How Quickly Did Fukushima Radiation Reach North America, and When Will it Peak?

[SidDithers]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/24309/20150102/how-quickly-did-fukushima-radiation-reach-north-america-and-when-will-it-peak.htm

Scientists have released the results of a study on just how long it took the radioactive elements released from Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean by the 2001 earthquake and tsunami to reach the west coast of North America.

Cesium 137 and cesium 134 that spilled into the waters of the Pacific ocean from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant took about 2.1 years to show up in measurable amounts on the shores of North American, Canadian researchers report in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences.

Snip

By June 2013 the radiation had reached Canada's continental shelf, the researchers say.

However, the amount of radiation detected was small, they say -- below 1 Becquerels per cubic meter. (A Becquerel is the number of radioactive decades event per second for each 260 gallons of water.)

That level is at least 1,000 lower than what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered acceptable in drinking water.

It is also lower than the levels present in the Pacific Ocean in the 1980s due to fallout from testing of nuclear weapons, the researchers point out.

Don't be deceived by doomers who pretend to know something about science. And don't listen to dumbass conspiracies that governments are hiding the effects of the Fukushima disaster. Real scientists are doing real science, and publishing their results.

And those results tell us that while The effects from Fukushima should not be minimized, they should also not be wildly exaggerated. Fukushima was bad enough without having to make shit up to make it seem worse.

Sid

[longship]

1. But, but, but Sid! The Sea Starzzzzz!

and other post hoc rationalizations.


I didn't know whether to run around in panic, or to laugh. I chose the latter.

R&K

[zappaman]

2. I read this 10 years ago when I hitched a ride with the time traveling radiation.

[FreakinDJ]

3. But but ... the Starfish are melting

What a bunch of Ruebs

[RobertEarl]

24. About the virus said to be found

The scientists have been studying the sea star die-off for over a year. All they have found is a virus, which they state clearly is NOT the Cause.

Here is a link to the site about the testing of waters for Fukushima in the Pacific.. I haven't looked at it in sometime, but there was one sample taken off the SoCal coast where cesium in the 7bcq range was found. You have to dig a bit to find it, but it was there the last time I looked. And that sample was in early 2012, IIRC.

http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/

[FreakinDJ]

46. No thanks

[Control-Z]

4. 2001?

If only the typos could be fixed before publication.

Other than the typo, thank you for the article. The fallout from Fukushima has certainly been worrisome.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. ....Yeah- I caught that, too. 2001- so not as quickly as we thought, huh?

Anyway, I agree with what you and Sid have said, here. I'm in the wanting to know actual facts and data camp, not hyperbole OR soft-pedaling of what obviously was a major disaster.

[RobertEarl]

10. You need ENEnews.com then

You don't have to look at the comments, just read the reports that are linked in the headlines.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I've seen it.

Single sourced reports with zero corroboration are not generally a good sign. The most hyperbolic stuff from ENEnews for the past few years has never been independently reported anywhere else.

That either makes them super-secret informers on the information the global conspiracy (meaning: everyone else) is trying to keep from the world, or else it makes them a garden variety CT site.

Listen, I'm downwind, more or less, from Fukushima. It behooves me to take it seriously.

But there has been a tremendous amount of noise and unmitigated bullshit around this deal. I'm bright enough to have figured that out by now.

[RobertEarl]

22. No, you must not have

You would see that a fair majority of the reports are from Japanese news sources. Ya know, the ones right there.

Then there are sources from scientists who are, and have been, studying nuclear power and this accident for years. Most all of the reports have been found to be true and factual. Hardly ever is there any serious debunking of the sources and the reports, so all I can say is you must not have read much of Enenews.com.

Then there are the serious and well informed posters with many links to other sources around the world.

The noise and bullshit has come mainly from the industry and their die-hard supporters. Like in this OP, which is false.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Well, AFAIC we're all on the same team. At least I am. Fukushima was and is a clusterfuck.

as far as nuclear power, I'm far more interested in seeing progress on fusion, than the building of more fission reactors.

[newfie11]

59. +1

[NuclearDem]

69. Pretty much sums up my opinion on nuclear as well.

[Bonobo]

5. Half a million not dead, 25,000 not mourned properly here. nt

[Boreal]

13. What do you mean about

25000 not mourned properly? I thought the tsunami killed about 36000. Is that not right?

What has happened with all of the people who were left homeless and living in shelters? My heart broke for the elderly. It had to have killed some who survived the tsunami.

[Bonobo]

16. No, 25,000.

Many are still in inadequate housing, many have moved, many are with relatives.

I say not mourned PROPERLY here because so much attention was given to the theoretical danger of water flowing to the West Coast, dead starfish crazy talk and the like that most overlooked the enormity of the actual tragedy. I say most while thanking you for your sympathy.

[Boreal]

20. I still have great empathy

for the horrific losses and subsequent hardships.

I will never forget sitting in front of my TV and watching that tsunami roll in. Naturally, I watched every video I could find for some time after and I cried my eyes out. Right after it happened I used Google maps and the little man that lets you cruise around and looked at everything as it was before it happened. Japan is so beautiful and I loved the houses, gardens, landscape and the obvious care put into it all. I still can't believe so much is gone.

[RobertEarl]

6. You're gonna love this sid

http://enenews.com/fukushima-engineer-theyre-covering-badly-groundwater-contaminated-scientist-measuring-higher-levels-japan-levels-california-already-exceed-expectations-will-keep-rising-years-tv-cleanup-be-li

6.9 Becquerels found in samples!!

And thanks for pointing out about how radiation was in the waters before. Puts the stupid ""time-traveling"" pro-nuke posters to shame.

Oh, and sid, now go find a link about what came over in the air after Fukushima. You can find a lot of reports on ENEnews.com.

[SidDithers]

7. "doomers who pretend to know something about science"...nt

Sid

[RobertEarl]

9. Well

Ignoring science like you do and cherry picking one little article that happens to be wrong........

We've gone over this before and you always clam up or go into the mode of rejecting any report that does not make you feel good. Sorry, sid, that's not scientific, that's anti-scientific.

[Bonobo]

11. Kinda like rejecting the report that Fukushima rice is no longer dangerous? nt

[RobertEarl]

12. I didn't reject it

I just pointed out that at 100 becquerels as the safe level, and if you ate more than one bag, you would be exceeding the safe levels. It's just math.

I'm glad they are managing the contamination in their rice. They eat a lot of rice, as do I. I am still worried about other foods tho, and about how the water from the blown up nuke plants is now reaching the US.

[Bonobo]

19. The Japanese gove says up to 2,000 becquerels/kilo of vegetable is acceptable.

One of those bags of rice is under 100 becquerels. Now YOU do the math.

Those look to be 20 kilo bags of rice. 1 rice bowl is 150 grams of rice.

DOING THE MATH...

20 kilos = 266.6 bowls of rice. A Japanese person typically eats 2 bowls/day.

That means that it will take 133 days to consume that much rice.

That's 200 becquerels per year from the rice.

Are we communicating here in a language you can understand?

[FBaggins]

50. 6.9? Seriously?

Computer models were for anywhere between 1-30

Any idea what the drinking water standard is?

7,400

[bbgrunt]

15. well, then, let's just build us some more "nucular plants"! I feel safer already.

[DRoseDARs]

17. Actually, yes, we should. Just not ones based on tech 60 years out-of-date...

But, with no interest in actually regulating the US nuclear industry and forcing them to spend the money to ensure sound design and modern construction, I doubt the US nuclear industry will go for that.

[delrem]

27. So why even pretend that it could possibly exist?

Even in your dream world?

Quite evidently, your dream world of safe nuclear reactors, safe disposal of the waste, and a clean ecology, is not possible for humans organized along generally capitalist lines. And that's how we are organized.

[DRoseDARs]

28. You don't follow modern nuclear developments, do you?

The US nuclear industry isn't the SOLE nuclear industry, but go ahead and continue to let everyone know your ignorance.

[delrem]

29. Thanks for the uplifting post!

I can see that you're intelligent! Very avant-garde.
Congrats!

[RobertEarl]

32. What do we do with the waste?

We can't even take care of the waste we have, and you want us to create even more? You don't seem to be knowing much about nukes, except maybe what you saw on TV.

[DRoseDARs]

37. Ah, another one that thinks the US nuclear industry is all there is. nt

[RobertEarl]

39. Wrong again

No, I know about Fukushima, duh. Proving you to be just flippant.

I see you avoid the question about the waste, proving you to be so un-thinking that further conversation with you is impossible.

Germany is closing down their nukes. France is not far behind. UK is struggling to keep theirs open. Russia has had several melts and their population is in serious decline. China is building nukes, and we all know the quality of Chinese products.

Now who is the smartest of the bunch? Germany. And what are they doing with their nukes?

[Bonobo]

40. Germany is not even close. The answer is France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country

[freshwest]

18. Oh, damn! And here I was...

Well, nothing, really.

Coulda bought a pallet of 'Patriot Packs,' those freeze dried, overpriced, unhealthy inedible food to eat until the half-life of lethal radioactivity passed, but I'd be dead long before that, plus I couldn't afford the nasty stuff anyway.

I'm sure this made a nice nest egg for some salesmen. What will be the next catastrophe the enterpreneurs will latch onto?

Besides, I've become fatalistic about this stuff. This is a media induced form of consumerist spending frenzy for some.

For others, like me, it induced a certain form of apathy. I don't say so in order to not offend those who are in a panic, but...

I really don't give a fuck when or why I'm gonna die if it's gonna be some Biblical out of my control population collapse. My motto has been, 'Hey, let's all go together!'

I'll put it off only because I'm one of those 'I don't want to miss what happens next' types, but other than that... I don't give a flying fuck. Or even a running, jumping, hopping or skipping fuck.

Thanks for the science, Sid. It will bring DU's BP down.

JMHO.

[RobertEarl]

23. Some background on nuclear radiation from an expert

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

[DRoseDARs]

25. Prokaryotes ~3.6 billions years ago

Bunnies with pancakes on their heads invalidating Rickover's well-out-of-date 1982 supposition evolved shortly thereafter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

[RobertEarl]

34. Typical pro-nuke response

Bunnies and pancakes. Geesh, how much more can you embarrass yourself?

[DRoseDARs]

38. Says the guy who quoted a non-biologist from 1982 about the earliest life. nt

[RobertEarl]

41. He was a nuclear expert

And he was talking about complex life, not bacteria.

The fact is that this planet at one time was so radiated that complex life could not survive it. And the way we are headed, like Einstein said, is the end of life as we know it.

[newfie11]

60. +1 nt

[jeff47]

66. No, that fact is not true.

The fact is that this planet at one time was so radiated that complex life could not survive it.

No, that "fact" is false.

The material that coalesced into the Earth was floating in space for billions of years. It was not "new" material that had not had time to decay yet. As a result, the Earth was not massively more radioactive 2 billion years ago. There was some more radiation, in that the uranium and other long-lived radioactive materials have had more time to decay, but those elements are rare.

He was not a "nuclear expert". He was an expert in nuclear reactors and propulsion. That doesn't provide any insight into biology or cosmology, the two sciences that would actually inform this statement.

[zappaman]

70. That was a good lock and a good hide.

[delrem]

26. That's an entire ocean, Mr. Dithers.

An entire fucking ocean.
That means the whole world, Mr. Dithers.

Yes, the whole world, if the world continues to be hell bent on building nuclear facilities, and nuclear weaponry (just for *that* industry alone!), without a fucking thought to the future, to how the *waste* can be contained. Regardless of this or next year's disaster.

Don't you be telling me that the tragedy at the nuclear plant at Fukushima is dismissible. Not in any way, with any caveats about how you're really a caring person, but....
Don't you be telling me that your nit-picking about fine points, like a cigarette producer nit-picking about fine points regarding the risks of smoking, make any fucking difference at all.

[Bonobo]

30. Radiation didn't do this~~

?v=at&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0

[delrem]

31. No, but radiation isn't a youtube "viral" hoax, either. nt

[Bonobo]

33. You think the particulate contamination in China...is a...hoax?

Wow.

[RobertEarl]

35. That's what I say about the nuke industry

Who voted for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits? They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. I piss down the throats of these Nazis.

[Bonobo]

36. Great quote! Sadly out of context. nt

[delrem]

43. No, I think you are changing the topic.

And playing word games.
Which will make me distrust you in future.
Bye.

[Bonobo]

45. Be my guest, but it is not changing the subject and you DID imply pollution in China was a hoax.

I don't doubt you, just your intelligence now.

[hobbit709]

48. 31. No, but radiation isn't a youtube "viral" hoax, either. nt

Your exact post headline above.

[delrem]

52. Again, pollution in China isn't "radiation" a la Fukushima.

Which is the topic.

wtf is going on here?
Do you not care?

[Bluenorthwest]

62. If that's the topic and China is the subtopic then I'll add the fact that China is currently running

21 reactor plants and is building 28 more as we speak. The nation with the next largest number of reactors being built, Russia with 10. China, it's full steam ahead.

[jeff47]

67. Whatever you do, don't mention France

and their 59 nuclear reactors. Might make it seem not as scary.

[Bonobo]

49. What did this mean? "No, but radiation isn't a youtube "viral" hoax, either."

CONTEXT:

I showed China pollution and you say "No, but radiation isn't a youtube "viral" hoax, either."

So what did your statement mean then?

[hobbit709]

53. you might want to delete that "idiot" remark

And you are the one that linked it as a hoax.

[delrem]

54. NO!

I think the disaster at Fukushima is awful.

I think that the fact that there's significant dispersal of radiation to the coast of NA is awful.

I don't give a shit about nitpicking about whether this or that death, starfish or not, might be attributed to it (and the jury is out on that, esp. on to what extent what makes what contribution). I think the extent of the damage should be looked into. The extent of the *difference* it makes to the environment should be looked into. Since I'm not a denier of human accountability, like some.

I don't know what kind of a game you and bonobo are playing here. I don't care.

But in fact, the pollution seen in the skies of China is not due to radiation, whether or not from Fukushima. There is NO CONNECTION.
In fact, I've seen those pix on sites that show "2014 online hoaxes". Very ubiquitous, recently. So I made the link.

[hobbit709]

55. Don't say you weren't warned.

I wasn't the alerter but I figured someone would.

[jeff47]

68. Starfish was already looked into

First, the die off started before the accident. Radiation does not travel back in time.
Second, the scientists studying the die off said there was no effect from the accident.
Third, starfish off the coast of Japan are not dying. If radiation was the cause, they should be, since they received more due to being closer.
Fourth, the actual cause has been determined to be a virus. The virus is more active in warmer oceans, which we now have due to climate change.

But it's not the story Robert and others want to tell. So they keep insisting "the jury's still out!!".

[Bonobo]

56. Strange little encounter,

He was the one that denied the existence of particulate contaminant resulting from coal use in China while I was quite clear from the beginning that it was NOT there duly of radiation.

I wonder how he or she got so confused?

[hobbit709]

57. Once a fanatic's mind is made up, there is no swaying with facts or reality.

[hobbit709]

44. Now Sid, you know the time traveling radiation alters the facts.

At least that is what some people here want you to believe.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. ROFL: But the MILK! The California MILK!!!!!

[FSogol]

61. +1

[SidDithers]

63. Heheh...

The rush to buy shelf-stable milk was pretty hilarious.



Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

64. I think the following is good advice for any and all important subjects in discussion:

The issues "should not be minimized, they should also not be wildly exaggerated."

I rarely agree strongly with Dithers, but that is good advice not only for this subject, but for the crafting of language around every subject.

[Bonobo]

65. Hell, I almost NEVER agree with him but he's right on this one. nt

[tblue]

71. Just returning to the U.S. from Japan.

And your post is reassuring. Thank you for sharing!