First low-level trace of Fukushima radioactivity detected off B.C.

[FBaggins]

Scientists with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts reported Monday that a water sample collected in mid-February from a dock in Ucluelet, on British Columbia's Vancouver Island, contained trace amounts of cesium-134 and cesium-137 – isotopes that only come from human sources.

However, the levels detected in the sample were so low that even if someone were to swim for six hours a day, every day of the year in water containing twice as much cesium, the radiation received would still be 1,000 times less than what they would receive from a single dental X-ray.

Still, researchers say this is the first detectable of radioactivity from Fukushima found in a water sample taken from the U.S. and Canadian West Coast.

They say they are certain the radioactivity came from Fukushima because cesium-134 has half-life of only two years, meaning the cesium decays relatively rapidly, and the only recent source of cesium-134 has been Fukushima.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/first-low-level-trace-of-fukushima-radioactivity-detected-off-b-c-1.2313531

Worth noting that the title is not technically accurate. Plenty of radiation from Fukushima was detected in the weeks following March 2011. This is the first of the seaborne plume.

On edit - Reportedly, the detected levels were 1.5 and 5 bq/m3 for 134 and 137 respectively.

[ffr]

1. Mmmm. Seafood. n/t

[FBaggins]

2. Seawater is naturally thousands of times that radioactive

Don't confuse levels that we can detect with levels that we should care about from a health perspective.

[ffr]

28. The first reason I stopped eating fish was pollution

and overfishing. I don't need to eat something from an unhealthy environment (mercury & lead) and don't need to contribute to the declining number of fishes and oceanic species.

Adding gene altering radiation to the level of that only makes me more certain to avoid seafood.

[Orrex]

3. Won't someone please think of the starfish?!?

[FBaggins]

4. Oh... that wasn't Fukushima radiation. It was from the 2056 Diablo Canyon meltdown.

That radiation traveled back in time and clobbered all the poor starfish.

The good news is that if you see a starfish, it means that someone was able to shut down the plant and change the timeline.

[Orrex]

6. Whew! That was close!

[RobertEarl]

10. Yeah

Well swim in it 24/7 and eat the mussels that collect and bio-accumulate the poison and see how long you laugh before wasting away.

I am shocked that some here are so callous that they deny the science and the biology and get their cheap kicks from dissing the manmade poisons polluting the Pacific.

[FBaggins]

12. Pay attention to the actual scientists

You know... the one you used to cite until you realized that he laughed at your nonsense?

You could swim in it 24/7, 365 days a year for your entire life and never come close to the dose from a single dental xray.

[Orrex]

21. Dental x-rays killed my starfish.

True fact.

[Make7]

23. I didn't even know starfish had teeth! ( n/t )

[FBaggins]

24. Well... not any more of course

All those years of extra radiation obviously just melted the teeth.

Now the poor things have to eat by injecting their stomach into their prey. How degrading.

[Orrex]

26. Oh, like you've never done that.

Let's not be so hasty to judge, hmm?

[zappaman]

14. Come on out to California and we can swim together!

Should be fun and I have an extra boogie board for you!

[zappaman]

5. Ok.

I laughed!

[Rex]

7. They're going to build some kind of ice wall to help protect the ocean.

Interesting news article.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/11/national/fukushima-1s-never-ending-battle-radioactive-water/#.VSLBqfnF8po


"The disaster that struck four years ago may have abated for most of the Tohoku region, but the nightmare continues at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, which suffered three reactor core meltdowns and is plagued daily by increasing amounts of radioactive water.

Tepco hopes to improve the situation via two key measures: a 1.5-km-long sunken wall of frozen soil encircling stricken reactors 1, 2 and 3 and the damaged reactor 4 building to keep groundwater from entering and mixing with coolant water leaking in the reactor building basements, and “subdrain” wells around the buildings to pump up the tainted groundwater for treatment and ultimate discharge into the Pacific.

The utility hopes these steps will drastically reduce the amount of radioactive water, which is currently some 300 tons each day."

[FBaggins]

8. Yep... it's been under construction for several months now.

Though it isn't so much to "protect the ocean" as it is to reduce the amount of water that they need to deal with on an ongoing basis. They aren't actually spraying much water in the reactors (the fuel doesn't produce much heat at this point), but they still have those hundreds of tons of water flowing into the reactors daily from up-slope - which then gets contaminated (needing to be pumped out and treated/stored).

If they could reduce the inflow to close to zero, then they can effectively "recycle" the water that they're using and remove the need for additional storage tanks.

Since the cleanup is anticipated to take decades, that's probably the most valuable short-term impact that they can hope for.

[Rex]

9. Yeah I guess I meant, protect the local sea critters.

I am only guessing that locally, 300 tonnes of radiated sea water can't be all that good for local marine life. However, looking up sea water, had no idea how much radioactivity it had naturally. Interesting, I hope they can get to a point of using some kind of recycling system.

Just good to finally read about some solutions and not more problems.

[RobertEarl]

11. Think about it

There is a plume of this poison from Tokyo to Vancouver, across the Pacific ocean. That's a lot of poison in the water and it lasts a long time. 4 years now that shit has been n the water and there is more to come.

So much for the claims that "Nukes are safe."

The Pacific coast sea life is dying. Now we know why.

[FBaggins]

15. Laughable

particularly to pretend that there's much "thinking" going on in that nonsense about Pacific coast sea life dying years before even 1bq per ton showed up. Oh right... I keep forgetting about the time-traveling characteristics of "man-made radiation" (sic)

That's a lot of poison in the water

It sure is... in total. But there's lots more water.

[RobertEarl]

16. Time traveling

I don't think you even know what that means. Yet you and others keep spewing that term.

There has been manmade radiation in the Pacific since they started testing nuclear weapons in the 50's. Now there is more than ever, and it is in a plume all the way from Tokyo. And the sea life is wasting away like never before. That's just facts. Deal with it and forget the time-traveling canard, bs, eh?

[FBaggins]

17. Still wrong

There has been manmade radiation in the Pacific since they started testing nuclear weapons in the 50's.

There is no such thing as "manmade radiation" - as you've been told many times. There are isotopes that are the result of human activity, but the radiation that they release is no different from the same category of radiation at a similar energy level from "natural" sources.

As you've been told many times... if one of your cells is struck by an electron with a certain energy level (a beta particle), it can't tell whether the atom that emitted the particle was manmade or not... it's just an electron.


Now there is more than ever

Wrong. Weapons testing in the Pacific ended some time ago. The amount of loss from decay easily exceeds the new contamination from Fukushima.

You've been shown this clearly from you own cited source (you know...the one with the mussels that you continue to misuse?)

And the sea life is wasting away like never before.

Without any correlation at all to the amount of radiation in given areas. No starfish wasting disease near Japan where levels are hundreds of times higher (and were hundreds of thousands of times higher in some areas). No additional radiation found in the areas where the wasting has been occuring... etc.

Those are just the facts. Not the nonsense you keep inventing.

[RobertEarl]

22. No such thing as manmade?!?!?! wth?

Do you know the difference between manmade and natural? If you did you wouldn't even go there, but you did.

Natural radiation is natural and has been in a more or less steady state for maybe millions of years. Now men have been splitting the atom and making manmade radiation. They actually use the tremendous energy generated from fission to boil massive amounts of water!! Amazing, isn't it?

The places they create fission are designed to control the manmade fission products and the radiation, and are called nuclear reactors. The companies who own these places have been made to spend billions and billions of dollars to keep the manmade radiation to themselves. But they couldn't do the job properly and there has been all this manmade radiation polluting the biosphere. It has even made it from Japan all the way to the US.

You can deny that it has happened, even go so far as to say it is safe, but the science does not back your denial or your assertions. Remember, they have spent billions on controlling the manmade radiation. If it was so safe, why did they spend those billions on controlling the manmade radiation?

[FBaggins]

25. Still with the reading comprehension problems, eh?

An electron with a bit over 1MeV of energy flying through space is an electron with a bit over 1MeV of energy. The electron doesn't change in character because the isotope that emitted it came from a reactor. It isn't "manmade" radiation. You could claim that the isotope was manmade... but not the radiation. The electron that's emitted by the "manmade" isotope is the exact same electron that was in the parent element for billions of years when it was "natural".

You've been told this multiple times... Sorry if that's not simple enough to get through.

[RobertEarl]

27. Man made the electron 'fly'

Before man made it fly, it was not radiating. Now it is radiating.

Not only that, but many manmade isotopes released from Fukushima are very toxic. The subject of your OP is not looking for the other isotopes that were made in Fukushima reactors and are now in the Pacific along with the cesium. Cesium is just the easiest to detect, but there are many more, even more toxic isotopes in the Pacific now.

I wonder why they tell just a bit of the truth about what is happening? Why are they hiding the science? Because they figure people can't handle the truth about Fukushima? Or is it because the truth will economically damage many very rich people?

[FBaggins]

31. So what? How does that make a difference?

Your nonsense here sounds remarkably like the homeopathy claim that water has a "memory".

If it's raining on your head and I take the exhaust from a hydrogen car (which is "manmade water&quot and sprinkle it out my window... does it matter at all that one drop of the tens of thousands that hits you came from a "manmade" source?

Of course not.

Not only that, but many manmade isotopes released from Fukushima are very toxic.

Chemical toxicity is irrelevant to the conversation (see #59 for why).

not looking for the other isotopes that were made in Fukushima reactors and are now in the Pacific along with the cesium.

So your argument is that the elements in amounts that are too small to even detect are what we should worry about? Quadrillionths of a gram of cesium in a ton of seawater and you want to talk about the chemical toxicity of stuff that was released in millions of times smaller amounts?

Cesium is just the easiest to detect

Cesium is only easier to detect because that's by far the largest remaining release.

I wonder why they tell just a bit of the truth about what is happening? Why are they hiding the science?



Let's not forget that the "they" you're talking about in this case was your own source for what you said "the science" (sic) said.

[RobertEarl]

32. Hey

Get over it. Nukes are dead, man. No blathering on DU is going to hide the fact that Fukushima is the nail in the coffin of nuke power, man.

The sea life in the Pacific is dying and the chief suspect in that death is radiation from Fukushima.

You may care more for nuke power money that the environment, but I don't, and that's where I come from: Caring about the environment.

I do find it rather odd how you deny nuclear science yet are a full-blown radical in your support of the nuclear business model. Weird, dude.

[FBaggins]

33. Lol!

It never takes long for you to shift to one of your irrational rants, does it?

Get over it. Nukes are dead, man. No blathering on DU is going to hide the fact that Fukushima is the nail in the coffin of nuke power, man.

And yet there are so many under construction and so many more that have been added to plans in the last few years? It does seem that one of us is relying on "blathering on DU" to change the future... but it sure isn't me.

The sea life in the Pacific is dying and the chief suspect in that death is radiation from Fukushima.

Not accoring to a single credible (or even mildly rational) source. There is no a single credible source that lists Fukushima as "the chief suspect" in any of the problems impating the Pacific.

and that's where I come from: Caring about the environment.

You sound so much like this guy.

Don't watch too far in... or we'll start hearing from you about how Fukushima is the "chief suspect" for the drought in California.

Here's a hint for you: Phony (or real) "caring" doesn't change reality. You don't get to imagine your own nutty reality and accuse others of not caring when they fail to accept it.

I do find it rather odd how you deny nuclear science

Feel free to point to a single occurance of you citing actual science when it comes to radiation. For all of the scores of times that you're said what "the science says"... I can't rememeber a single time when there was any actual science involved.

Not once.

The only times that come close are when you link to actual scientists... and then fade away when it's pointed out how they explicitly disagree with your nonsense - as is the case with the source for the science behind the OP.

[RobertEarl]

34. Like this?

Adm.Hyman Rickover, the Father of the Nuclear Navy and of Shippensport nuclear reactor. In the twilight of his career, he testified before Congress in January 1982. Below is an excerpt from his testimony. Given who this man was and what he did, his statements were profound.

Here’s an excerpt from Rickover’s testimony:

“I’ll be philosophical. Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth; that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn’t have any life — fish or anything. Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet and probably in the entire system reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin…

Now when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible… Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years.

I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it… I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation.

Then you might ask me why do I have nuclear powered ships. That is a necessary evil. I would sink them all. Have I given you an answer to your question?”

On the hazards of nuclear power.
Testimony to Congress (28 January 1982);
published in Economics of Defense Policy:
Hearing before the Joint Economic Committee,
Congress of the United States, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., Pt. 1 (1982)

_____________
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover

[FBaggins]

35. Um... no. Not even close.

That's rhetoric... not science.

[RobertEarl]

36. See? There is your denial

You deny that Admiral Rickover knew what he was talking about.

He had at his service all the best nuclear scientist of the day and he was not a suck-up to nuke power but rather he was concerned with the health and well being of the planet.

And you sit there and deny that he had science backing his statements.

[FBaggins]

37. It's not "denial"... it's refutation.

Nothing in that comes close to being "science". It's a rhetorical polemic.

You deny that Admiral Rickover knew what he was talking about.

He knew quite a bit over the course of his life. But he was never a scientist (he was an electrical engineer) and things that he said (a tiny part of a 200+ page statement to the econ committee) in his mid 80s right after being fired from three decades of service by Lehamn/Reagan... well... I just don't give them much credence.

He had at his service all the best nuclear scientist of the day

None of whom agreed with him. But let's not pay any attention to that... right?

but rather he was concerned with the health and well being of the planet.

Actually, he wasn't. He was falling for the schtick that nobody else could do what he could do... and that the nuclear Navy only existed because of his personal strength in leading it. He was irrationally afraid that if he wasn't in control, that nobody else could handle the job. We can cut him some slack for that because he was 80+ at the time.

And you sit there and deny that he had science backing his statements.

He provided none in that statement... nor have you.

[RobertEarl]

38. You are incredible

And what I mean is not credible.

Next you'll be telling us plutonium is good for your health?

[zappaman]

39. Hello kettle!

Pretty sure I have more trust in the posters who HAVENT been banned from E &E.

[FBaggins]

40. Let's take a look at some more Rickover testimony, shall we?

From the very same hearing.

Question - In view of the experience with Three Mile Island and the other accidents and mishaps, do you believe that civilian nuclear reactors can be operated safely?

Rickover - "Absolutely, sir."

He also said "Ultimately, we will need nuclear power because we are exhausting our non-renewable energy resources; that is, coal and oil"

Also... you probably don't realize that you're quoting from a Wasserman piece that intentionally (and dishonestly) misquoted Rickover for part of that.

DO you believe that Rickover actually said "I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it… I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. " ?

Yes or no?

[gratuitous]

13. Fear not, DUers

Someone will be along to intone "CTV News, lol" and, like, totally win the thread.

[seveneyes]

18. radiation received 1,000 times less than a single dental Xray

Yeah but if the ocean is boiling hot you won't notice it. If the Starfish are melting under your feet, you may wish to exit the water.

[FBaggins]

19. Climate change is certainly something worth considering here

(And... of course... is far more likely to be related to starfish dying. But that's another story).

Wouldn't it be great if we could focus on the fossil fuel burning that we know is killing people every single day just by operating normally and is likely to permanently damage the ecosystem... rather than the ones that if they breakdown might kill a few people?

[seveneyes]

20. Big science will save more people than it may harm

Our Universe runs on nuclear reactions and it will be harnessed.

[RobertEarl]

41. It could, but it won't

Because your big science is corrupted by greed. Fukushima could have been prevented in 100 ways, but it was allowed to become the problem it has become because of greed. Because man had a hand in it and man is corruptible.

Some guy named Einstein is who came up with that idea, I'm just paraphrasing him.

[RobertEarl]

29. Your post in E&E shows how bad Fukushima really is

After 4 years they don't know whether the spent fuel pool's gate works or not. 4 years and they can't get close enough to their equipment to be able to know what's going on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112783568

The cesium found in Vancouver could very well be some that came out of that fuel pool. All the way across the Pacific with more right behind it.

[FBaggins]

30. It does?

After 4 years they don't know whether the spent fuel pool's gate works or not.

Do we care whether the gate can open and close for refeuling? Of course not. The only "works" that we care about right now is whether the pool retains water... and it obviously does.

More importanly... how far 'round the bend do you have to get before you think that something this trivial "shows how bad Fukushima is"? What those photos actually "show" is that people (like you) who thought that the explosion at Unit #3 was actually a nuclear explosion involving the spent fuel in that pool... didn't have a clue.

The cesium found in Vancouver could very well be some that came out of that fuel pool. All the way across the Pacific with more right behind it.

No it couldn't. See note above... we're long since past the point where the theory that fuel from the pool contributed to the release had any credibility.