Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

avaistheone1

(14,626 posts)
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 02:08 AM Nov 2014

Fukushima radiation identified off northern California

Source: Statesman Journal

Massive amounts of contaminated water were released from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant following a March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Radioactive water has continued to leak and be released from the complex.

The radioactive plume has traveled across the Pacific, propelled largely by ocean currents and being diluted along the way.

No state or federal agency is testing Pacific waters for radiation from the crippled plant, so earlier this year Buesseler launched a crowd-funded, citizen-science effort to collect surf samples to be tested at his lab in Massachusetts.

Buesseler is looking for cesium-134, the so-called "fingerprint" of Fukushima. Cesium-134 does not occur naturally in the environment and has a short two-year half-life, so any in the Pacific today had to come from Fukushima.

Read more: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/tech/science/environment/2014/11/09/fukushima-radiation-identified-northern-california/18752871/

32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fukushima radiation identified off northern California (Original Post) avaistheone1 Nov 2014 OP
There's good current data on that here: bhikkhu Nov 2014 #1
I'm sure there's nothing to worry over. DeSwiss Nov 2014 #2
That looks like something from a reich wing site. Tea Bag-esque. C Moon Nov 2014 #4
History of the Statesman Journal avaistheone1 Nov 2014 #10
The scientist from Woods Hole monitoring it agrees with you Brother Buzz Nov 2014 #5
See? Everything will be just fine. DeSwiss Nov 2014 #6
DeSwiss... ReRe Nov 2014 #11
Only if you're incapable of reading the legend in the corner FBaggins Nov 2014 #18
Tell me what it says... ReRe Nov 2014 #19
A 100,000 to 1,000,000-fold reduction in radiation levels FBaggins Nov 2014 #21
I'll dance at your next wedding ReRe Nov 2014 #22
Let's make you swim in the stuff brentspeak Nov 2014 #23
Nope... not a problem. FBaggins Nov 2014 #24
no worry... nikto Nov 2014 #31
You mean I should stop to sprinkle thorium, tritium and cesium-134 on my Corn Flakes? BeanMusical Nov 2014 #12
"Many a little makes a mickle." ~ Benjamin Franklin Journeyman Nov 2014 #3
Destroying every ecosystem we've got. Is that the plan??? blkmusclmachine Nov 2014 #7
Never forget---Radiation is good for you! nikto Nov 2014 #8
Time to check the facts and return to reality FBaggins Nov 2014 #20
Just what I said--Thank you very much nikto Nov 2014 #28
Gulf is clean, too! Man from Pickens Nov 2014 #9
It's an essential part of a complete breakfast. BeanMusical Nov 2014 #13
All samples were at least 1,000 times lower than the EPA acceptable limit for drinking water muriel_volestrangler Nov 2014 #14
What if it takes years for it to stop burning? WhiteTara Nov 2014 #16
What exactly do you think is still burning? NickB79 Nov 2014 #25
Unsurprising. But hey, panic like sheep. Android3.14 Nov 2014 #15
Worrying Dopers_Greed Nov 2014 #17
These homeopathic levels of radiation will certainly protect me from much larger exposures. hunter Nov 2014 #26
Duzy worthy Brother Buzz Nov 2014 #27
I can sense everyone in California... nikto Nov 2014 #29
No problemo... nikto Nov 2014 #30
You'll take the radiation from my cold, dead hands... nikto Nov 2014 #32

bhikkhu

(10,716 posts)
1. There's good current data on that here:
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 02:22 AM
Nov 2014
http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html

There's a bit of cesium 137 still in the oceans from old nuclear tests, but cesium 134 decays faster, so it is likely correct to say that any of that came from Fukushima. The amounts found on the west coast so far aren't far above the limits of detectability, and should be decreasing relatively quickly (it decomposes to barium).
 

avaistheone1

(14,626 posts)
10. History of the Statesman Journal
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 04:57 AM
Nov 2014
Many weekly newspapers were launched in pioneer times in Salem and other Western towns. Only two Salem newspapers survived to become modern dailies, the Oregon Statesman and the Capital Journal.

The Oregon Statesman, the state's second-oldest newspaper, began March 28, 1851, in Oregon City in opposition to the Whig newspaper, The Oregonian. The Oregon Statesman moved to Salem in 1853 when the territorial capital relocated here. Founder Asahel Bush II was active and influential in Democratic causes.

http://static.statesmanjournal.com/about/


The newspaper is now owned by Gannett which also owns more than 100 U.S. newspapers and TV stations and web sites.

Brother Buzz

(36,434 posts)
5. The scientist from Woods Hole monitoring it agrees with you
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 02:47 AM
Nov 2014
The sample nearest to shore was taken about 100 miles off the coast of Eureka, in Northern California.

The levels are far below those that might pose a risk to human health or marine life, said Ken Buesseler, a WHOI marine chemist who is leading the monitoring effort.

"The levels are only detectable by sophisticated equipment able to discern minute quantities of radioactivity," Buesseler said.

And so far, no samples taken from beaches have tested positive for Fukushima radiation.

FBaggins

(26,737 posts)
18. Only if you're incapable of reading the legend in the corner
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 01:34 PM
Nov 2014

The reality behind the pretty pink color is not in the least bit scary.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
19. Tell me what it says...
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 01:40 PM
Nov 2014

.. I'm half blind with a cataract in my left eye, and print is too small for me to read.

FBaggins

(26,737 posts)
21. A 100,000 to 1,000,000-fold reduction in radiation levels
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 01:53 PM
Nov 2014

The actual measurements to date have actually shown this simulation to overestimate contamination levels (perhaps due to an overestimation of the original release to the sea).

Either way... see my #20. The additional dose is in the neighborhood of 1/5,000th of the natural dose from seawater.

brentspeak

(18,290 posts)
23. Let's make you swim in the stuff
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 02:07 PM
Nov 2014

In your case, we'll let you use a kiddie pool. Since the water is so safe, not a problem, right?

FBaggins

(26,737 posts)
24. Nope... not a problem.
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 02:56 PM
Nov 2014

Anyone who thinks that 12,000 Bq/m3 is safe but 12,002 Bq/m3 is somehow dangerous... is simply ignorant or more than half a bubble off plumb.

 

blkmusclmachine

(16,149 posts)
7. Destroying every ecosystem we've got. Is that the plan???
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 03:45 AM
Nov 2014

Who's running these Governments and Corporations? Psychopaths?


 

nikto

(3,284 posts)
8. Never forget---Radiation is good for you!
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 04:01 AM
Nov 2014

1 banana contains 347 Chernobyls and I ate 5 last week.

Radiation is GOOD for you---Every paid employee of Nuclear Power Corporations knows that.



So when those inevitable, godly, pious nuke-defender-folks come on here and say, "stop worrying--no problem", we can be
certain they must be right.

And don't eat too many kumquats---Each one is equal to 29 Fukushimas and will break your Geiger-counter!

















FBaggins

(26,737 posts)
20. Time to check the facts and return to reality
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 01:44 PM
Nov 2014

Or just visit once and awhile if you don't qualify for permanent residency.

The natural radioactivity of seawater is above 10,000 Bq/m3.

The levels WHOI detected range from 0.2 - 2.0 Bq/m3

It would take a very special gift for creating your own reality to imagine any danger at all from that.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,316 posts)
14. All samples were at least 1,000 times lower than the EPA acceptable limit for drinking water
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 06:27 AM
Nov 2014
So far, about 20 of those samples have been analyzed, and 10 have been positive for cesium-134, the Fukushima fingerprint. All were relatively close to the surface.

The amount of cesium-134 in each sample was less than 2 becquerels per cubic meter (Bq/m3). That's about 1,000 times lower than the acceptable limit in drinking water set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"I don't want to be dismissive of concerns," Buesseler said. "But there's a big difference between ten million becquerels – and it was that high off Japan in 2011 – and a few of these becquerels like we're seeing off Eureka."

"It's not zero," he said. "But it's not some large, dangerous amount of cesium that might reach our shorelines."

WhiteTara

(29,715 posts)
16. What if it takes years for it to stop burning?
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 12:26 PM
Nov 2014

Will we just have the same amount because half life is 2.5 years?

NickB79

(19,243 posts)
25. What exactly do you think is still burning?
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 03:57 PM
Nov 2014

Fission reactions that generate Cs-134 haven't been occurring at Fukushima for years, so no new Cs-134 is being created.

Dopers_Greed

(2,640 posts)
17. Worrying
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 12:43 PM
Nov 2014

But probably not as big a threat to California as fracking wastewater is.

I would not want to be in Japan right now though.

hunter

(38,312 posts)
26. These homeopathic levels of radiation will certainly protect me from much larger exposures.
Wed Nov 12, 2014, 12:36 PM
Nov 2014

.


.


.


.


.


This is triple-edged sarcasm, it pains me to say.


 

nikto

(3,284 posts)
30. No problemo...
Sun Nov 16, 2014, 07:12 PM
Nov 2014


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

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Fukushima radiation ident...