Radiation from Fukushima Will Be 10 Times Bigger than All Radiation from Nuclear Tests Combined

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/fukushima.html

Putting Fukushima In Perspective: There was no background radioactive cesium before above-ground nuclear testing and nuclear accidents started. Wikipedia provides some details on the distribution of cesium-137 due to human activities:

Small amounts of caesium-134 and caesium-137 were released into the environment during nearly all nuclear weapon tests and some nuclear accidents, most notably the Chernobyl disaster.

***

Caesium-137 is unique in that it is totally anthropogenic. Unlike most other radioisotopes, caesium-137 is not produced from its non-radioactive isotope, but from uranium. It did not occur in nature before nuclear weapons testing began. By observing the characteristic gamma rays emitted by this isotope, it is possible to determine whether the contents of a given sealed container were made before or after the advent of atomic bomb explosions. This procedure has been used by researchers to check the authenticity of certain rare wines, most notably the purported “Jefferson bottles”.

As the EPA notes:

Cesium-133 is the only naturally occurring isotope and is non-radioactive; all other isotopes, including cesium-137, are produced by human activity.

What people call “background” radiation is really the amount of radiation deposited into the environment within the last 100 years from nuclear tests and nuclear accidents (and naturally-occurring substances, such as radon).

2,053 nuclear tests occurred between 1945 and 1998:

Above-ground nuclear tests – which caused numerous cancers to the “downwinders” – were covered up by the American, French and other governments for decades...But the amount of radiation pumped out by Fukushima dwarfs the amount released by the nuclear tests...This graphic from Woods Hole in Massachusetts – one of the world’s top ocean science institutions – shows how much more cesium was dumped into the sea off Japan from Fukushima as compared to nuclear testing and Chernobyl:



(And Fukushima radiation has arrived on the West Coast years earlier than predicted.)

MORE

[FBaggins]

1. Nope.

Not even close.

And again with this nonsensical comparison of just cesium - the primary lasting contaminant from reactor meltdowns, but scarce in nuclear bombs.

[madokie]

2. Should be required reading for everyone

Much more informative than the pro nukies tripe. I'm sure there will be a certain poster who'll come along here shortly and tell us all this is bullshit.

Thanks for this link

[Demeter]

3. He beat you to it

or do you mean the female poster? I haven't seen her for a while. She may be on Ignore...

[madokie]

4. Yup

You can pretty much tell when you hit a nerve by the actions of those whose nerve you hit Something that many people pretty much can't control as its human nature to go on the defense when they realize that someone isn't buying their tripe

[FBaggins]

5. Seriously? You found that "informative"

The title speaks of radiation in general... but the piece doesn't even try to compare levels of radiation. Then it compares the amount of one element immediately next to a meltdown to one that was hundreds of miles away... and then to one an entirely different type of release that didn't significantly impact the area being measured?

That's informative?

[madokie]

6. Whatever you say, Mr

whatever. you. say.

As I was alluding to

[FBaggins]

7. It's not "whatever I say"... it's reality.

You should try to visit once in awhile. You would avoid embarrassing yourself so frequently.

Here, for instance, is a valid comparison. And as I said... it isn't close.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/5481/2013/bg-10-5481-2013.pdf

[darkangel218]

22. "its reality"

As perceived by you, perhaps.

Would you keep the same attitude if Fukushima was in the US???

[FBaggins]

26. Nope... not "as perceived by me"

As measured and calculated by a number of qualified scientists in many peer reviewed studies... without a SINGLE contrary position by another study.

Would you keep the same attitude if Fukushima was in the US???

Of course. Unlike some people, I allow my perception to be influenced by reality... rather than the other way around.

Facts are facts.

[darkangel218]

27. I call BS. lol

How far do you live from the nearest nuke plant?

[FBaggins]

32. You can "call" whatever you like

It doesn't impact reality.

How far do you live from the nearest nuke plant?

50-60 miles in two directions.

[darkangel218]

34. Lulz!!!

Talk to me when you live 3 miles from one.

( Since they're so amazing and safe!)

[NickB79]

37. What difference does 3 miles vs. 50 miles make?

Per some on this board, your life is in danger from the Fukushima meltdown even if you live in California, thousands of miles away.

My wife works in a pharmacy, and after the Fukushima meltdown, she had people coming in, asking for iodine tablets to combat radiation exposure.

We live in the Twin Cities, Minnesota. We are literally almost on the other side of the world from Fukushima.

[darkangel218]

40. Huge difference.

Go Google it.

[NickB79]

43. Interesting. The Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones aren't as large as I thought

Chernobyl, 30 km, Fukushima 20 km. For some reason I thought they were much larger.

I'm 30 mi. from the Prairie Island Nuclear Plant in Redwing, MN, btw.

[darkangel218]

50. BTW, TEPCO dumped an incredible amount of irradiated water into the Pacific Ocean,

and as far as I know, is still doing it.

Do you not think that could/would affect us at all?

[PamW]

46. The nearest nuclear power plant to me..

The nearest nuclear power plant to me would b e Diablo Canyon, about 150 miles away.

However, I live 1/4 mile away from a nuclear weapons laboratory. The nuclear power plants are designed not to blow up.

The nuclear weapons are designed to blow up and destroy entire cities and metropolitan areas. I have no qualm at all about living so close to a nuclear weapons laboratory at all.

That's because I know the science, and I know what Mother Nature permits to happen and what she forbids. That's an advantage that very few here have; so they always seem to be afraid of things that can't happen.

PamW

[PamW]

8. STILL TRIVIAL

Demeter,

Even IF we assume the factor of 10 over nuclear test fallout is valid; the amount of radiation from Fukushima is still TRIVIAL.

The following chart of radiation exposure is courtesy of the University of Michigan:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

The above shows us that the average person's radiation exposure due to nuclear testing ( "Fallout" in table ) is LESS that 0.03% of one's exposure.

That is the exposure one gets from good old Mother Nature is 3000 TIMES what one gets from the combined total of all nuclear weapons testing.

If Fukushima is 10X nuclear weapons testing, then that would imply that Mother Nature's radiation is 300 TIMES what one gets from Fukushima.

Or that Fukushima is 0.3% of what one gets anyway from Mother Nature.

Is that really worth getting all upset for?

Fukushima gives you about 5% what you would get from the average airliner flight; and you want to get upset about it?

When are the anti-nukes going to put Fukushima into proper perspective. I know that isn't going to happen, as they are too busy EXAGGERATING the consequences so they can fool the gullible.

PamW

[Demeter]

9. THERE you are!

Welcome back from lunch...or is it lunch break?

[darkangel218]

10. Lmao!!!!

[Demeter]

12. ooPS!

I didn't realize that one could read that as saying the poster was "out to lunch", which was NOT my intention. After all, it's one day till Christmas!

[darkangel218]

11. - 1 million, Pam

Again.

[PamW]

52. Whatever...

Whatever...

Still doesn't change the fact that as the cite to the University of Michigan website shows:

Nuclear weapons fallout is <0.03% of background.

Therefore, Fukushima is <0.3% of background IF one accepts the claimed 10X weapons fallout.

Therefore, Mother Nature is responsible for over 300X what Fukushima is responsible for.

PamW

[NNadir]

13. Talk about not knowing how to read...

...sigh...

All this proves is that the level of scientific understanding of the anti-nuke community borders on complete and total ignorance.

...sheesh...

[Demeter]

14. Welcome to the discussion!

I'd introduce you to Pam, but I think she and Mr. Baggins have a thing going on....

[phantom power]

16. You and kristopher appear to be in agreement -- do you also have "a thing going on?"

[Demeter]

17. Not after he yelled at me

(not before, either)

[Demeter]

15. I don't know if it's still running, but I think this thread needs a DUZY

[darkangel218]

18. And the DUzy goes to the poster with the most Caps!!!

For she is "teaching" us and we "don't want to listen" ( her words from a previous thread )

[FBaggins]

19. Here's the thing about that.

I don't "get" the caps and excessive use of bold and exclamation points. It must have something to do with the earliest days of the internet (where I did used to see a very similar style among government scientists)...

... But she is teaching you... and you clearly don't want to listen.

The OP is demonstrably hogwash. Weapons testing put out thousands to tens of thousands of times as much radioactive material as Fukushima (probably more - since the comparison I cited doesn't include plutonium or a number of other elements that Fukushima wouldn't have released). Yet not only are you "invincibly ignorant" on the subject... you're actually laughing about it.

If a DUzy is in order... it's to the three of you making yourselves look foolish while relying on an anonymous blogger as a source for scientific fact.

[darkangel218]

21. FBaggings..

No, I do not want to be "teached"

I lived through Chernobyl. No one, not you, not that poster nor anyone else, could possibly be effective in convincing me that nuclear power is safe. It is not.

Good luck with your propaganda. And don't waste your time on me. Find yourself other "students" who will be gullible enough to trust you.

DA

[PamW]

28. HOGWASH!!!

darkangel states
I lived through Chernobyl. No one, not you, not that poster nor anyone else, could possibly be effective in convincing me that nuclear power is safe.

What utter and complete HOGWASH!!!

DA, you didn't learn a DAMN thing because you experienced the Chernobyl accident.

It's like someone who survives the crash of an airliner; are they now experts in aerodynamics?

Really, suppose someone says all those people who survived the crash of the Asiana Boeing 777 are experts in aerodynamics because they survived an airliner crash.

That would be one of the stupidest, most braindead claims someone could make; that they somehow got some expertise in aerodynamics and was now an expert in airliner safety because they survived the Asiana Boeing 777 crash.

BALONEY - it just means that they were among the lucky of the unfortunate very few that were involved in an accident from the safest form of transportation we have.

You don't learn anything and your metal capabilities are NOT increased just because one is involved in an accident.

To claim otherwise is DISHONEST in the extreme.

Nothing is 100% safe, and if one is one of the unlucky few that doesn't make one an expert; it just makes them one of the unlucky.

Besides, the Chernobyl RBMK reactor was terribly flawed in design, and that was known prior to the accident.

It's like someone who survived the crash of the also flawed Hindenberg claiming now to be an expert on Boeing 777 safety.

The Boeing 777 is NOTHING like the Hindenberg; so it is ILLOGICAL to "think" that any experience from the Hindenberg accident translates into some expertise with regard to Boeing 777s.

I'm astonished that anyone would attempt to make such an outlandish and obviously WRONG claim.

PamW

[darkangel218]

29. Pam, give it up.

Seriously.

[PamW]

35. Seriously..

DA,

NO - seriously; anyone that would make the claims I suggested above with regard to airliner safety because they experienced the crash of the Hindenberg; has got to be braindead stupid.

Seriously, someone doesn't have a single functioning neuron if they make the claim that since they were on board the Hindenberg and experienced the crash; that somehow translates into any valuable experience or knowledge.

It just means they were unlucky; and that is all.

Claiming any "special expertise" because of the Hindenberg crash with regard to Boeing 777 airliners would be REPREHENSIBLE in the EXTREME!!!

PamW

[darkangel218]

36. lol..

Whatever you say. At least no more bold and caps. Thanks.

[PamW]

39. Why get so upset over a change of font

I don't get all the upset over what really amounts to a change in font.

Our keyboards have shift keys. The forum software has these font controls enclosed in square brackets.

What's wrong with using what's there?

I know people think it's shouting or whatever; but that is just so artificial.

Someone shouting in your ear "hurts" your ears.

Looking at caps and bold doesn't "hurt" your eyeballs; so there is no comparison.

Only an artificial "made up" one; people making up transgressions that aren't there so they can complain about them.

PamW

[darkangel218]

41. Honey, im not only upset over the font,

But rather over your remarks , that we are "elementary school children" "who don't want to listen".

Can't you seed your insults and font are not working?

[PamW]

44. What's "not working"

What is there that is "not working".

Do you really think that I care whether you learn scientifically accurate information or whether you remain scientifically ignorant?

Boy you sure do think a lot of yourself; and you think a lot more of yourself than I think of you.

I really do NOT care if you learn anything.

It's not my loss; it's your loss.

I'm a well respected scientist at a DOE national laboratory, and I have LOTS of input to our nation's energy policy. People who don't know their science and write to DOE and/or their Congressional representatives and talk about nonsensical energy policies are going to be IGNORED.

If you tell DOE that some incident is tremendously terrible for radiation exposure, when that radiation exposure is less than 0.3% of Mother Nature's natural background levels; then you will be summarily written off as a "know nothing".

I have nothing to gain here, and nothing to lose.

People who go around spouting nonsense that they picked up from a propagandist, or a propagandist website, and go shooting their mouth off with such nonsense; when they happen to have the opportunity to really learn the scientific truth from someone like me; and they don't avail themselves of the opportunity; ARE acting like "elementary school children that don't want to learn".

PamW

[darkangel218]

45. "I really do NOT care if you learn anything."

Then be done with it already.

I'm pretty certain I'm not interested in being preached to over and over again.

Bye!

[PamW]

47. Well good!

At least we know that there's one more anti-nuke that will forever be ignored by policy makers because of the nonsense spewed by such people.

The self-righteous who have nothing to learn because the "think" ( term used loosely ) that the know it all; will forever be condemned to talking nonsense.

People who know the science or have advisers that know the science ( as do our energy policy makers ) will be able to spot those that spew nonsense and hence we will know who to IGNORE.

PamW

[kristopher]

23. Most of that OP is from a Woods Hole article, including the infographic

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/Radioisotopes_in_the_Ocean_167804.pdf

The blogger butchered it a bit, but there is some substance involved.

Too bad you aren't nearly as diligent at meeting the unceasing distortion and falsehoods presented by PamWGreg and Nnads as you are picking every nit you can find/manufacture in antinuclear posts. You'd damned sure find a lot more meat on the bone.

[FBaggins]

24. Lol... except for...

...a single piece that supports the title of the blog.

The blogger didn't "butcher it a bit"... the blogger invented reality out of whole cloth and then pasted unrelated/unsupporting content from a legit source.

Note that the link I provided as rebuttal above was coauthored by Buesseler at Woods Hole.

[darkangel218]

25. So Pam is not the only one using bold heh

Do you really think we can't understand/read regular font?

[FBaggins]

30. Pam's rhetorical abuses are not that she uses bold

It's that she overuses it.

Adding occasional emphasis is entirely appropriate... particularly in the face of the three monkey debating strategy.

Do you really think we can't understand/read regular font?

Sometimes it's hard to tell what some people can understand. I essentially post that 10 is not, in fact, greater than 950... that .1-to-.5 is not greater than 186,000... that .1-to-1.0 is quite a bit smaller than 600... and you tell me that since you "lived through" Chernobyl, you're in a better position to judge the reality. So what am I supposed to think?

[darkangel218]

33. FBaggings..

When ( and I pray to whatever god(s) is out there, if any that it doesn't happen ) a nuclear accident will happen close to your home, you will see the horror, the pain and deaths without the help of "statistics".
People are still dying because of Chernobyl aftermath. And so will those close to Fukushima.

What do you plan on doing with the radioactive residues from the nuke plants, FBagging?? Beem them up to Mars?? Do you realise that even in the most benign circumstances, humanity has no clue how to dispose of it??

[PamW]

38. WRONG Again

Nuclear scientists and engineers from the very beginning of nuclear power wanted to reprocess and recycle the radioactive waste.

When you do that; you end up with SHORT-LIVED waste.

Nuclear Physicist, Dr. Charles Till, then Associate Director of Argonne National Lab explains the process in this Frontline interview:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

If one recycles waste as above, GONE are the multi-thousand year problems; the lifetime is on the order of what Dr. Till states above.

Additionally, how much waste do you think we have; a lot? We have 77,000 tons of very dense material that would fit in a high school gymnasium if we put it in one place. All that for about a half-century of 20% of the US's power.

However, 96% of that is U-238; which is no more radioactive than the day it was dug out of the ground. That U-238 doesn't need any special burial; we could put it back where we got it.

So we would have one little corner of a high school gym. Is that too much; for 20% of our electric power for a half-century?

Coal plants make waste many, many times that in a day.

If we recycled like Dr. Till states; and that waste didn't last for thousands of years; but for the relatively short timescales that Dr. Till stated; what's the problem.

We make much, much more electronics waste that has infinite longevity; just so we can have computers and cell phones. Is that worth it?

Do you ever check things out to ascertain the truth; or do you just post the things you read from the resident propagandists here and the propagandist websites.

One of my college Professors said the purpose of a college education is to teach you how little you know; and that before you go shooting your mouth off; you really need to go look things up to learn the truth.

PamW

[darkangel218]

42. Bold again, Pam?

Tsk Tsk.

[PamW]

48. Yes - bold.

Yes - bold again.

Bold is useful towards pointing out the most important part of a quote. Especially, when there are members of the target audience that are incapable of deriving that information on their own.

PamW

[darkangel218]

49. "members of the target audience", eh?

Jesus..

[kristopher]

31. Which still leaves it head and shoulders above the content of ...

most posts by PamWGreg and NNadir; and I don't see you holding them to account.

[madokie]

51. See post 30

read the first part of the second sentence of the last paragraph. Seems to me we have two who might just be the same
I've read that same diddy many times by the other, chek it out

[caraher]

20. This is a real jumble of factoids

How did they come up with a figure of "10 times?" I couldn't figure that out at all.

Reading the Woods Hole piece they link is much more informative. Bear in mind the graphic the Washington's Blog links compares surface concentrations nearby to levels in water contaminated by Chernobyl hundreds of miles away... it tells us nothing about overall levels of discharge, contrary to the OP article's claim. Later in the Woods Hole article we learn

Buesseler reviewed the range of current estimates of the total cesium releases. Their totals vary widely, he noted, but are “beginning to converge” on a total cesium-137 release of between 15 and 30 petabequerels (10^15 Bq). In comparative terms, he said, this is slightly more than the amount put into the sea by Chernobyl—although the total environmental release from that accident, at 85 PBq, was much higher.

So I don't see at all how this can support a claim of a "wave of radiation" 10 times greater...

The most interesting part about the Woods Hole article, to me, was the role of ocean currents in inhibiting dilution. So if you must worry, and are concerned about the US West Coast, worry instead about Japan's East Coast! Though apparently levels even there, as of a year ago, were within EPA drinking water standards...

“Dilution due to ocean mixing should be enough to cause a decrease in concentration down to background levels within a short period of time,” Buesseler told his audience at the Fukushima and the Ocean conference in November 2012. “Yet all the data we have show that measurements around the site remain elevated to this day at up to 1,000 becquerels per cubic meter.”
He hastened to put that number into context. “A thousand becquerels is not a big number for cesium. Just for comparison, that’s lower than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s limit for drinking water. At that level, Buesseler stressed, the cesium in Japanese coastal waters is safe for marine life and for human exposure.