Last week the government announced plans for a new generation of nuclear plants. But Britain is still dealing with the legacy of its first atomic installation at Sellafield - a toxic waste dump in one of the most contaminated buildings in Europe. As a multi-billion-pound clean-up is planned, can we avoid making the same mistakes again?
...For its part, the nuclear industry is adamant. New reactors will produce little waste and pose few threats to the environment, say UK nuclear chiefs who point to the example of France where almost 80% of electricity is generated by atomic fission and waste is safely reprocessed. Atomic energy today is safe and

Sellafield's problems are merely a historic accident - the result of Britain's desperation to be a leading postwar power, they say....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/19/sellafield-nuclear-plant-cumbria-hazards


Now compare that to this puff piece on Fukushima, where there have been massive discharges flowing directly out of 3 reactors that have melted down and breached containment. Although it is titled "How Bad Is Japan's Radioactive Contamination of the Ocean?" it shows up on Google as

"Radioactive Contamination a Mere Drop In the Ocean, Experts Say ..."

...While iodine-131 and cesium-137 concentrations near the nuclear reactors' drainage outlets are high, "the diluting capacity of the ocean is great, and radioactivity concentrations decrease with distance from the source," said Pal Andersson, a radioecologist with the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority.

Contaminants quickly disperse and sink to the seafloor. As a result, "the concentration in sea water 30 km <19 miles> from the nuclear power plant is comparable to levels suggested as reference values, below which there is no concern about effects on wildlife," Andersson told Life's Little Mysteries. Radioactive substances such as uranium are naturally present in the ocean.

The ecological impact will thus be limited in scope, according to Ward Whicker, professor emeritus in the Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences at Colorado State University and author of several books on the environmental impact of radiation.

"Any ecological effects are likely to be somewhat localized near the points of discharge," Whicker said.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/how-bad-japan-radioactive-contamination-ocean-1562 /

Here are some numbers:

Radioactive sea pollution from Fukushima may dwarf previous estimates
September 09, 2011

More than 15 quadrillion becquerels of radioactivity are estimated to have been released from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant into the sea between March 21 and April 30, according to a preliminary analysis by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and other institutions.

That is more than three times the initial estimate of marine contamination by the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), which said only 4.72 quadrillion becquerels had been leaked. A quadrillion is 1,000 trillion.

The new total is believed to have been inflated by the inclusion of fallout from the atmosphere in addition to the direct runoff from the plant that TEPCO looked at...

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201109099808


Oh yes, a recent addendum - They've given up trying to clean up the waters off Sellafield. It is now permanently contaminated by lethal particles of plutonium.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kristopher/808