Fukushima; What You Should and Shouldn't Worry About

[bhikkhu]

"Marine scientists have calculated that, based on all the radioactive particles released (or leaking) from Fukushima, a dose due to this most recent nuclear accident would add up to a total of roughly one microsievert (a unit of radiation exposure) of extra radiation—roughly one tenth the average daily dose most Americans experience, one fortieth the amount from a cross–North America flight and one one-hundredth the exposure from a dental x-ray. This also means that no one in the U.S. should be taking potassium iodide pills, especially because there has been no radioactive iodine issuing from Fukushima for several years now. (Radioactive iodine has a half-life of just eight days, meaning that all of it was gone within three months of the March 2011 nuclear accident in Japan.)"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-to-worry-about-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster&page=2

...............................................................................

A good overview of the incident, of the radiation exposures and effects, and of the problems with the clean up. A well written and researched piece, I'd recommend for anyone interest in the subject.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Thank you for posting valid science and not the crap we get from sources like "ENEnews".

Which is not to diminish the significance of the Fukushima clusterfuck, it's going to have terrible and long lasting effects, just not one the west coast of North America.

K/R

[SidDithers]

6. hehehe....

I should have read your response before posting mine below

Sid

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. It is bad enough Gunderson has been spending time

In pounding this story back. This article has created a small time panic, unnecessarily so.

That said, there is no safe level of radiation. But that is another story.

[RobertEarl]

30. Hahaha, skip

Speaking of lack of integrity how's your protection of that lady who thought protesters at nuke plants should be "shot and discarded"?

Skip's quote: "Sorry that your post was hidden, Hell, I'm sorry it was even alerted on."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=61462

You thought that her saying a protestor should be (quote): "shot and discarded (end quote)" shouldn't have even garnered an alert? WTH, Skip. Do you hate protestors? Or is it just nuke protestors that you think should be shot and discarded?

This, friends, is the post that the reply which was deleted was in reply too.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=61428

I'd have to say that anything Skip tells you.... be careful.

[NYC_SKP]

32. As I mentioned in that thread, I hadn't seen the original when I wrote the reply.

It's a kind of pathetic form of stalking that I experience, usually, from one DU member.

And it's utterly impotent as an argument, posting unrelated history.

[RobertEarl]

2. 10% more radiation?

Quote from article: "—roughly one tenth the average daily dose most Americans experience,"

10% here, another 10% there, pretty soon you're up to 20% more.

Not only that, but the chemical pollution of the artificial radiating particles effects on life forms is unknown.

However the Mayo clinic has an idea:

The severity of signs and symptoms of radiation sickness depends on how much radiation you’ve absorbed. How much you absorb depends on the strength of the radiated energy and the distance between you and the source of radiation. Signs and symptoms also are affected by the type of exposure — such as total or partial body and whether contamination is internal or external — and how sensitive to radiation the affected tissue is. For instance, the gastrointestinal system and bone marrow are highly sensitive to radiation.”

Diarrhea, Headache, Fever, Weakness, fatigue, Hair loss, bloody vomit and stools, infections, poor wound healing, low blood pressure are signs of radiation poisoning. —Mayo Clinic

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Because we all know these signs and symptoms

Diarrhea, Headache, Fever, Weakness, fatigue, Hair loss, bloody vomit and stools, infections, poor wound healing, low blood pressure are signs of radiation poisoning. —Mayo Clinic

Have no other possible cause. Also, these are signs in acute radiation poisoning. Unless you are within a mile of Fuku, that ain't gonna happen right now. Are you?

No this is not an extinction level event.

As to creative speculation, some of it should go there indeed. Like the article peddling the recent explosion at the plant. Now that is pure, sheer, speculation and does no good.

[Art_from_Ark]

39. There is a line of extremely high ambient radiation

extending roughly 20 miles northwest of the Dai-ichi reactors, carried by the prevailing winds. For example, the red dots on this map exceed 5 microsieverts per hour, which is at least 125 times the current average for Tokyo, 150 miles to the south.

http://fukushima-radioactivity.jp/

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. People living in that area should be concerned highly

That line does not extend to the West Coast. We have a slightly higher level. We are going to have higher rates from cancer, Japan much higher than the US. We all should avoid higher level predators such as tuna. (Which would be good for the species if we all did for a couple generations)

When the incident first happened we did have a cloud of radioactive crap come over NA. That, ten years, we will see a spike too.

Japan will see this at much higher levels. Some of the stories emerging from Japan are horrifying and do betray acute levels of exposure.

[RobertEarl]

42. I eat the new TUNA fish.

ELE? Balderdash. This is merely a brave new world. Survival of the fittest.

Wait, survival of the fittest is the old world, right? Damn, now we're confused, eh? But it's true. Those most able to resist the worldwide contamination from the artificial nuclear waste products just recently released to an unsuspecting and 'nuclear is safe' dreamer planet.... they will survive. Life goes on. Rads CAN be good.

I like Tuna. I quit buying tuna for awhile, but I'll be durned that the price of tuna rose.

But knowing what I know, and in my deep sea desire for tuna fish flesh, I founded 'New World TUNA' so that my need for tuna be quenched.

New World TUNA: Tellurium Uranium Neptunium Actinides. TUNA.

Maybe now the price will go down and I can afford only the best?

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. A poor attempt at sarcasm am afraid

Oy

[RobertEarl]

45. Don't be afraid

Have you stopped eating Tuna? Iirc, you have stated so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. So what is the price of tea in china?

Triple oy

[RobertEarl]

43. Hey Art

Good to hear from you. Know that I often think of the people there. What a calamity they have suffered.

Hope you and yours a better, more happy, new year.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. Thanks for the New Year's greeting

I was kind of hoping that 2014 was start out on the right foot, but it's already sucking. Right now, radiation is one of the least of my concerns, although of course it is much more of a concern to people who are closer to the site, especially those who are downwind. But given the new secrecy law, I wonder how much information will be made available. I think your impression of the PM is pretty accurate.

[nilram]

25. suggest you read again

From the article, quoting just a little before where you started, "total of roughly one microsievert (a unit of radiation exposure) of extra radiation—roughly one tenth the average daily dose most Americans experience, one fortieth the amount from a cross–North America flight and one one-hundredth the exposure from a dental x-ray."

The author is comparing the total extra radiation to an average daily dose, not saying that anyone's daily dose is increased. And then also comparing that total radiation to an airplane flight and a dental x-ray -- also not saying that the radiation they receive from a flight is increased, or that the radiation from a dental x-ray is increased.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

3. It's time for Fuku to go in Creative Speculation. n/t

[RobertEarl]

4. That's weird

That's what corporations like to do with information. Hide it away. Suppress it. Doesn't seem very democratic to me. Or are you just being misunderstood?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

7. It was done here to 9/11. Why not Fuku for the same reason? n/t

[RobertEarl]

8. It is well known how it happened

What we don't know is what will happen. This OP has what seems to be a claim of a 10% increase in the daily dose of radiation.

If you knew you were going to get a 10% increase in something that could make you ill, wouldn't you want to know about it so you could protect yourself and your family?

[FBaggins]

10. You've misread it

This OP has what seems to be a claim of a 10% increase in the daily dose of radiation.

Nope. They're saying that the total increased dose for the average person in the us adds up to 1/10th of one day of background.

Not one tenth every day.

[RobertEarl]

13. Quote "...roughly one tenth the average daily dose "

Background is what we get everyday. Now it will increase by 10%.

""...roughly one tenth the average daily dose "

[X_Digger]

15. Wrong. Read the paper for yourself.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10670.full.pdf+html

[FBaggins]

16. Notice what's missing from the quote?

"every day".

It compares the total dose you receive from the accident to the amount that you receive every day.

[zappaman]

17. Nice try

But it's like talking to a brick wall with that poster.
Fear, fear, fear is their talking point and it's gone well past the point of ridiculous.

[RobertEarl]

27. For those wondering about FB

Here is a copy and paste of a discussion we had recently. It was about whether the cores at the molten reactors were hot.

RE: And the reason they do that is the core is still hot.

FB: There's no evidence that it's "hot".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4274407

Now, if one reads the linked article in the OP you will clearly see that the author of that piece directly refutes FB's claim that there is 'no evidence the cores were hot'. It states that the cores are very hot, too hot to get close to, and continue with great amounts of decay heat.

So if you somehow see someone who is obviously not aware of this situation coming along slandering me, take the above referenced discussion into consideration.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

12. Of course I would. I would also like to know if the presidency was stolen from Al Gore and

if the Neocons MIHOPed or LIHOPed 9/11. But we're not allowed to discuss it except in Creative Speculation. Given the reasons 9/11 was relegated to the CS forum, those same reasons seems to apply to Fukushima.

My original post was actually meant to be fecitious. I think it's very important to know what is going on at Fukushima. I also think it's very important to know what happened on 9/11.

[X_Digger]

14. You can't even read a quote in context right. *sigh*

It's not a 10% increase in daily exposure. They're talking about a hypothetical subsistence fisherman in 2011 who ate five times the amount of fish that the average US citizen does, for a year.

Consumption of 200 g (a typical restaurant-sized serving) of PBFT contaminated with 4.0 Bq·kg-1 dry weight of 134Cs and 6.3 Bq·kg-1 dry weight of 137Cs (mean values for PBFT caught off San Diego in August 2011) resulted in committed effective doses of 3.7 and 4.0 nSv, respectively (Table 1).

To put this into perspective, the combined dose of 7.7 nSv from these two Cs isotopes is only about 5% of the dose acquired from eating one uncontaminated banana (assuming 200 g weight) and absorbing its naturally occurring 40K (28)
...
Thus, for the hypothetical subsistence fisherman who consumed 124 kg of contaminated PBFT·y?1 and therefore received a 134+137Cs committed effective dose of 4.7 ?Sv, the increased probability of fatal cancer would be 0.00002% (i.e., 2 additional cancer cases per 10 million similarly exposed people). Currently, inferring risk of health effects from such low doses encompasses large uncertainties.

Of course the radiation has dropped significantly since 2011.

[RobertEarl]

28. Bananas?

No. You. Did. Not!! Yes, you did!!

You equated the radiation of a banana with the radiation from Fukushima!!

You compare the eating of a healthful banana with eating toxic cesium?

Do you ever wonder why you are not taken seriously?

[X_Digger]

29. Bananas are bioaccumulators of potassium, including natural radioisotopes.

The fact that this surprises you only shows your ignorance.

[RobertEarl]

31. Bananas are healthy and good to eat, Digger

Cesium artificial radioisotopes are toxic and not good to eat. Duh!

You do know that, right? It seems you are just now realizing that basic fact? Because your equating bananas with cesium, and even after having been told how wrong that is, you keep digging, Digger?

[X_Digger]

34. I'm comparing radiation to radiation- you know, the part that actually harms you.

Alpha, Beta, Gamma..

Radiation is measured in doses of particles, regardless of the source. 1nSv from cesium is as harmful as 1nSv from potassium.

Please, take some time and learn about these things before you embarrass yourself further.

[RobertEarl]

35. Radiation

Radiation is not measured in doses of particles. How many particles do you get from sunshine? How many from flying in a plane? You know how a radio works? Do particles come flying thru the air to make your radio play? No. Radioactivity is an energy wave, like waves from the sun.

What you are refusing to see. Yes, refusing, is that natural potassium particles are totally different than an artificial, man-made cesium particle.

Each particle has a different energy level radiating from it. And each particle has a different toxicity. Potassium is a particle that humans have adapted too and come to need. Not so with Cesium. Cesium has been shown to cause heart problems. Cesium actually can take the place in your body that potassium usually occupies. And kill you.

[X_Digger]

36. Oh for fuck's sake.. here..

http://orise.orau.gov/reacts/guide/measure.htm

A beta particle from the decay of Potassium 40 is exactly the same as a beta particle from the decay of cesium 137.

A dose of 1nSv from Potassium 40 is exactly the same as a dose of 1nSv from Cesium 137 (by definition, no less.)

Your naturalistic fallacy is noted and dismissed.

[RobertEarl]

38. So I look at that page

The word 'Particle' isn't found. So did you just make that up?

A particle emits radiation. It could be a beta or gamma, or alpha emitting particle. First is the particle, then the radiation. Just as first there is the sun, then it radiates. Some particles do not emit radiation.

Cesium is no good in a body, potassium 40 is good. We evolved with k-40. Radiocesium is a toxic which kills.

This spread of cesium is going to kill all kinds of life. The radiation emitted from the cesium et al, like strontium and plutonium, will add to the background radiation and could be as much as an extra 10% added to the background in the parts of the pacific where the particles are found.

[X_Digger]

40. A highly charged particle *IS* ionizing radiation.

The rate of decay and production of those particles is what's measured- becquerel, curies, and sieverts are units based on decays per second.

Potassium 40 is radioactive. The beta particles it produces as it decays are the same as the beta particles produced by the decay of cesium 137.

I don't know why I'm bothering. Someone who thinks that radiation is different than the alpha and beta particles produced is willfully ignorant.

[SidDithers]

47. +1...

Especially that last part.



Sid

[1000words]

24. If it ever becomes a full-on DU drama-fest issue, I'll agree.

[SidDithers]

5. DU rec for science...

and for a Fukushima thread that doesn't come from fucking enenews.

Sid

[Octafish]

18. No mention of Hot Particles.

For those interested:

http://nuclearfreeplanet.org/symposium-steven-starr-the-implications-of-massive-radiation-contamination-of-japan-with-radioactive-cesium.html

[FBaggins]

21. Nor should there be

They're relevant when discussing Chernobyl or nuclear bombs... but not a gaseous release like Fukudhima where particulate release was minimal.

[Octafish]

22. Really? So how do you explain the plutonium found 25 miles from Fukushima?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2047270

That's just what's been reported. FTR: Scientific American also failed to mention plutonium.

[FBaggins]

49. Does "minimal" now equal zero?

Sorry that I missed this when you posted it.

The reality is that there have only been a couple places where any plutonium attributable to Fukushima has been found. The rest have been entirely consistent with the amounts of plutonium that was already there.

FTR: Scientific American also failed to mention plutonium.

Which makes sense... since there really hasn't been any of it worth mentioning. Plutonium is spread in tiny amounts all over Japan (you may remember hearing of a couple bombs we dropped on them?)... and in almost all cases, that existing contamination has dwarfed anything from Fukushima.

Again - this is consistent with the meltdowns as we understand them. The more volatile elements (and noble gases) escaped as gases when the cores were vented so that sea water could be injected... but with the exception of a miniscule portion, the more dangerous elements (e.g., Strontium/Plutonium) were either solids or molten and remained within the RPV or PCV. They wouldn't be spread accross the countryside the way they were at Chernobyl (or in nuclear explosions).

You can't rationally fear "hot particle" plutonium from Fukushima when you've lived your entire life with 100,000 times as much plutonium in the environment as was released three years ago. In fact... there's a good chance that there's more Chernobyl plutonium around Japan than there is Fukushima plutonium.

[Octafish]

50. Researchers find plutonium contamination from Fukushima in Europe...

in this report:

J Environ Radioact. 2011 Dec 27. (Epub ahead of print)

Radionuclides from the Fukushima accident in the air over Lithuania: measurement and modelling approaches.

Lujanienė G, Byčenkienė S, Povinec PP, Gera M.

Source : Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Savanoriu 231, 02300 Vilnius, Lithuania.

Abstract

Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs ranged from 12 ?Bq/m(3) and 1.4 ?Bq/m(3) to 3700 ?Bq/m(3) and 1040 ?Bq/m(3), respectively. The activity concentration of (239,240)Pu in one aerosol sample collected from 23 March to 15 April, 2011 was found to be 44.5 nBq/m(3). The two maxima found in radionuclide concentrations were related to complicated long-range air mass transport from Japan across the Pacific, the North America and the Atlantic Ocean to Central Europe as indicated by modelling. HYSPLIT backward trajectories and meteorological data were applied for interpretation of activity variations of measured radionuclides observed at the site of investigation. (7)Be and (212)Pb activity concentrations and their ratios were used as tracers of vertical transport of air masses. Fukushima data were compared with the data obtained during the Chernobyl accident and in the post Chernobyl period. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs were found to be by 4 orders of magnitude lower as compared to the Chernobyl accident. The activity ratio of (134)Cs/(137)Cs was around 1 with small variations only. The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.

SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22206700

And another one:

Plutonium bioaccumulation in seabirds

Dagmara I. Strumińska-Parulska, Bogdan Skwarzec, Jacek Fabisiak

University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Chemistry, Analytics and Environmental Radiochemistry Chair, Sobieskiego 18, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland

Received 7 April 2011. Revised 5 July 2011. Accepted 16 July 2011. Available online 23 August 2011.

The aim of the paper was plutonium (238Pu and 239+240Pu) determination in seabirds, permanently or temporarily living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea coast. Together 11 marine birds species were examined: 3 species permanently residing in the southern Baltic, 4 species of wintering birds and 3 species of migrating birds. The obtained results indicated plutonium is non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of analyzed seabirds. The highest plutonium content was found in the digestion organs and feathers, the smallest in skin and muscles. The plutonium concentration was lower in analyzed species which feed on fish and much higher in herbivorous species. The main source of plutonium in analyzed marine birds was global atmospheric fallout.
Highlights

► We determined 239+240Pu in seabirds living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea. ► We noticed plutonium was non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of seabirds. ► We found the highest plutonium content in the digestion organs and feathers. ► We found Pu content was lower in birds feeding on fish and higher in herbivorous.

SOURCE: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X11001676

So, given that, I find it most disheartening to learn that research on fallout from Fukushima, does not get funded in the United States -- even after radioactive sulfur from Fukushima was monitored in Southern California.

Ocean water off La Jolla coast being monitored (and not) for Fukushima radiation

By Pat Sherman
La Jolla Light, Feb. 4, 2014

EXCERPT...

In 2011 Thiemens and a crew of UCSD atmospheric chemists reported the first quantitative measurement of the amount of radiation leaked from the damaged nuclear reactor in Fukushima, following the devastating earthquake and tsunami there.

Their estimate was based on radioactive sulfur that wafted across the Pacific Ocean after operators of the damaged reactor had to cool overheated fuel with seawater — causing a chemical reaction between byproducts of nuclear fission and chlorine ions in the saltwater.

Thiemens has, for the past several years, unsuccessfully sought to obtain grant funding to follow-up his research, first reported on Aug. 15 2011 in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

However, he said neither the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board or National Academy of Sciences (of which he is a member) were interested in funding additional research to measure the Fukushima fallout.

“It’s probably one of these things that just fell through the cracks,” Thiemens said. “It doesn’t quite fall under classical (research criteria).”

CONTINUED...

http://www.lajollalight.com/2014/02/04/ocean-water-off-la-jolla-coast-being-monitored-for-fukushima-radiation/

So, there's that.

[FBaggins]

51. Nope

You mentioned three events:

The first is a Lithuanian measurement that clearly included Iodine and Cesium from Fukushima... but the plutonium was only identifies as not being from Chernobyl. Why assume that it wasn't from Kyshtym or the Windscale incident? Both put out far more Plutonium than Fukushima.

The second is just a paper about plutonium uptake in birds. The abstract makes no mention of isotope ratios or sources it from Fukushima.

The third has nothing at all to do with plutonium. Frankly... I think you brought it up because you noticed it recently on ENE and thought it made some point. It doesn't.

even after radioactive sulfur from Fukushima was monitored in Southern California

This isn't a recent story. sulfur has a very short half-life and is long gone. All it tells us is that salt water was poured into the cores at Fukushima.

You know that's not news... right?

[Octafish]

52. The three articles are sourced. Why you can't see that is your business, not mine.

2011, two measured plutonium.

The third found radioactive sulfur. I brought it up because the dean can't get more research funded.

No need for condescension, FBaggins. It's clear where you come from.

[FBaggins]

53. You need to learn to understand what you read

Yes... the first two measured plutonium.

As has been pointed out multiple times... much more plutonium (many tens of thousands of times as much) was released in weapons testing and prior nuclear accidents than was released at Fukushima. Finding plutonium does not tell you that it came from Fukushima.

That can be determined by the isotopic fingerprint of the contamination. In neither of the cases that you cited was there evidence that it was from Fukushima.

The third found radioactive sulfur. I brought it up because the dean can't get more research funded.

Why would finding sulfure three years ago get research funded? There isn't any more of it to find. The half-life is too short.

No need for condescension,

As with the reports mentioning plutonium... you are reading into the post something that isn't there. You obviously misunderstood what you were reading - so I clarified it for you.

[hunter]

19. I worry that coal and fracked natural gas are worse than nuclear power.

Climate change and carcinogenic brain-damaging toxins in our water, food, and air caused by fossil fuels have already done more damage than nuclear power ever will. Replacing a nuclear power plant with a coal fired power plant does not make the world a better place.

I dream of a world economy where nuclear power and fossil fuels are entirely unnecessary.

We could get rid of the highways and high voltage power lines littering the landscape too.

[Takket]

37. exactly...

[MineralMan]

20. Information, rather than speculation.

Good.

[RobertEarl]

33. I did like the facts about the core meltdowns

But overall, from 1 bad - 10 good, I give the article a 3.

[1000words]

23. Thanks for posting

Rec'd

[spin]

26. That might change if another strong earthquake occurs near the reactor complex. ...

Or if there is a major screw up with the efforts to remove fuel rods or the melted reactor cores reach the ground water. I fear lots of nasty possibilities exist.