Radioactive Iodine from Fukushima Found in California Kelp

[xchrom]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=radioactive-iodine-from-from-fukushima-found-in-california-kelp

LONG BEACH, Calif. – Kelp off Southern California was contaminated with short-lived radioisotopes a month after Japan’s Fukushima accident, a sign that the spilled radiation reached the state’s urban coastline, according to a new scientific study.

Scientists from California State University, Long Beach tested giant kelp collected in the ocean off Orange County and other locations after the March, 2011 accident, and detected radioactive iodine, which was released from the damaged nuclear reactor.

The largest concentration was about 250-fold higher than levels found in kelp before the accident.

“Basically we saw it in all the California kelp blades we sampled,” said Steven Manley, a Cal State Long Beach biology professor who specializes in kelp.

[cantbeserious]

1. Fukushima - Slowly Killing The Northern Hemisphere

eom

[barbtries]

2. no way to know if it's dangerous

for my son, my grandsons, my DIL, my granddaughter, all of whom play in that water on a nearly daily basis.

nothing to do to change it at all. why should i worry? what good would it do? how do i not?

[FBaggins]

4. Of course there is.

It isn't.

[kristopher]

6. Not now perhaps, but there was a time window when you can't say that

The sampling available is far from comprehensive - it tells us contamination occurs but provides nothing to indicate what maximum concentrations were. Therefore it does not - it can not - explore in any way the potential for harm to the marine ecosystem during the period when the iodine was present in its heaviest concentrations.

Please stop being an apologist for the nuclear industry.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. "The radioactivity had no known effects on the giant kelp, or on fish and other marine life"

Weird. Seems the authors don't agree with you.

[kristopher]

12. Do you live to misrepresent the data?

In terms of overall exposure to the kelp bed itself, it’s not a huge amount,” said Manley.
It would not have harmed the kelp, a species that grows from northern Baja to southeast Alaska, he said.

Some radioactive material probably accumulated in fish that eat the kelp – opaleye, halfmoon and senorita.

“If they were feeding on it, they definitely got dosed. We just don’t know if it was harmful. It’s probably not good for them. But no one knows,” Manley said. “In the marine environment it was significant, but probably not harmful at the levels we detected it, except it may have affected certain fish’s thyroid systems, the ones that fed on the kelp.”

[Dead_Parrot]

13. I love the way your brain works

So, it probably not harmful at the detected levels, and there's no harm detected. So your conclusion is, that it was harmful.

Well, have fun with that.

[kristopher]

14. The sampling regime is not adequate to support your conclusions.

And the article certainly doesn't say their work shows that the radiation was harmless. In fact, they go out of their way to explain what type of sampling protocol they hope to develop to monitor future releases (note how that is sort of a given) now that they've shown how the kelp can be used as a collector for the iodine.

When are you going to actually learn what doing science actually means?

[Dead_Parrot]

15. science involves drawing conclusions from data, not vice versa. nt

[kristopher]

17. It also involve not forcing conclusions on incomplete data

...and recognizing the validity of the elements of the data - such as how the sampling is done.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. You think Manley and Lowe forced thier conclusions?

That's quite an accusation.

Incidentally, are you familiar with the the "God of the Gaps" line of theological reasoning? Looks like the territory you are heading into - You should read up on it, you might pick up some pro tips.

[kristopher]

21. No, I'm saying that you and Baggins are forcing Your conclusions.

And now you are engaging in yet more of your usual absurd twisting of the discussion.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Look again, kris

I haven't drawn any conclusions, just repeated those from article. Apart from the ones regarding your thought processes, obviously.

[kristopher]

24. Sure you did, in post 8

That line has no relevance to what I wrote nor can it be properly be read as saying the authors disagree with what I had written. That is entirely a product of You forcing Your conclusions on the available information.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Ah. So you are agreeing?

Cool. Glad that's settled.


BTW, you don't need to capitalize personal pronouns when referring to me. I am not God, although it's an easy mistake to make.

[FBaggins]

10. Wrong as usual.

You can't tell a precise maximum, but you can set bounds on it based on half-life. You know in general when the main released were and the fastest that contamination could arrive... then you know when the samples were taken and can work backwards from there. The number you get will obviously be high (not knowing the speed of uptake), but you can set a figure above which you know the "real" number could not have gone. And that number is still far to low to represent "harm to the marine ecosystem"... as the scientists made clear.

[kristopher]

11. To claim that would yield workable data is beyond absurd.

That is nothing more than an exercise in whitewashing since it could not possibly give anything even remotely close to what might be reality.

[kristopher]

7. I agree with baggins on one thing - this information does not indicate present danger

If your family was in the water a lot during the time in question there is also not much risk. The potential problem would be associated with consuming the kelpduring that period, or consuming something up the food chain from the kelp. The short lifespan of the contaminant acts to protect you, but if you are concerned you might consider asking your doctor if he/she thinks a thyroid test for the children is in order.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. I love the smell of FUD in the morning. nt

[barbtries]

16. i realize the risk is probably minimal.

my point being, if they're at risk they'll never know, until they're sick. fukushima, i believe, is still hot. it's still on the coast. but like i said why should i worry? there's nothing to be done. i don't worry myself sick or anything. just sometimes. i think about it. i can't help it.

[kristopher]

18. I understand. That is a perfectly normal response to the situation.

We all do what we can do.

[Yo_Mama]

20. It's already gone

Radioactive iodine has a very short half life.

There were never concentrations high enough in NA to be a concern from this incident (not true locally for Japan), and by now there is a small fraction (significantly less than 1%) left.

If you would like an authoritative source about the basics of I-131, here's one:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/i131/abouti131

This is an RPI presentation regarding the Fukushima Daiichi accident estimating local impact. The reason there is no US impact estimation is that there was no US impact:
http://www.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf

I do not understand the continued hype over this when any exposure in the US was way below normal background levels? No one does, scientifically:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sew/2011pnwww/Jaffe.pdf

There's a bunch of data in that one - we do know what came here and its future effects.

[kristopher]

22. You have no way of knowing the maximum localized concentrations of I131 in NA.

[FLSurfer]

3. And we're just finding out about this now?

What else haven't we been told?

[FBaggins]

5. No...we've known all along.

They measured it in the air... And in the soil... And grass and milk and and and...

This doesn't inform us for the first time that it was there... It just reports how
much had been detected.

An insignificant amount.