Cesium levels hit tens of billions of becquerels at river mouth

[kristopher]

Cesium levels hit tens of billions of becquerels at river mouth
November 25, 2011
By EISUKE SASAKI/ Staff Writer

Researchers have sounded the alarm over river water containing cesium levels at tens of billions of becquerels a day flowing into the sea near Fukushima Prefecture, site of the crippled nuclear power plant.

A joint study by Kyoto University and the University of Tsukuba, among other entities, estimated that water at the mouth of the Abukumagawa river running through the prefecture was contaminated with cesium levels of about 50 billion becquerels a day.

They called for immediate and continued monitoring of the situation.

The daily radiation levels are equivalent to the total of amount of cesium in low-level contaminated water released into the sea in April by Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

The Abukumagawa river runs ...

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201111250019

[geckosfeet]

1. "immediate and continued monitoring of the situation" - that's not very reassuring.

[Melissa G]

2. Rice...

"More cesium could contaminate the river during decontamination operations and tilling of rice paddies in preparation for transplanting young rice plants, they added."

[jimlup]

3. Japan's Northern Prefectors are in long term trouble

What a nightmare.

[NickB79]

4. Is it normal to report becquerels/day instead of per kg or sq. meter?

I was trying to Google what the maximum allowable limit was for cesium 137, and all the values are reported as bq/kg, bq/g, or bq/m2. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137

"In July 2011, meat from 11 cows shipped to Tokyo from Fukushima prefecture was found to have 3 to 6 times the legal limit of 500 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive caesium.<6>

The mean contamination of caesium-137 in Germany following the Chernobyl disaster was 2000 to 4000 Bq/m2."

I guess you could determine how much water flows through the river mouth per day to calculate bq/kg of water or bq/m2 of water. Anyone want to hazard a guess what that would be?

[backwoodsbob]

5. it is the OP's SOP

find the scariest sounding number and post it without any real value behind the number

[kristopher]

8. It is exactly as the story was reported in a major, non-tabloid Japanese daily paper.

You may not consider the implications associated with the contamination to be "scary" but to those who are living with it contaminated food and water is extremely troublesome.

[PamW]

12. So newspaper scare-mongers; just like you do...

So the newspaper scare-mongers; just like you do.

However, see my post above for the amount this represents.

As for the implications to the Japanese and the US; I'll
let a real scientist speak to that in his testimony
to the US Congress. Testimony by the esteemed Dr. Boice of
the Health Physics Society.

Courtesy of the Health Physics Society:

http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf

The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor.

The health consequence for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent.


PamW

[FBaggins]

23. Not at all.

The newspapers use sensasionalist stories to sell papers.

The fearmongerer uses lies to advance a position.

Both are deceptive, but they aren't the same.

[PamW]

28. Point taken.

The newspapers use sensasionalist stories to sell papers.

The fearmongerer uses lies to advance a position.
==============================================

I would proffer that makes the fearmonger more sinister
than the newspapers.

PamW

[caraher]

6. I couldn't find data for that river

But typical river discharge rates appear to be a few hundred cubic meters per second for large rivers. Let's say that's 100 m^3/s here. There are 1000 l (and therefore about 1000 kg) per m^3, so that would be 100,000 kg/s.

50 x 10^9 Bq/day x (1 day/24 hr) x (1 hr/3600 s) x (1 s/100,000 kg) = 5.8 Bq/kg

I don't know how well-mixed the Cs would be; there may be higher or lower concentrations at the surface.

What is worse, having radioactive Cs wash out to sea via rivers or having it remain on land?

[kristopher]

10. What is worse, having radioactive Cs everywhere or not having Cs everywhere?

Get rid of the fucking reactors and we don't continue making the problem worse THEN you won't be forced into attempts to make insane dichotomies sound sane.

[caraher]

15. The fact is, the cesium is out of the reactor

My own question isn't in any way about the future of nuclear power, it's about the present of what's happening in Japan. In other words, should we be concerned that radioactive cesium is being swept into the rivers and out to sea and do anything to prevent that, or view that instead as a lesser evil than having it remain on land where people live? What is the best response to what's happening, given that we can't go back in time and undo what happened? There's nothing "insane" about considering this.

And my own answer is, I don't know. I do know that you can basically do only two things with a waste product you cannot decompose, either dilute/disperse it or concentrate it somewhere presumably safe. Usually one of these choices is less bad than the other, and it's good to know which one that is.

[kristopher]

17. And the fact is there isn't a choice..

My god, I'm getting sick of nuclear apologists trying to minimize the damage they've done by their dishonest, deceitful promotion of this technology.

Cesium from Fukushima plant fell all over Japan
November 26, 2011
By HIROSHI ISHIZUKA / Staff Writer

Radioactive substances from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant have now been confirmed in all prefectures, including Uruma, Okinawa Prefecture, about 1,700 kilometers from the plant, according to the science ministry.

The ministry said it concluded the radioactive substances came from the stricken nuclear plant because, in all cases, they contained cesium-134, which has short half-life of two years.

Before the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake, radioactive substance were barely detectable in most areas.

But the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology's survey results released on Nov. 25 showed that fallout from the Fukushima plant has spread across Japan. The survey covered the cumulative densities of radioactive substances in dust that fell into receptacles during the four months from March through June....

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201111260001

[NickB79]

19. How is asking how to clean up cesium contamination promoting nuclear power or minimizing the damage?

Even if we closed every nuclear power plant tomorrow, we still need to have plans to deal with the existing waste.

In fact, asking how to clean up the cesium gives the nuclear industry a major black eye, because it points out how widespread the contamination is and how it is virtually impossible to remediate.

It's like me asking how to fix my car after it gets hit by a drunk driver, and then being accused of promoting alcoholism :crazy:

[caraher]

20. Please stop hyperventilating

Your post sounds an awful lot like you're calling me out as a "nuclear apologist," which is nonsense.

We all know cesium went all over Japan because of Fukushima. It's unsurprising, given this, that some of it found its way into rivers. It's also on farmland, in cities, in forests, in the ocean...

The "choice" I speak of is simply whether, GIVEN WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, what should we do to minimize ill effects on people and the environment. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whose fault it is, whether we should do away with nuclear reactors in the future, etc.

Making good decisions requires science-based assessments of the risks associated with each option (of which one is simply letting nature take its course, in the case of cesium already deposited washing out to sea). It's also necessary to know what the numbers actually mean. All I've done is find other ways to frame the figure in the article from the OP.

[kristopher]

21. The only reason you ever post is to sugarcoat bad news about the nuclear industry.

Call it what you will, I know what I consider it to be, apologizing for and promoting the acceptance of nuclear power.

[caraher]

40. "I know what I consider it to be"

So let's see... a fellow DUer wants to know what the activity reported works out to as a concentration. I make an estimate of river flow rate and do a unit conversion, and compare with the radioactivity of seawater... and that's "sugarcoating bad news about the nuclear industry?"

You do not know my stance on nuclear energy. Clearly you're not one to let facts stand in the way of your preconceptions.

[kristopher]

41. "What is worse, having radioactive Cs wash out to sea via rivers or having it remain on land?"

Sugarcoating.

That you are working in tandem with other nuclear supporters means nothing. The entire effort was an exercise in trying to minimize the significance of the problem.

"What is worse, having radioactive Cs wash out to sea via rivers or having it remain on land?"

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=318296&mesg_id=318522

Sugarcoating.

[PamW]

29. In the final analysis...

And my own answer is, I don't know. I do know that you can basically do only two things with a waste product you cannot decompose, either dilute/disperse it or concentrate it somewhere presumably safe. Usually one of these choices is less bad than the other, and it's good to know which one that is.
====================================

In the final analysis, the Fukushima accident will be less of an effect than the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the months ahead, as radioactivity both decays and becomes diluted,
as happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the levels will approach normal conditions and things
will get back to normal.

It always gets me in talking to some anti-nukes, they say that a city hit with a nuclear weapon
will be uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years. The counterexample is staring them
in the face; there are two cities that were hit with nuclear weapons, and they started resettling
within a year or so.

However, facts are inconvenient things when you are on a diatribe.

PamW

[PamW]

13. We can convert that to better understood units..

50 x 10^9 Bq/day x (1 day/24 hr) x (1 hr/3600 s) x (1 s/100,000 kg) = 5.8 Bq/kg
============================================

We can convert that to better understood units courtesy of Wolfram, Inc;
makers of analysis software for scientists:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+5.8+Bq+of+Cesium-137

Answer 1.8e-12 gm = 1.8e-15 kg

So the Cesium contamination is at a level of less than 2 parts in 10 to the 15-th.

Additionally, counter to kristopher's inexpert and uninformed opinion; water from
good old Mother Nature contains many trace minerals that have radioactive species.

Water from good old Mother Nature is naturally radioactive at a small level.

As you show, Fukushima has added to that to a very marginal degree.

PamW

[caraher]

16. I don't think mass is the most appropriate unit though

It is an interesting mathematical exercise to note that 5.8 Bq/kg works out to a few parts in 10^15.

But nobody is really going to worry about the mass of the radioactive component - it's the radiation itself. I'd rather have people understand that if you have 1 liter of this water you're talking about roughly 6 decays per second. If you want to compare it to the natural radioactivity of a liter of anything else doing it on this basis - or perhaps something like exposure upon ingestion - is the most legitimate basis.

For comparison, http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/natural.htm">natural radioactivity in seawater is about twice this amount, mainly in the form of K-40, which is around 11 Bq/l.

[PamW]

27. Agreed.

For comparison, natural radioactivity in seawater is about twice this amount, mainly in the form of K-40, which is around 11 Bq/l.
======================================

Yes - and the natural radioactivity in food is anywhere from 10 Bq/kg to 100s of Bq/kg due to
Carbon-14, Potassium-40, Tritium; and a whole host of other naturally occuring elements
that have natually occuring radioactive isotopes.

I cited the mass because one ill-informed poster here ( diane_in_sf if memory serves ) claimed
that the amount of radioactive material released from Fukushima was many, many tons.

We have good numbers from scientists world-wide as to the "source term", which is tens of
thousands of TBq, which works out to be a few tens of pounds, not tons.

PamW

[jpak]

55. Drink it and eat the fish out of it

yup

[FBaggins]

56. Why not?

It's a tiny fraction of any contamination safety level I've seen.

The only reason you wouldn't drink the water is the same reason you wouldn't have consumed it before 3/11. Polution and/or microorganisms.

10 (give or take) Bq/L is way below the danger threshold. Just back-of-the-napkin, drinking two liters of the stuff every day for a year would give the average adult something like .1 mSv.

[Art_from_Ark]

50. According to the Yomiuri Shimbun article, the amount of radiation

at the mouth of the Abukuma River was about 1/100,000 the total amount of radiation released from the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex that Tepco had estimated in April.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20111124-OYT1T01108.htm

The daily flow is estimated to be
67.3m3/s≒67.3t/s≒5.8Mt/d＝5.8×10^9kg/d

[FBaggins]

51. Which raises an obvious question.

It's clear where the number came from. Someone took measurements of contamination per liter (presumably in many spots) and then multiplied it by the number of liters flowing past per day.

Now why would you do that?

You start with an incredibly valid number (Bq/L). It's a value that you can compare against legal standards for drinking water. You can even make estimates of what a person's dose would be if they drank the water every day for a certain number of years. All of that would be incredibly relevant...

...but instead they artificially manipulated a relevant number into an irrelevant one just to get an output that looks really REALLY big. Intentionally confusing the issue.

But who would read a story with the more valid headline? The water in the river appears to be at about 10Bq/L

[Art_from_Ark]

59. One thing to take into perspective about the headline

It's basically the same one used by both the conservative Mainichi and the relatively liberal Asahi national newspapers, as well as the Sankei Shimbun, based on information released by the researchers from Kyoto University, Tsukuba University, and the Japan Meteorological Agency, who were commissioned to do the study by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. I have contacts at Tsukuba University, so maybe I will be able to be able to get a better explanation of the data from someone there.

[Art_from_Ark]

60. I was able to discuss this today with a chemical engineer

We first talked about the 50 billion becquerels figure, and he said that it is an absolute value that should be recalculated to give the concentration. I showed him your calculated value of 10Bq/L, and we assumed that it was in the ballpark. My chemical engineer friend said that 10Bq/L at the mouth of the Abukuma River is not a problem, since it is below the 40Bq/L limit set for drinking water. The bigger problem comes upstream, at Koriyama, which has a river flow of approximately half the volume at the mouth, but the absolute value was much higher, at 175 billion becquerels. Our rough calculation, based on your figure of 10Bq/L at the mouth, shows a level of ca. 70Bq/L in Koriyama, which is nearly twice as high as the allowable limit for drinking water. We did not examine the data for Fukushima City, but since it has been directly downwind from the reactors, the concentration there may be higher than at Koriyama.

[kristopher]

61. What is the name and contact information for the chemical engineer you cite?

I would like to pose a couple of further questions directly to the individual.

Been to any "cherry tree" parties lately?

[Art_from_Ark]

62. I don't have his e-mail address

I can't give his name out on an Internet web site because that would be too invasive of his privacy.
I will be meeting with him again next Saturday. At that time, I will ask him if he wants to discuss this with you privately.

And no, I haven't been to any cherry tree parties recently, because they are only held in April :eyes:

[kristopher]

63. That's what I figured.

The activity in April is "ohanami" or "blossom viewing". No one, and I repeat no one, who has any familiarity with Japan would ever confuse the flower for the tree in this context.

Don't believe me? Just go up to one of those kiosks that you claimed were not on the platforms of the Yamanote line and ask the clerk.

[kristopher]

54. The total amount of deposition is extremely relevant to safety.

Trying to minimize the perception of harm doesn't decrease the input into the food chain.

"Radioactive Ocean: NHK Survey Shows 1.74 Microsievert/Hr at Ocean Bottom off Fukushima"

Radiation on the ship: 0.14 microsievert/hr, in the water 0.025 microsievert/hour. The number increases as it gets deeper. On the rock 1 microsievert/hour. Maximum number at the bottom of the ocean 1.74 microsievert/hour. Fine-grained sands at the bottom. The radiation level at the bottom of the ocean was max 70 times that of the ocean surface. (from this tweet)

Bioconcentration of radioactive cesium seen 10 to 20 kilometers off the coast of Fukushima. At the bottom of the ocean, 200 to 300 becquerels/kg of cesium in the ocean soil. The radiation level at the bottom 1 microsievert/hour. The area is an abalone fishery. 40 becquerels/kg in the sea water, 420 becquerels/kg in arame (type of seaweed that abalones eat), 2000 becquerels/kg in abalone. 50-fold concentration from seawater to abalone.

Radioactive silver (Ag-110m) in abalone 410 becquerels/kg, in abalone liver 1800 becquerels/kg. (these two points from this tweet)

Effect of ocean currents is not what you may think. The Kuroshio Current, which comes up from south, may generally prevent the contaminated water from Fukushima from spreading further south. But the coastal current behaves totally different, and radioactive cesium has actually being transported south from Fukushima along the coast. In addition, as rivers reach the Pacific Ocean and discharge water, that creates their own micro-currents. As it turned out, a location off Ibaraki (Kajima) measured lower in radiation of the ocean soil than a location off Chiba (Inubozaki), which is much further south from Fukushima than the Ibaraki location. (from this and this tweets)

Abalone liver is a gourmet food in Japan....


http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/11/radioactive-ocean-nhk-survey-shows-174.html

[Yo_Mama]

7. This was doomed to happen

Still, as other posters have noted, the water is not that contaminated. However the long-term effect of the cesium accumulated as the sediments deposit may be a problem.

Cesium always accumulates in drainage basins.

There is, for example, a real risk of freshwater fish being contaminated, and in the near-shore ocean, sea life may be pretty contaminated from the accumulated isotopes.

[kristopher]

9. You obviously have no idea how much the Japanese depend on coastal waters for food.

[Yo_Mama]

14. I do, which is why I brought it up

The same thing happened from Chernobyl - there was impressive, and in some cases quite dangerous, levels of contamination in freshwater fish in lakes.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. You obviously didn't read or comprehend the post you are responding to.

[PamW]

11. How much is 50 Billion Bq of Cs-137?

Researchers have sounded the alarm over river water containing cesium levels at tens of billions of becquerels a day flowing into the sea near Fukushima Prefecture, site of the crippled nuclear power plant.

A joint study by Kyoto University and the University of Tsukuba, among other entities, estimated that water at the mouth of the Abukumagawa river running through the prefecture was contaminated with cesium levels of about 50 billion becquerels a day.
=====================================

Do you know how much 50 Billion Bq is; or are you just slinging around amounts
and units that you don't understand?

You can find the answer courtesy of Wolfram Inc, which manufactures analysis
software for scientists. Courtesy of Wolfram, the answer to how much mass
50 Billion Bq of Cesium-137 represents is:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+50%2C000%2C000%2C000+Bq+of+Cesium-137

The answer is 0.0156 grams or 15.6 milligrams

I'll bet you "thought" ( term used loosely ) it was going to be more.

PamW

[kristopher]

18. How should we deal with the risk that nuclear power might cause our country to perish?

.

"How should we deal with the risk that nuclear power might cause our country to perish?

This question is what led me to propose the creation of a society free from dependence on nuclear power."

-Naoto Kan Sept 201
Prime MInister of Japan During Fukushima Multiple Meltdowns

[FBaggins]

22. Perhaps an easier to understand comparison

The average self-luminous exit sign can contain over a trillion Bq worth of tritium... and many office buildings have scores of them.

Any wonder why kris dodges the point?

[kristopher]

24. "...a high level (of cesium) is being carried (into the ocean)," said (Prof) Yosuke Yamashiki,

Who to believe, the nuclear fan club whose fondest wish it to build thousands of reactors no matter the consequences, or the academic researcher in the affected environment?

The researchers estimated the level for cesium-137 at 29.1 billion becquerels a day and that for cesium-134 at 23.4 billion becquerels a day--both at the mouth of the river.

More than 90 percent of the cesium was contained in small particles, including waterborne clay and other fine-grained soil, while the rest had dissolved in the water.

"The study shows a high level (of cesium) is being carried (into the ocean)," said Yosuke Yamashiki, associate professor of environmental engineering at Kyoto University. "The inflow will likely continue for some time. But the content can be reduced."

Yamashiki said that could be accomplished by taking advantage of the fact that cesium tends to accumulate in areas where there is a dam...

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201111250019

Cesium from Fukushima Plant Fell all over Japan
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201111260001

Radiation Above Standards found in Rice from 5 Farms
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201111260021

Tell us again how it is like a sign or a banana...

[FBaggins]

25. What's the normal level for cesium?

Virtually zero.

Anything above that, even this miniscule amount (on a Bq/L basis... which is all that matters), is by definition "high".

Let me know if I need to use smaller words. :)

[PamW]

30. Who is expert in the field?

"The study shows a high level (of cesium) is being carried (into the ocean)," said Yosuke Yamashiki, associate professor of environmental engineering at Kyoto University.
==============================================

Prof. Yamashiki is an associate professor of "environmental engineering".

Evidently environmental engineers don't know much about nuclear physics and engineering.

The reference to Wolfram I provided clearly shows that 50 Billion Bq of Cs-137 is
an amount equal to 15.6 milligrams.

Evidently the good professor of environmental engineering is just as clueless
as to the magnitude of units used in the nuclear field as are the rest of the so-called
"environmentalists".

PamW

[FBaggins]

31. Again you misunderstand the standard!

"Expert" is defined as "anyone who agrees with kris".

Anyone else is a shill for the nuclear industry itself. In fact... the more relevant a person's credentials appears to be... the more likely it is that they've been corrupted by that industry. A health physicist is no expert, while a decades-retired pediatrician is the real source of valid opinion on the health effects of radiation.

One would think you would have gotten that by now. :)

[PamW]

33. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa.

"Expert" is defined as "anyone who agrees with kris".
======================================================

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa.

I should have known. Yes - Wolfram evidently skewed the programming
of the Alpha knowledge engine. They knew that someday, someone would
ask a question pertinent to the nuclear power debate. So Wolfram
had to fudge the programming of their knowledge engine used by so
many scientists, so that someday it would give a "pro-nuclear power"
answer instead of the correct answer.

How naive and stupid can I be.

Of course, anyone cited by kris is the ultimate authority on whatever
question is being asked, regardless of qualifications.

PamW

[PamW]

26. Exactly!!

Exactly. Someone is citing quantities in units he doesn't understand.

I wonder how long it will be before he tells us how insufferably long
a billion femtoseconds is. ( It's a microsecond. )

I've recommended the book "The Instant Physicist" by Professor Richard Muller
of University of California - Berkeley Physics Department numerous times.

http://www.amazon.com/Instant-Physicist-Illustrated-Guide/dp/0393078264/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322492746&sr=1-1

If you go to the free sample called "Look Inside" you can read that the US Government
requires wine and liquor to be radioactive in order to be sold legally.

That's because they want to make sure that the liquor comes from recently grown
plant material - so they are looking for the radioactivity that Mother Nature
puts in our food. ( Food is radioactive - that's why Carbon-14 dating works ).

Mother Nature gives us far, far, more radioactivity in our food and water
than what came from Fukushima.

The amount of radioactive material released is measured in tens of pounds.

However, the coal plants in the USA put 14,000 tons of radioactive material,
principally uranium and thorium, into the atmosphere and environment each year.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

So over the past 40 years, the USA because of our coal plants has put far,
far, more radioactivity into the environment than Japan has by operating
these nuclear power plants for 40 years, and then having an accident.

Again, I really can't understand how someone can spout off and cite
quantities in units that he doesn't understand.

PamW

[beardown]

32. Natural reaction to shills and fear

"Again, I really can't understand how someone can spout off and cite
quantities in units that he doesn't understand."

Many and perhaps most are in response to the standing army of nuke shills that downplay every incident as routine or minor or not having any health effect.
Japan's recent catastrophe had quite of number of these types of posts early on as it unfolded and in virtually every case, the the shills' were proven to be wrong.

When faced by a legitimate disaster with a thousand year long killing effect, media hype, and an army of seemingly paid distractors and apologists that have had their credibility shot to pieces several times already in the Japan case, fear is often times going to become a common starting point or response, justified or not in the specific case.

[kristopher]

35. The significance of the OP is a contaminated food chain.

The coastal regions are depended on heavily for food. Not just fish, but many different varieties of seaweed are harvested from everywhere. This ongoing deposition is a real problem that has their antenna quivering because of their experience with a sickness brought on by mercury from a mining operation. The mercury was washed into Minamata bay (thus the name Minamata byo) where it entered the marine food chain with horrible consequences. The episode make the Japanese particularly concerned with food safety and water pollution.

[beardown]

36. The effect on the sea is one of my major concerns

I'm with you. As these 'safe' levels flow into the sea, natural processes with tend to concentrate them some animal and plant food sources in the sea and on the sea floor.

I was just telling the one poster that readers being perhaps overly concerned about any Japan disaster articles are likely to have lost confidence in the "be happy, don't worry" posts, even ones with decent science behind them due to the boy calling "there is NO wolf" on many occasions as this disaster played out and debunking claim and low estimate after another were proved to be wrong.

[ljm2002]

34. How much of the tritium in those signs...

...is likely to end up as radioactive particles inside living organisms?

The radiation emitted from the signs you cite is embedded in the paint and the exposure drops off quickly with distance; most importantly, it is not emitted from inside of people's bodies nor is it likely to end up there. On the other hand, water deposits its impurities in the soil along the way, in the silt at the mouth of the river, and ends up in plants and in the bodies of various sorts of marine life, which in turn are ingested by other life, thus causing the levels of exposure to be magnified as you move up the food chain.

You really can't just take these two numbers and claim there is a one-to-one comparison of Bq dosage. Well, you can, but it is disingenuous to do so.

[PamW]

37. You MISSED the POINT!!

You really can't just take these two numbers and claim there is a one-to-one comparison of Bq dosage. Well, you can, but it is disingenuous to do so.
=============================================

He wasn't making a comparison between the tritium in the signs and tritium released to the environment.

He was making the point that the amount of tritium in a sign is a Trillion Bq.
Therefore, someone knowing that shouldn't make the ERROR that 50 Billion Bq is a large amount.

The only important comparison here is that the 50 Billion Bq of Cs-137 is only 15.6 milligrams.
Mother Nature is responsible for many times that amount in naturally occuring radioisotopes in water.

Therefore, you can't make the claim that the Fukushima release is worse than what Mother Nature does.
Well, you can, but it is disingenuous to do so.

PamW

[ljm2002]

42. I did not miss the point...

...I disagreed with it. It was an attempt to minimize the environmental impact by claiming there are more becquerels on a sign than in the water around Fukushima. So? It is not a compelling argument: the signs are painted with special radioactive paint specifically to produce an effect. Of course the concentration of radioactive materials in the paint is high. Accidental contamination of water is not going to reach those concentrations. That does not, I repeat not, have any bearing on the actual or potential damage from the radioactive contamination of water around the Fukushima plant. It is a non-issue that is being employed as a cudgel in order to curtail discussion.

Nor did I make any comparative claims about the radioactive release at Fukushima vs. "what Mother Nature does"... so your remarks implying that I did are, well, you know, a bit... disingenuous. Comparing against what Mother Nature already does is irrelevant anyway, since exposure is additive and anything we add creates a larger burden of exposure to living things.

You, however, did miss the point about bioconcentration of radioactive particles when they are spread around in the environment. This is a well-known phenomenon and must be considered when talking about radiation effects.

[PamW]

44. Poor understanding and poor reading comprehension

...I disagreed with it. It was an attempt to minimize the environmental impact by claiming there are more becquerels on a sign than in the water around Fukushima.
==============================================================================

Then you are disagreeing with a true statement.

There ARE more becquerels in the sign than in 1 day of river flow - that is a scientific fact.

FBaggins makes a very valid point that you are confusing the scientific properties of "activity" measured
in becquerels, with "dose" which would be measured in sieverts.

Your reading comprehension is also poor; because I didn't claim you made any comparison to "what Mother Nature does".
I am the one that made that comparison, because it is the only way to normalize the results and put them
in perspective.

The units that scientists name and define for activity and dose are arbitrarty. However, in order to determine
the true magnitude of the impact and to put it into perspective; it is necessary to compare to what Mother Nature
does. In this regard, the damage done by Fukushima is less than the damage that Mother Nature herself wraughts
with her own natural radioactivity. That is scientific fact and there's nothing disingenuous about it.

I didn't miss the point about bioaccumulation. It's just not relevant. What ever bioaccumulation is done to
the Fukushima radioactivity is also done to the natural radioactivity. Since the effect of Fukushima is less
than Mother Nature's effect prior to bioaccumulation; it will also be less after bioaccumulation.

PamW

[ljm2002]

45. So let me get this straight...

...let's say Mother Nature produces 100 units of background radiation in a location.

Then humans come along and do something that adds 10 units of background radiation in the same location.

Now by your reasoning, there's no harm and no foul, since that 10 units of background radiation is less than the natural load anyway.

Hell, we might as well continue what we're doing and add another 10 units, right? And then another, and another... Because it's less than what Mother Nature does anyway.

You do see the problem here, right?

The amount of natural radiation is irrelevant in terms of quantifying the potential damage of adding new radioactive sources. Yes it can provide a point of comparison. But these comparisons must be made carefully. There is a real difference in effect between say a rock that contains radioactive elements and puts out a certain level of radiation, vs. silt that has the radioactive particles already broken down and ready to be easily ingested by living things.

BTW, I did not disagree with the # of becquerels in the signs, I disagreed (a) that it is relevant to the topic at hand (it is not); and (b) with the usage of the bogus example to try and shut down discussion.

You and some others seem to need to scream and shout and call others ignorant. This is not conducive to useful informative discussion. But then I bet you know that.

[PamW]

52. Did I say it was "OK"?

Then humans come along and do something that adds 10 units of background radiation in the same location.

Now by your reasoning, there's no harm and no foul, since that 10 units of background radiation is less than the natural load anyway.
==============================================

Did I say it was "OK"?

The philosophy is that you avoid **ANY** unnecessary radiation exposure.

Contrary to your contention, you don't say that it is OK just because it is less than what Mother Nature does.

However, if in spite of all efforts, there is a release; keep it in perspective.

The release at Fukushima is NOT some terrible cataclysm that is going to draw down the curtain on Mankind,
as I've seen some speculate, if not here, in other forums. Dr Boice provide a good overview and perspective
to Congress:

http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf

Try to think of nuclear power accidents like airliner crashes. You obviously don't want ANY!
However, if you unfortunately get one, don't say it is the end of civilization because you lost a couple
hundred people. You LEARN from the tragedy, move on, and do better next time. That's why airline travel
is so safe today.

Nuclear power is amazingly safe, at least in the West. Three Mile Island was costly financially, but was
a non-incident in terms of human health. Fukushima is worse; but it is not the cataclysms some are
desperately attempting to make it out to be as a foil against nuclear power.

It appears that the Japanese talked a good game on safety, but didn't put it into practice when we see
all the design deficiencies and operational deficiencies in the Japanese nuclear program.

The USA should closely examine the accident, as the NRC is doing. However, it appears that the USA learned
the lessons of Fukushima long, long ago, without the need of an accident to teach us.

PamW

[ljm2002]

48. Speaking of poor understanding / poor reading comprehension...

...in your attempt at rebuttal, you said:

"Your reading comprehension is also poor; because I didn't claim you made any comparison to "what Mother Nature does".
I am the one that made that comparison, because it is the only way to normalize the results and put them
in perspective."

However, your original statement that I was responding to states:

"Therefore, you can't make the claim that the Fukushima release is worse than what Mother Nature does.
Well, you can, but it is disingenuous to do so."

I get that you were trying to make a rhetorical point by turning my own phrase against me. However, I must ask: Who is the "you" in that statement? Unless you are arguing with yourself, which, given the level of discourse you exhibit here, is sadly (and amusingly) believable.

[PamW]

53. I would have used third person

"Therefore, you can't make the claim that the Fukushima release is worse than what Mother Nature does.
Well, you can, but it is disingenuous to do so."

I get that you were trying to make a rhetorical point by turning my own phrase against me. However, I must ask: Who is the "you" in that statement? Unless you are arguing with yourself, which, given the level of discourse you exhibit here, is sadly (and amusingly) believable.
===================================================================

If I were originating this comment; I would have used third person: "Well one can, but it is disingenuous to do so.

However, as you surmised, I was making an analogy to your post and you used second person.

Therefore, the question as to who "you" is; is best left to you.

PamW

[FBaggins]

38. Virtually none at all. Which, coincidentally, is the same as the river.

as explained earlier, the relevant figure is Bq/L... and the amount given works out to an amount so low that you couldn't drink enough of of the stuff to get a significant exposure.

Btw, Bq is a measure of activity, not dose... And the tritium in self-luminous exit signs is gaseous. Improperly disposed of, those signs do often leak. Which is why many landfills leak more tritiated water than the reactors that man hear frequently (and ignorantly) whine about.

[ljm2002]

43. The fact that tritium signs may cause contamination...

...does not mean we should dismiss concerns about contamination of water around the Fukushima plant. If indeed the contamination is greater from improper disposal of the signs, then a more rational response would be greater concern about that, rather than less concern about Fukushima.

We cannot just blithely continue to increase the overall levels of radioactive materials and contaminate water and land and ultimately our food supply, all the while shouting "Well it's not as bad as that other contamination over there! See!!". In the long run it's a losing argument, since contamination is additive and we seem to be exceeding Mother Nature's capacity to clean up behind us.

[kristopher]

39. You are exactly correct. "NHK Survey Shows 1.74 Microsievert/Hr at Ocean Bottom off Fukushima"

"Radioactive Ocean: NHK Survey Shows 1.74 Microsievert/Hr at Ocean Bottom off Fukushima"

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/11/radioactive-ocean-nhk-survey-shows-174.html

Radiation on the ship: 0.14 microsievert/hr, in the water 0.025 microsievert/hour. The number increases as it gets deeper. On the rock 1 microsievert/hour. Maximum number at the bottom of the ocean 1.74 microsievert/hour. Fine-grained sands at the bottom. The radiation level at the bottom of the ocean was max 70 times that of the ocean surface. (from this tweet)

Bioconcentration of radioactive cesium seen 10 to 20 kilometers off the coast of Fukushima. At the bottom of the ocean, 200 to 300 becquerels/kg of cesium in the ocean soil. The radiation level at the bottom 1 microsievert/hour. The area is an abalone fishery. 40 becquerels/kg in the sea water, 420 becquerels/kg in arame (type of seaweed that abalones eat), 2000 becquerels/kg in abalone. 50-fold concentration from seawater to abalone.

Radioactive silver (Ag-110m) in abalone 410 becquerels/kg, in abalone liver 1800 becquerels/kg. (these two points from this tweet)

Effect of ocean currents is not what you may think. The Kuroshio Current, which comes up from south, may generally prevent the contaminated water from Fukushima from spreading further south. But the coastal current behaves totally different, and radioactive cesium has actually being transported south from Fukushima along the coast. In addition, as rivers reach the Pacific Ocean and discharge water, that creates their own micro-currents. As it turned out, a location off Ibaraki (Kajima) measured lower in radiation of the ocean soil than a location off Chiba (Inubozaki), which is much further south from Fukushima than the Ibaraki location. (from this and this tweets)

Abalone liver is a gourmet food in Japan....

.Radiation on the ship: 0.14 microsievert/hr, in the water 0.025 microsievert/hour.

The number increases as it gets deeper.

On the rock 1 microsievert/hour.

Maximum number at the bottom of the ocean 1.74 microsievert/hour.

Fine-grained sands at the bottom.

The radiation level at the bottom of the ocean was max 70 timesthat of the ocean surface.

Bioconcentration of radioactive cesium seen 10 to 20 kilometers off the coast of Fukushima.

At the bottom of the ocean, 200 to 300 becquerels/kg of cesium in the ocean soil.

The radiation level at the bottom 1 microsievert/hour.

The area is an abalone fishery.

40 becquerels/kg in the sea water, 420 becquerels/kg in arame (type of seaweed that abalones eat), 2000 becquerels/kg in abalone.

50-fold concentration .

Radioactive silver (Ag-110m) in abalone 410 becquerels/kg, in abalone liver 1800 becquerels/kg.

Effect of ocean currents is not what you may think. The Kuroshio Current, which comes up from south, may generally prevent the contaminated water from Fukushima from spreading further south.

But the coastal current behaves totally different, and radioactive cesium has actually being transported south from Fukushima along the coast.

In addition, as rivers reach the Pacific Ocean and discharge water, that creates their own micro-currents.

As it turned out, a location off Ibaraki (Kajima) measured lower in radiation of the ocean soil than a location off Chiba (Inubozaki), which is much further south from Fukushima than the Ibaraki location.

Abalone liver is a gourmet food in Japan...

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/11/radioactive-ocean-nhk-survey-shows-174.html

[NickB79]

46. See, this is how the very first article in this thread should have been written and reported

The scientific units are all used properly, which makes it much simpler to compare to what are acceptable legal limits. The authors of this piece did their homework.

Thank you for posting this.

[kristopher]

47. The existence of one doesn't preclude or negate the validity of the other.

The OP is a perfectly valid presentation of information relevant to the affairs of the Japanese people.

[caraher]

57. Another way of thinking about 50 GBq/day...

is to compare this to how much was already discharged directly to the ocean.

The http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-fukushima-nuke-pollution-sea-world.html">French peg the release at 27 pBq; Japan's http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/postfukushima-radiation-mapped">Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency cites a somewhat lower figure at 15 PBq.

Let's call it 25 PBq, which is 25 x 10^15 Bq. Compare that to 50 x 10^9 Bq - the daily additional Cs-137 discharge through this river is 2 millionths of what the complex dumped into the ocean over a few weeks last spring.

Whatever harm will come because of contamination of the ocean food chain will overwhelmingly be due to the enormous influx that already happened. That doesn't make it a *good* thing! But it does mean that those trying to mitigate the effects of this accident should devote their energies elsewhere (it would be nice, for instance, to have a better notion of where the core of reactor #1 is!).

[kristopher]

58. Bullshit.

It is an IMPORTANT safety consideration to know where there is ONGOING deposition that can and is enteriing the food supply,

Give it a break. This is a problem the people are going to be faced with on a daily basis for decades to come. Your constant attempts to diminish the PERCEPTION of the damage done on behalf of these indifferent corporate empires is sickening.

Fukushima I Nuke Plant: 1.6 Million Bq/Kg of Cesium from Ocean Soil In Front of Water Intake for Reactors

(Update) OH WAIT A MINUTE.... The information says "... becquerels/kg of WET SOIL. The density will be way higher in DRY SOIL. TEPCO does not provide information on the water content in the samples.

---------------------------------------------

730,000 becquerels/kg of cesium-134, and 870,000 becquerels/kg of cesium-137 from the ocean soil in front of the water intake for Reactors 1 through 4, south side.

The north side is also high, with 640,000 becquerels/kg of cesium-134 and 760,000 becquerels/kg of cesium-137 (total 1.4 million becquerels/kg of radioactive cesium).

They must have analyzed for other nuclides but they are not saying yet...

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/11/fukushima-i-nuke-plant-16-million-bqkg.html