Fukushima Radiation Nears California Coast, Judged Harmless 114
sciencehabit writes After a two-and-a-half year ocean journey, radioactive contamination from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan has drifted to within 160 kilometers of the California coast, according to a new study. But the radiation levels are minuscule and do not pose a threat, researchers say. The team found a high of just 8 becquerels of radiation per cubic meter in ocean samples off the coast. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for drinking water allow up to 7400 becquerels per cubic meter.
A little radiation between friends (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, we had a slight malfunction, but uh... everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?
Re:A little radiation between friends (Score:5, Funny)
We're sending a squad up.
Re:A little radiation between friends (Score:5, Funny)
What ninnie moderated this DOWN?
Come on, it's a QUOTE from Star Wars for heaven's sake, and if you think about it in context this is FUNNY.
Boring conversation anyway.
You see, (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Seasickness sacked several seamen who set sail in search of cesium in the sea. The say the seasickness ceased after stopping to seize the cesium sea samples they were seeking. So the cesium samples were safely secured by the sailors, sans-seasickness.
Was that Seaman Stain?
8 disintegrations/sec per cubic meter. Nothing. (Score:1, Insightful)
This isn't worth reporting.
Re:8 disintegrations/sec per cubic meter. Nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's a slow news cycle . . .
In terms of reporting a danger, you may well have a point but, you can also look at it in terms of reporting that once it crosses the ocean the radiation is at a very low level and does not present a threat . . . In which case you may still have a point. Well at least now we have a benchmark for how long it takes radiation to get to the U.S. from Japan, might come in handy someday.
Re: (Score:2)
No its not a slow news cycle. Its called radiophobia. Reporters love to report even the tiniest any nuclear sensational misleading factoid. And they make it a point not to ask a rational nuclear scientist or nuclear doctor to analyze the information in a rational way. They are only interested in reporting the anti nuclear (sensationalist) side.
the magic word is bio-concentration (Score:3)
The big risk however is that unlike most radiation sources, cesium is bio-concentrated. Drink the water regularly, or eat fish that live in it, and pretty soon the concentration in your body is going to be *much* higher than in the water.
Re: (Score:2)
Man. I can't wait! I'm just going to dive off a beach in northern California and start gulping down water by the mouthful!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The high salt content will do a lot more damage to your body than anything else.
the magic word is bio-concentration (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you suppose Godzilla built up enough radioactivity to shoot those energy beams? Big predator like that, swimming around in radioactive waters, eating all the other high-concentration radioactive predators, it's a wonder he doesn't glow in the dark.
Sadly for us, by far the most common radioactive superpower is "dying from cancer", which has got to be the lamest superpower *ever*. You've got to wonder just how many malformed cancerous iguanas died to give us just one Godzilla.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to go out and understand how little is 8 becquerel per cubic meter. It's orders of magnitude below insignificant.
And the morons taking this subject to court also need to read something about nuclear biology.
Gamma rays are considered the deadliest thing ever. Guess what, all animals produce gamma and beta rays from K40 and C14 decay. Our bodies have cell level equipment to handle with radiation damage. If low levels of radiation were a menace to animal life, we'd be all extinct.
A good nuclear physic
bananas (Score:5, Informative)
So 2 tonnes of water has the same amount of radiation as 1 banana.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:bananas (Score:4, Funny)
Re:bananas (Score:4, Funny)
Re:bananas (Score:4, Funny)
Especially near that smoke detector
Re: (Score:2)
And never, ever in a kitchen in a uranium mine.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So 2 tonnes of water has the same amount of radiation as 1 banana.
Yup, but innumerate idiots are only going to hear "radiation" and "Fukushima" and claim that the entire west coast is going to be dead. This is an actual claim an actual person made to me just a few weeks ago.
The same person claimed to be deeply concerned about climate change.
Only via complete and utter innumeracy is it possible to be deeply concerned about climate change (not an unreasonable position) and opposed to nuclear power, since nuclear power is the only proven-to-work, proven safe (in precisely th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Units. (Score:4, Informative)
There are more different units for distance. Actually its all the units for brightness that confuse me the most.
There are actually really only 2 physical units,
Activity, i.e. decays per second, Becquerel
Absorbed does, i.e. joule per kg, Greys
and a bonus biologically adjusted
Equivalent dose, like Greys adjusted by biological harm, Sievert
The others are obsolete (only used in USA).
Re: (Score:2)
No they aren't used in the US, except by a few old farts like me and all those young whipper-snapper don't understand me anyways unless I'm yelling "Get off my lawn".
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, you only find the ISO units for radiation in legal documents. Most of the detection equipment reads out in CPM (counts per minute) so it is much easier to report contamination as DPM (decays per minute)
Dose rate instruments often are switchable between Sieverts/hr and Rad/hr. And most still use Rems and Rads and Curies. Then, for final reports you apply conversion factors to get to the Grays and Sieverts.
When you are posting an area as a radiation area... do you
...and the fish? (Score:2, Interesting)
what about the fish that are living in it the whole time? How contaminated are they? And we still eat fish out of that water.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: You are not funny. Stop trying. You coworkers and associates will thank you.
Re:caesium 137 bioaccumulates (Score:4, Informative)
Cesium accumulates in your body because it's chemically similar to potassium, which your body needs for nerves to function (among other things). So it can accumulate no more than potassium does.
Potassium has a naturally occurring radioactive isoltope, K-40, which like Cesium undergoes both beta and gamma decay. The amount of K-40 in the typical human body contributes 4000-5000 becquerel to your natural radiation dose [wikipedia.org]. So your contention that there is "no safe minimum dose once it is in your body" is clearly wrong. Everyone who has ever lived has been exposed to a relative "huge" amount of radiation from K-40 throughout their entire lives, and our species is still here.
Re: (Score:3)
Cesium is an alkali metal, which means it readily exchanges into and out of the salts in your body. The biological half-life of cesium is about 70 days, so it wouldn't accumulate in humans as you describe as long as there is a source of non-active cesium to replace it.
We're also talking 8 atomic disintegrations per second (individual atoms are being counted here)...we get more activity from the long ago weapons tests than we do from Fukushima.
Re: (Score:2)
Cesium accumulates in your body because it's chemically similar to potassium, which your body needs for nerves to function (among other things). So it can accumulate no more than potassium does.
Statement of fact.
Potassium has a naturally occurring radioactive isoltope, K-40, which like Cesium undergoes both beta and gamma decay. The amount of K-40 in the typical human body contributes 4000-5000 becquerel to your natural radiation dose [wikipedia.org].
Loosely related association.
So your contention that there is "no safe minimum dose once it is in your body" is clearly wrong. Everyone who has ever lived has been exposed to a relative "huge" amount of radiation from K-40 throughout their entire lives, and our species is still here.
Strawman argument.
Your comment describes the process all micro-nutrient analogues undergo as a radioisotope, exactly what mrflash818 stated. Your reply is a strawman because you attempt to say that C137 as a
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot of data for the threshold model with ionizing radiation exposure, but because of liability reasons no one is going to make
Re: (Score:2)
You guys are getting all your facts out of kilter. Iodine is the one that does the Thyroid thing and it doesn't bio accumulate at all (just take lots of non radioactive Iodine).
Yep, you're right, thanks for pointing that out about the destination of the micro nutrient.
The issue is the radio-isotope's journey through a body if it is a analogue of a micronutrient that body uses. Tritium it is mutagenic to DNA at 0.018590 MeV for beta emissions and Caesium-137 is a beta and gamma emitter at 1.176 MeV so it is much more energetic. C137 gets organically bound and that increases the decay rate into the tissue, it doesn't seem to be used in medicine so I would prefer not to have a gamm
Re: (Score:2)
It really is something we do know. For example that bad diet is *way* more of a risk. Driving ever in your life is more risk. We *know* from the *data* that this does not p
Re: (Score:2)
We do know what radiation does.
Radiation vs Radionuclide.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending where you live, you can receive as much or more from the ground compared to space. But you need to be a commercial flyer for that to become a significant health hazard.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had two CT scans this year.
Compared to that, a maximum of 8 becquerels per ton of seawater is pretty much meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fortunate there is so little to accumulate. Note that it's not a one-way movement, it has a 70 day biological half-life (30 with prussian blue treatment).
Re:caesium 137 bioaccumulates (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no safe minimum dose once it is in your body, slowly disintegrating, radiating into your organs and cells.
There is also no safe minimum exposure to sunlight, no safe minimum amount of air to breath, no safe minimal exposure to germs, no safe minimal ingestion of food. Nothing you do is safe.
But, if your definition of safe is something that is unlikely to cause any harm or ill effect, then small radioactive doses, internal or external, are quite safe, particularly in comparison to many things that we do in everyday life that we consider safe.
Re: (Score:3)
"Did you wake up this morning?"
"Well...yeah..."
"Then you aren't safe. You never were "safe", and you never WILL BE "safe". "Safe" is a lie and an illusion. Get used to it!"
"What if I'd said "no" to you?"
"The answer would still be the same, only preceded by the blast of an air horn to wake you up."
Re: (Score:2)
There is no safe minimum dose once it is in your body, slowly disintegrating, radiating into your organs and cells.
There is also no safe minimum exposure to sunlight, no safe minimum amount of air to breath, no safe minimal exposure to germs, no safe minimal ingestion of food. Nothing you do is safe.
There is no safe level of ignorance either.
But, if your definition of safe is something that is unlikely to cause any harm or ill effect, then small radioactive doses, internal or external, are quite safe, particularly in comparison to many things that we do in everyday life that we consider safe.
You are incorrect. Small doses are highly toxic because the meabolism transports them to sites around the body where they continue to emit radiation and gestate cancer. Oppenheimer's own research found pu-239 to be fatal at 1-10 micrograms, toxic as an inhalant or when ingested. So your statement contradicts even the 50 year old science.
As for energetic levels, and depending on the radio-isotope analogue, if they are beyond a certain level they are cancerous, if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but the level of ignorance is expecting one chemical to behave exactly like another when chemistry shows us that they don't.
Cesium is a Potassium analog in the body and seeks muscle mass as the main potassium channel. It has a biological half life from 30-110 days depending on which study you read.
Iodine131 is taken up in the thyroid. Even with no KI treatment, 30-40 days later it has all gone away from radioactive decay.
The microgram quantity for Pu-239 being lethal is due to the fact it is an ene
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, however I'm not doing that. I'm expecting that organisms, in general, absorb micronutrients with their metabolic processes and that in some, but not all cases, a radionuclide "analogues" a type of micronutrient when presented to a metabolism.
Essentially, I'm expecting organisms to conduct metabolic processes and I'm as concerned with how biota interacts with radionuc
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind your body is also mildly radioactive.
And that your local background radiation may actually be higher than the exposure to that quantity of water.
Re: (Score:2)
caesium 137 bioaccumulates.
Concentrates its way up the food chain.
There is no safe minimum dose once it is in your body, slowly disintegrating, radiating into your organs and cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]
This should be modded UP to informative.
I am trying to understand why this perfectly reasonable informative comment, with a link provided, that accurately describes *exactly* what caesium 137 does when ingested has been modded down to -1.
This is a perfect example of mod trolls at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Because quantities do matter. 8 Bq/Tonne is tiny. If you drank this water for a year (3 litre per day), and your body somehow managed to store every Caesium atom, then that would be less radiation than 1 banana and less than 1% the radiation that is in your body naturally.
All this article shows is that radiation is easy to detect, even in tiny quantities, and gamma ray spectroscopy lets you identify the isotope, which in some cases means you can trace the origin.
The "no safe level" meme is mad. Its like say
Some context (Score:5, Informative)
A becquerel is the radioactive decay of a single atom per second. Your body has 4400 becquerels of radiation [wikipedia.org] due to a naturally-occurring radioactive isotope of Potassium. If you drank a liter of seawater that would mean Fukushima has increased your radiation dose by 0.008 becquerel - less than a 0.0002% increase in radiation internally in your body. This is literally less than a drop in a bucket. The salt is far more likely to kill you than the radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
The salt is far more likely to kill you than the radiation.
You can take away my salt when you pry it from my cold, dead, mutated hands.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:1)
Why the hell are you telling us all those facts and numbers?
This is Slashdot, man. Land of the trolls, flamewars and nerd rage.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, land of the typos and bad spelling.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the 24hr News interview now:
Re: (Score:2)
Gee (Score:3)
You mean all the pretty pictures and panic-stricken posts on Crackbook for the past few years about how California was *already* subject to radiation from Fukushima were bullshit?
Gee. You can't believe *anything* you read on the internet anymore. *LOL*
Re: (Score:3)
Gee. You can't believe *anything* you read on the internet anymore. *LOL*
I don't believe you.
In related news ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
All the dinosaurs live in Florida and Arizona so we're safe for now.
Harmless? (Score:2)
Damn it's 925 times lower than the maximum allowed by the U.S.A. EPA guidelines. And I wanted to make a "mostly harmless" joke.
If you read TFA... (Score:4, Informative)
You would have read this:
The findings are reassuring, Buesseler says. He measured a high of just 8 becquerels of radiation per cubic meter in the samples. Of that, he says, less than 2 becquerels came from cesium-134 traced to Fukushima. The remainder is largely from strontium-90 and cesium-137: Some of that is fallout from mid-20th century atomic bomb tests in the Pacific, and some may have come from Fukushima—these isotopes lack the half-life fingerprint that ties cesium-134 to the Japanese disaster. The total level of radiation is hardly worth worrying about, Buesseler says: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for drinking water allow up to 7400 becquerels per cubic meter. Buesseler is presenting his latest findings Thursday at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America’s annual meeting.
So, that's 6 Bq that was most likely deposited by aboveground or underwater Pacific nuke testing.
You can now return to your previously scheduled freakout over "ZOMG RADIATSHUNS!"
Re: (Score:2)
You have interesting ideas for sure. Have you considered making a long, rambling and alarmist youtube video?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could be so succinct. Kudos ! ROTFLMAO.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your argument were even remotly true, the area around Chernobyl would be a barren desert land where no animal life would exist.
Instead life goes on, with mammals drinking water contaminated with Caesium, Strontium, Plutonium and Uranium.
Hundred of Humans are back living in Pripyat, also drinking water, not sure what kind of filter they use for their water, but I doubt they can control the water their cows drink.
If anything, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima have actually shown radiation safety s
EVERYBODY PANIC (Score:1)
It's almost as dangerous as Ebola!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Slow radioactive decay is low radiation.
That's a rapid decay rate when compared to other radio-isotopes, sr-90 is a 600 year half life which is quite rapid when compared to pu-239, who's halflife is 25,000 years. The issue here is not the radio-isotopes decay rate compared to a human lifespan, it's the decay rate compared to other radio-isotopes.
Think about the amount of radiation you'd face holding half a kilogram of Cesium-137. Now, think about if its half life were 8 days instead of 30 years. You'd face 30 years of radiation in 8 days.
The energetic levels of a radio-isotope's alpha, beta and gamma emissions differ. Your scenario would just mean you are holding a different radio-isotope. What it wouldn't take into account is the toxici
Re: (Score:2)
Plutonium is toxic because it's a heavy metal. It's also radioactive. It will poison you by heavy metal poisoning well before you have enough to suffer toxic radiation exposure.
Low concentrations of low-activity radioisotopes generally follow this pattern. C-137 is a heavy metal, and I would wager it's toxic in its own right; in low concentrations, the radiation is probably benign (as asserted), while the heavy metal toxicity is significant; and in lower concentrations still, the heavy metal toxicity be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of stuff takes longer than that to diminish, and lots of that stuff is present in quantities that actually matter.
For example pu-239 whose halflife is 25,000 years and is fatal to humans in the 1-10 microgram range.
Re: (Score:3)
350,000 curies x 0.0114 gram Cs-137/curie = 3980 grams (4 kg) – of Cs-137. It decays by beta emission which in water is quickly absorbed; typically within 10mm - 15mm.
But don't let a good scare story go to waste.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure the danger is minimal so long as it stays in the water. The problem is that cesium is bio-concentrated - so if you drink the water your body filters out and stores the cesium so that before long your own radioactivity is far higher than the water. Worse if you eat animals who live in the water - like mercury poisoning the effect becomes more dramatic the further up the food chain you go.
And once the cesium is incorporated into your body then that low penetration is working against you, with almost 1
Re: (Score:2)
350,000 curies x 0.0114 gram Cs-137/curie = 3980 grams (4 kg) – of Cs-137. It decays by beta emission which in water is quickly absorbed; typically within 10mm - 15mm.
But don't let a good scare story go to waste.
Which means if you eat or drink the stuff, the radiation is totally absorbed by your tissues, unlike Gamma radiation that for the most part goes through you like light through glass.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll shrink a little and make your banana hammock look loose.
Re:caesium137 has an approx 30yr half-life (Score:4, Informative)
Fortunately it is incredibly dilute. Here's some fun facts. If you can manage to drink a cubic meter of the ocean water (after removing the salt so it won't kill you), you will be slightly less radioactive for a while due to potassium loss. Don't try it all at once though, it could kill you due to 'water poisoning').
If you're the sort to panic, you will add more radiation to your body by taking potassium iodide pills than the water will contribute.
Re: (Score:2)
It will take about 100yrs for the amount of fukushima caesium 137 released into the environment to diminish to only ~10%.
Years since event | caesium137 remaining
30yrs | 1/2
60yrs | 1/4th
90yrs | 1/8th
One. Hundred. Years.
Can you give us the breakdown again? But in yahrens?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually there is nothing to see here, but thanks anyway for the weak attempt at a Bill Hicks rant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like as if you have the scientific knowledge to actually know any better. Your opinions show ZERO physics knowledge. So you are far worse than the govt.
You probably don't have a clue what a becquerel is, do you ? Do you even know what is an alpha, beta, gamma particle, what are the characteristics of neutron radiation.
If the radiation had the slightest chance of doing any harm to the USA, there would be piles of dead bodies in Japan. Thousands of aggressive cancers.
But per the usual, you conspiracy th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What hot particles from nuclear reactors ?
Alpha, beta, gamma and neutron radiation ?
Except for neutrons, I get all of those while sunbathing in Guarapari-ES-Brazil (yes that beach shown on Pandora's promise, I sunbathed meters from that spot).
You show in your writing you can't differentiate radionuclides from radiation particles, which disqualifies you completely from making any radiation analysis.
Go get a radiation related degree then we can talk some, or at least take a class like this:
http [coursera.org]