national

U.S. scientists expect traces of ocean radiation from Fukushima soon

50 Comments
By JEFF BARNARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

Well, it didn't bother US when they conducted hundreds of nuclear tests in Pacific...

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Ironic that America released more radiation in the Pacific Ocean than any other country, at the bottom, in it and above it and the atomic bomb testing killed many people from the radiation including some of its own troops.

The west coast of America from Alaska down needs to be more concerned about the tsunami debris which contains many poisons and drugs than the minute quantities of radiation.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

“In fact, it is the biggest pulse of radioactive liquid dropped in the ocean ever …”

The harm resulting from the radioactive water spilled and dumped by Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant would not be so serious to human on the paper along American Pacific coast lines, but to the organisms in Pacific Ocean, the level of hazards can be very different. Further, the real perils of those radioactive materials may take years if not decades to be known.

We only have one Pacific Ocean on earth, any damage done to it will be reflecting on us sooner or later.

Maybe, it's time for Japan to rethink its nuclear energy policy propelled by shortsighted politicians.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Or re-think its safety measures with those power plants. Had proper safety measures been in place, and warnings not ignored, the problems at Fukushima would have never happened.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

"The models predict levels of Cesium 137 between 30 and 2 Becquerels per cubic meter of seawater by the time the plume reaches the West Coast, Higley said.

The federal drinking water health standard is 7,400 Becquerels per cubic meter, Leon said."

The magnitudes discussed above agree with what I understand to be the insignificance of Fukushima's radioactivity compared with the magnitude of the Pacific and the radioactivity that's already in that Oceans. See article that explains these magnitudes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/09/04/solving-the-fukushima-radioactivity-problem-dump-it-all-into-the-ocean/

I think the worry is alarmist, but people are free to use their own money to run scientific experiments for their own safety.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

I think the level of Iodine has declined to the level undetectable from the background.

Yes the iodine is definitely gone. I-131 with an 8 day half-life would have been down to 0.02% after 100 days, that would have been at the end of June 2011. By now about 1100 days after the accident there about 4.76E-40% left. Since the estimate is that less than 50 grams of I-131 was released, that means the current weight of the remaining I-131 would be less than 2.4E-40 grams and a single electron weighs about 9E-28 grams. Thus no iodine from Fukushima still exists.

Just more fear mongering.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Mr. O'Brien.

The limitation on comments imposed by Japan Today you refer to in no way addresses the issue of your excuse for your disingenuous behavior.

As I commented to your previous mismash you have the option to not reply to me at all so long as you continue to employ said disingenuous misquoting.

As regards to rainwater not taking up radionuclides it doesn't have to said radionucleides are already suspended in the atmosphere, rainwater brings them down. Review the reactor three blast.

I've nothing but time as I am confined to a bed with nothing better to do to relieve my boredom by correcting your misrepresentations of my texts this venue.

Further I can supply virtually endless documentation from the last twenty - three years bedridden all of which I've had a computer at my side.

Nuclear is an interest of mine and I an early proponent until such time as I became well read and better informed. Note please I do not alter nor merge your texts, please have the good manners not to reply to my texts at all if you cannot refrain from creative alterations.

Have you taken the time to google image the Chernobyl victems? I have. I do not recommend such viewing for those with weak stomachs and Fukushima is ongoing and long worse than Chernobyl.

That black substance found all over Japan? Nuclear core material volatized, highly radioactive, launched into the air when reactor 3 went up. Many times Chernobyl. Soon, pictures to follow from Japan mirroring those of Chernobyl. It sickens me.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Poor folks, The Feds priorities are off with these High Numbers

yes, what do those people know. It's not as if they have a phd in fearmongering from the university of enenews.com

4 ( +8 / -4 )

@zichi: The numbers you're talking about are yields from nuclear bomb testing. Those megatons are a measure of the blast, in terms of the TNT equivalent. It has nothing to do with how much radioactive material entered the environment, though that may be high, but how powerful the blasts were. Apples and oranges.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Mr O'Brien It is disingenuous of you to say the least to merge my reply to you while first replying to another text not of my authorship.

Did I alter your text in order to confuse or misdirect? No sir, I did not.

Please in future should you elect to reply to my remarks in this venue please take care to reply to my remarks without the additions as in the above post of yours to Japan Today.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Quoting Mike O'Brien

Mike O'Brien at Mar. 19, 2014 - 04:52AM JST

It's not an x-ray or a banana when its lodged in the tissues of your lungs and the radiation levels of plutonium and other transuranics out distance those of potassium 40 by many millions and billions times over.

"Wrong, just wrong. So wrong that it isn't even worth trying to explain."

I see, my statements are irrefutable. Or google depleteted uranium, Chernobyl, better yet google images. Depleted uraniuim being extemely low rad but high impact, see kids with ears under their nose and one eye, ect.

To another you spoke of of "so what" who drinks seawater", we'll pretty much everyone as it's part of the Earths water cycle. Evaporation, ever heard of it?

despite being indemnified against costs of accident or disposal.

"Nope, wrong again."

So name one disposal site that's worked out for as little as 20 years? Price - Anderson indemnity act. How is that wrong my erudite friend? How? These are my questions sir. Looking forward to your refutation.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The accident was terrible, preventable and is actually well & truly ongoing, but take a look at some information from truly independent scientific & non-alarmist sources too:

FUKUSHIMA ACROSS THE PACIFIC http://blog.safecast.org/2014/01/fukushima-across-the-pacific/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Further, the real perils of those radioactive materials may take years if not decades to be known.

Not really. There's been plenty of nuclear material dumped in the ocean over the years through the open air nuclear testing. Plenty of data points to assess already.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"The Pacific" such a strange name for such a wild place.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I think the worry is alarmist, but people are free to use their own money to run scientific experiments for their own safety.

This project isn't about radioactivity or safety. It's about scientists who want more accurate models of ocean currents. Like the atmospheric scientists who were able to observe a sky free of aircraft condensation trails after 9/11 (while the U.S. airspace was closed), these scientists are simply using circumstances, however awful, in an effort to increase their knowledge. They could simply have used dye, except for the fact that you can't detect a single molecule of dye in a water sample. But a single molecule of radioactive cesium is detectable. This is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for these scientists to refine their models. This can be useful for studies of marine life and for greater understanding of weather patterns.

The Feds are dreaming of some way to capitalize on sending a bill for clean up just like in the EXXON and BP oil spills! Where ever there is money to be made you will find them. Big government equals big bills!!

I'm guessing you missed the part about how private individuals are making donations to fund this study. And that the government isn't involved. And that it isn't about cleanup, it's about detecting radioactivity in levels that are almost 4,000 times less than what is considered harmful. Other that that, you're 100% correct.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It's not an x-ray or a banana when its lodged in the tissues of your lungs and the radiation levels of plutonium and other transuranics out distance those of potassium 40 by many millions and billions times over.

WWII counts its dead in the tens of millions.

Clean, too cheap to meter, carbon free nuclear does too.

Add to this it is actually so expensive that many plants are right now being shuttered in the U.S due to being uneconomical despite being indemnified against costs of accident or disposal.

Nuclear, if you're in the club its profitable however all are at risk. It's just like the lottery.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The National Resources Defense Council estimated the total yield of all nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and 1980 at 510 megatons (Mt). Atmospheric tests alone accounted for 428 mt, equivalent to over 29,000 Hiroshima size bombs.

http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/the-effects-of-nuclear-testing/general-overview-of-theeffects-of-nuclear-testing/

TEPCO needs to continue to do everything it can to stop highly irradiated water leaking out into the ocean.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Radiation in water sample is low but it may accumulate in some fish and plants and same like with mercury pollution it may be better to eat less of some kinds of fish.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If there is nothing to hide testing will be the best way to prove that to the people who are worried. Testing the food, water, the ocean, fish, hair testing, urine tests for metals, air filter tests. If everything is safe they only need to test and show this is fact. As far as small amounts of radiation not being harmful; why do the dentist and their assistants run out of the room before giving an x-ray? Why use lead shields? Why ask if a woman is pregnant before giving an x-ray? I found more information on this subject by searching for energy news, found verifiable credible sourcing of related information.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

A water sampling is not good enough.... Research proves Radioactive cesium accumulation in seaweeds....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3882568/

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Mike it is not that simple . Radiation does not disappear magically by itself . Some isotopes with short half-lives will in time decrease but some isotopes have thousands even millions of years so they don't just go away . The amount of radioactive cesium in seaweed is just that , nothing else, does not take into consideration about many other isotopes and many other plants and animals etc . ( just as an example an animal eating the seaweed may be concentrating the caesium and thus the amount of caesium in that animal species could be increasing instead of decreasing . so basically caesium could be moving from the seaweed to that animal species. ) SO when they say the amount of caesium will decrease in seaweed it does not mean it is disappearing but it only means it is moving to somewhere else and while caesium could be decreasing another isotope could be increasing . In short : Once radiation is released into the environment it does not go away , it spreads , creates hot spots , cold spots but it stays in the environment for thousands of years and every release increases the background radiation and thus the risk of damage from radiation . The more radioactive isotopes there are in the environment the more people will get sick because of radiation , that s a fact . Although every accident , nuke plant , weapons testing will increase the background radiation slightly those numbers will NEVER go down again and the whole world is set to a new NORMAL background levels. The more nuclear plants there are on the planet the higher the realeases to the environment and the whole world is getting more and more radioactive dat by day with NO POSSIBILITY TO BRING IT DOWN AGAIN !!!! How much radiation can you risk ? What kind of a world would you like your children to live in ? Where do you draw the line ? This is not like any other chemical environmental disaster , which is temporary , THIS IS PERMANENT !!! People should start to realize the consequences of that and start making better choices . Thanks

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Utrack beat me to the punch to publish the NYT article. While the efforts in the US seem like overkill to many, at least they are free to conduct studies and have a fair degree of transparency in releasing the findings.

Closer to home, the Japanese government is clearly trying to make Fukushima yesterday's news and keep the public uninformed. The government lacks any sense of transparency and it is the people of Fukushima who will end up paying the price. I can't believe they are allowing people (including children) to move back and to start farming within the restricted zone. The lack of public information and formal studies is what allows them to make these type of decisions.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

As an American ally Japan should share its problems. So, what is a little bit of radiation?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ Mike O'Brien. "I said when water evaporates it doesn't carry dissolved material, like radionuclides, with it." Dissolved..how so..?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why don't we just ignore the science and pay attention to the rumor. Oh, that's what is happening.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

With the risk to public health extremely low, the effort is more about perfecting computer models that will better predict chemical and radiation spills in the future than bracing for a threat, researchers say.

I do not think this project as any serious scientific effort but as an awareness campaign. After 3 years from the melt down, I think the level of Iodine has declined to the level undetectable from the background.

The models predict levels of Cesium 137 between 30 and 2 Becquerels per cubic meter of seawater by the time the plume reaches the West Coast, Higley said.

This is quite confusing in many ways. Is the "plume" still floating in the air? We all know a lot of debris has reached the West Coast of America. What does he mean by saying "by the time the plume reaches the West Coast"? In addition, sea water is known to contain certain level of radio active material before the Fukushima meltdown. How is he going to measure the contribution of the accident if he does not know the level before the accident? It seems that Eco activists and scientific research do not go well.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

2 Thumbs Up OneHapa well said..

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

I'm pretty sure people in Canada and the U.S. don't have to worry about radiation produced by Fukushima Daiichi on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Looks like TEPCO has decided that exporting radiation is a growth industry. They sure have done a lousy job at Fukushima Daiichi. Why isn't Abe interested in that?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Mike , there are many isotopes which are extremely toxic and shouldn't be in the environment . We should keep in mind that when you have caesium you also have hundreds of different types of isotopes . Caesium does not travel alone . Pronuke supporters keep giving false information trying to play down the seriousness of this catastrophe. There are 3 meltdown reactors in fukushima which makes it the worst disaster this world has ever seen . There is leakage of hundreds of tons of the most toxic substances into the underground water and into the ocean daily . Everything you heard about radiation decreasing is a lie , nothing is decreasing when you have three reactors with meltdowns . Radiation does not dilute like chemicals , it disperses and forms hot spots and cold spots . While someone could be measuring a cold spot and getting low radiation levels , there can be a hot spot a few feet away with extremeley high levels . Every release of isotopes into the environment will eventually cause more sickness and death to not only humans but also to plants and animals. People should stop relying on the information from the main stream media which is under extreme censorship . Please keep in mind that , because of that censorship , i myself and many other antinuke activists are limited with what we can and cannot say on forums like this one. I hope you get better informed too.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Additionally, fish affected will concentrate the minute amounts into larger amounts. Humans who in turn eat a lot of fish will increase the concentrations even more. It is therefore reasonable that the food will need to be tested along with people connected to that food chain.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

EPA jacked up levels of radiation permitted in drinking water in the U.S. by a whopping 27000 times of what it was pre-Fukushima, so yes, radiation levels in the water will be 'safe' for quite a while. Nothing to worry. Continue enjoying your TEPCO-maki. http://optimalprediction.com/wp/epa-now-allowing-27000-times-the-previous-limit-of-iodine-131-in-drinking-water/

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

SO when they say the amount of caesium will decrease

But I didn't say that. What I said was that the research that he linked to specifically said that the amount of caesium DID decrease.

I also know it isn't that simple. But those other animals will also show similar decreases in caesium levels.

but it stays in the environment for thousands of years and every release increases the background radiation and thus the risk of damage from radiation

Only the ones with very long half-lives will stay for thousands of years. And the ones with longer half-lives are much less dangerous for similar quantities. Also the risk for damage is not a linear function. An increase in background does not equate to a greater risk for damage. Otherwise people in areas with higher backgrounds would show greater effects and that is simply not the case. Denver does not show higher effects than Miami.

The more radioactive isotopes there are in the environment the more people will get sick because of radiation , that s a fact .

No it isn't.

those numbers will NEVER go down again

What is it about decay that you don't understand? The level of radioactivity on the planet decreases every single day due to decay. Now the waste from fossil fuel plants that have replaced Japan's shut down nuclear plants will NEVER go away. That mercury and arsenic and other toxins will be around until the Earth cease to exist.

It is apparent that you don't understand radioactivity, radioactive decay or background. I suggest starting with Wikipedia for the basics. Then maybe a good college level Health Physics textbook.

Evaporation, ever heard of it?

Yeah I have heard of it Wayne. Do you understand it? When water evaporates from the ocean it is just H2O. Everything else in it, like salt and radioactive material, stays behind. See that is what I meant. When you don't understand something simple like evaporation it is useless and a waste of time to try and explain radioactivity to you.

So name one disposal site that's worked out for as little as 20 years?

Barnwell, South Carolina

Price - Anderson indemnity act. How is that wrong my erudite friend? How?

Well since "Price - Anderson indemnity act." is just a blank statement it is neither right or wrong. Maybe an actual statement of some claimed fact would have been more appropriate.

But as to your claim that they are indemnified against the cost of disposal. Maybe you could explain about all that money collected from an added tax on nuclear power to pay for disposal. Or maybe you could explain where all that money the nuclear plants pay to radioactive waste sites came from if not from the nuclear companies.

Not looking forward to your further screeds.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

About the asteroid impact : You are right , probably an asteroid that would wipe out all life on earth could be worse , but i was talking about the modern history , man made disasters , like oil spills nuclear accident industrial pollution etc . Chernobyl was considered the worse accident till fukushima took it to a whole new level .

Radiation is not a a chemical . Chemical s may only CARRY radiation but its effects are not comparable with chemicals . Radiation is a physical property , which means you cant apply the same properties / rules for chemistry to radiation . It s toxicity is not dependent on its concentration , it forms hot spots , cold spots etc etc . Nothing to do with chemistry o chemicals .

If you are claiming plants and animals from higher radiation levels living just as healthy and as long as the ones from the low radiation levels , you are bsically claiming that radiation is not harmfull .

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

/// Now how many people died from Chernobyl? Hundreds? And how many died from Fukushima? Zero?///

Guess children diagnosed with thyroid cancer ; workers getting deadly doses in a few hours ; even volunteers over the age of 60 applying to jobs on the site because cancer would take sometime to develop , do they count at all ? People are volunteering to a certain death , does that mean anything ? You are missing the point cause you cant see the big picture. Radiation does not kill the same way as chemical disaster s do . It is a silent killer , odorless , tasteless , invisible . It persists in the environment and keeps killing for even millions of years . But the worst part is there is NO SOLUTION to a radioactive disaster , unlike chemical disaster s, no matter how bad those examples you are .

///No, nothing 'carries' radiation. Radiation is like light and radio waves (well actually light and radio waves ARE radiation), it is energy that once emitted dissipates and ceases to exist. The radioactive isotopes that emit the radiation are just like any other chemical and can (and are) diluted.///

So many mistakes in this sentence , where to start . Okay . Chemicals like plutonium , uranium , americium ,caesium , iodine etc carry the radiation in the form of alpha beta gamma rays . SO even though radiation itself can be a ray it can be carried around by a chemical particle . So radiation is an alpha beta or gamma RAY , and the CARRIER molecule is a plutonium , uranium , iodine etc molecule. Light ways radio ways etc are NON -IONIZING rays , a WHOLE DIFFERENT story .Not even comparabel to what we are talking about . Believe me , radiation you get from an uranium particle is not exactly the same as the light coming from your light bulb . I hope you learn at least THAT , if nothing else from this conversation . Yepp its energy that once dissipates ceases to exist ,that s correct, but until then ,, until it ceases to exist it can give you cancer and mutations and death ,, and sometimes it does that for a couple of million years , killing millions on its way , before ceasing to exist . Radioisotopes are like chemicals in their chemical properties ONLY !! NOT in their radiological properties , which has NOTHING to do with their chemical properties , and which is the subject of this discussion and which you seem to ignore totally . AN example ; Take iodine and its radioactive isotope . Two are both identical in their chemical properties , molecular structures etc . What s the difference . The first one you can take in without any concerns , infact lugol solution is sold in many pharmacies as iodine supplement , harmless and good medicine against radiation fall out , and the other one will cause thyroid cancer and will kill you . Identical in chemical properties = correct , but VERY different in their radioactive properties.

///It is just like thousands of other toxins. The dose makes the poison . If I take one aspirin tablet a day for a year there will be no ill effects, but if I take all 365 aspirin tablets at once I will die. At low doses aspirin is not toxic but at high doses it is deadly.///

That is not correct . You are missing many aspects of radiation damage by comparing it with chemistry . First , the dose falacy ; Radiation can be deadly at low doses as well . Its a risk assessment rather than a one on one correlation like your example of taking an aspirin . Every time you lay in the sun , or you take an xray you are increaing your risk of getting cancer . That s why your dentist uses lead shield to protect you and people use sun block against UV . No matter how low the dose is , it still increases your risk of getting cancer . It is called the cumulative effect . Every bit adds to your risk of getting sick . Second ; Radiation damage varries enormously depending on the way you are subject to it . Internal exposure by an isotope can be many times deadlier than exteranl exposure by an xray . third; You can have a bit of a very radioactive material which could kill you while much more of another one which could do less harm so concentration of the chemical is not linearly related to its damage . You are still talking chemistry which does not apply to nuclear physics. fourth ; The concept of hot spots / vs cold spots . Animals . plants . environmental factors can cause certain isotopes to concentrate in certain locations and increase the level of toxicity . an exmaple , even the level of radioactivity in the ocean wouldnt be high enough to kill you if you would swim in it , you can eat the fish from the same ocean and it may have concentrated ( bio-accumulation ) certain isotoppes that can cause cancer . fifth ; the affinity of the tissues in your body may vary per isotope per tissue type . an example Iodine isotope can be very harmfull for your thyroid cause it collects in your thyroid gland and it can cause cancer even at low doses.

And many more factors which makes it unpredictable and uncompareable with chemical toxins . It is impossible for me to teach you everything about the risk factors and harmful effects of radiation here on this forum but you could start by learning about the cumulative effect and what it means when comparing chemicals with radioactive isotopes ,, and then look up stochastic effect and risk assestment and also sensitivty of various cell/ tissue types to radioactive isotopes . I hope this long message helps to inform you and others reading it .

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I am shocked by this development. I hope the folks on the West Coast of the US take this in their stride. No running for the hills or retreating to fallout shelters. It is just so lucky that these folks bought up all those iodine doses back in 2011.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It's not an x-ray or a banana when its lodged in the tissues of your lungs and the radiation levels of plutonium and other transuranics out distance those of potassium 40 by many millions and billions times over.

Wrong, just wrong. So wrong that it isn't even worth trying to explain.

despite being indemnified against costs of accident or disposal.

Nope, wrong again.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

EPA jacked up levels of radiation permitted in drinking water in the U.S. by a whopping 27000 times of what it was pre-Fukushima

No they didn't.

And most people don't drink seawater, so what is your point?

Research proves Radioactive cesium accumulation in seaweeds....

Have you looked at your own link? It clearly shows the levels in seaweed DECREASE over time. that would be the opposite of accumulate. As the levels in the environment drop the levels in the seaweed also drop, again the opposite of accumulate.

Like every other living thing seaweed takes in whatever is in its environment, and radioactive ceasium has been in the environment since th e1950's. It was in the seaweed before Fukushima (just like it was in you before Fukushima) and it is in the seaweed now (just like it is in you now) and it will be in the seaweed long after Fukushima (just like it will be in you long after Fukushima).

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Mike o brian , i think you are misinformed unfortunately . Your quote ;"" What I said was that the research that he linked to specifically said that the amount of caesium DID decrease. I also know it isn't that simple. But those other animals will also show similar decreases in caesium levels.""

You have to see the big picture . Caesium is only one of the isotopes , will be taken up and concentrated by some organisms depending on their metabolism so it will increase in some species , and will decay and in time decrease in other species. Basically every short lived isotope will decrease in a relatively short time ( hundreds of years etc ) but many isotopes have half lives of thousands or even millions of years and they will stay in the environment for much longer even . When isotopes decay they give off radiation and they create other isotopes so , just to concentrate on one isotope is not telling the whole story because a; with caesium comes hundreds more types of isotopes , so whre you have caesium you also have hundreds more different types of isotopes a well , b; some will decay into even more toxic ones c; some will have half lives even in millions of years . Just mentioning caesium is basically covering up the truth and implying that radiation pollution is something that will PASS ,, it is NOT !!! It is forever , ( well oke , not forever but for a few million years , to be correct ) . Radiation pollution is much worse than the picture painted by the pronuke supporters but they keep hiding the real facts by cherry picking only some of the information and disgarding the rest .This is extremely biased and it is not how one finds the truth .

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

You have to see the big picture . Caesium is only one of the isotopes

The comment I was responding to was about caesium. So in my response I address caesium. I did not say it was the only isotope. I didn't say it was the most harmful isotope. I responded to what was in the comment I was replying to, and that was caesium.

some will decay into even more toxic ones

Please give me one example.

but they keep hiding the real facts by cherry picking only some of the information

The anti-nuclear comment I was responding to is the one that cherry picked caesium, not a pro-nuclear supporter but one of your fellow anti-nuclear types.

This is extremely biased and it is not how one finds the truth .

So you agree that an anti-nuclear supporter is biased and isn't interested in finding the truth. Well that is progress.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

mike o brien 1 ;Simply said , anyone who is only talking about caesium ( weather anti or pronuke ) is missing the point . Caesium does not just happen on its own . What is bugging me is that we got all these so called experts talking about caesium levels as if THAT is the ONLY measure of radioactivity and trying to make false claims about radioactive pollution in general . When you have caesium , you have many other isotopes as well , so caesium is not an indicator for radiation pollution as whole on its own

2; When isotopes decay into other isotopes , the new isotope can have chemical properties which differ from the original one , like being more soluble in water ( eg americium ) , or having similarities with some minerals etc , which can help it being taken up in water ,or in plants and animals in their metabolic porcesses which can mistakenly take the isotope instead of the element it has a similarity with etc etc . In other words even an isotope with a million year half life can become more harmful at the end of its half life by decaying into another isotopes which can be readily taken up by living cells and thus cause more toxicity and death .

3; ANtinuclear or pronuclear , in the end we are all trying to find the truth . Who ever is giving false information needs to be informed in my opinion .In this case , decreasing caesium levels only give a false picture as if somehow radiation is decreasing , which is not . The truth is , the radiation has been increasing every single day since the disaster at fukushima three years age and it will keep leaking and posioning the whole japan and in the end the whole world for a long time . Everyday fukushima is leaking enormous amounts of radiation both into the atmosphere and into the water . This will have huge consequences for all life on this planet and given the fact that some isotopes have such a huge half lives they will keep posioning all living things for millenia to come . The more radioactivity we have in the environment , the more diseases , the more mutations we will get . Both for humans and other living things . We are damaging the world irreversibly into infinity , and we are living an unsolvable problem to the copming generations . This is criminally wrong . We do not have the right to do this .

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

There are 3 meltdown reactors in fukushima which makes it the worst disaster this world has ever seen .

Worse than the Chicxulub asteroid impact?

Radiation does not dilute like chemicals

Actually it does. It dilutes exactly like chemicals do because radioactive isotopes are chemicals.

Every release of isotopes into the environment will eventually cause more sickness and death to not only humans but also to plants and animals.

So again. Why aren't plants and animals from areas with higher background radiation levels sicker and die earlier than animals and plants from areas of lower background radiation?

I am better informed. Because I read this stuff called science. I don't get my science knowledge from any media, mainstream or otherwise. I get it from scientists.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Radiation does get carried around . That s what isotopes do . Isotopes are particles , that emit radiation wherever they go . They can spread in the atmosphere and thus spread the radiation into the atmosphere , just like all those fumes coming out of those fukushime plants ; they can mix with water and spread the radiation into the water ; just like fukushima plants leaking hundreds of tons of water full of radioactive particles . These CHEMICALS = isotopes are CARRYING radiation into the ocean , into the environment , into the atmosphere . They can be in atromic OR molecular form , they can bond with other elements and from compounds , they can be integrated into your own body sturctures even . So just like their non radioactive counterparts they can take p[art in any reaction . Alpha and beta are particles and gamma is ray that is correct . These are sub atomic particles and the damage from radioactivity depends partly on the particle . Alpha beta gamma radiation does not cease to exist in a second . You don't seem to understand how isotopes work . It is not like an isotope is going to decay once and give off A alpha beta or gamma and cease to exist in a few seconds and that s it . Isotopes produce these rays ( or particles ) continuously , with lots of lots of disintegration each second . That is whay they use geiger counters , to meausure how many disintegrations per second you would have by an isotope. Your picture of a single isotope , just decaying once , and lasting a few seconds , and then its done , is totally false . That is not what we are worried about . Believe me all this issue about fukushima is not about an event of a few seconds. Please do some research .

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Squelching Efforts to Measure Fukushima Meltdown

Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s department of marine chemistry and geochemistry, in Massachusetts, who has worked with Mr. Aoyama, said he has spent much of his professional energy fighting the rumor mill. The cause is not helped, he added, by institutional attempts to gag Japanese professors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/squelching-efforts-to-measure-fukushima-meltdown.html?_r=0

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The Feds are dreaming of some way to capitalize on sending a bill for clean up just like in the EXXON and BP oil spills! Where ever there is money to be made you will find them. Big government equals big bills!!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

As regards to rainwater not taking up radionuclides

I never said that. I said when water evaporates it doesn't carry dissolved material, like radionuclides, with it. Why are you being disingenuous and altering my words after complaining about it yourself?

please have the good manners not to reply to my texts at all if you cannot refrain from creative alterations.

I didn't alter your writing. I merely answered two people in one comment as required by Japan Today's commenting system. You always have the option of not commenting here if you don't like their system.

Have you taken the time to google image the Chernobyl victems?

Do you mean the claimed victims most of whom have nothing to do with Chernobyl?

That black substance found all over Japan?

What black substance? Fear mongering by people with agendas or seeking attention.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Simply said , anyone who is only talking about caesium ( weather anti or pronuke ) is missing the point .

Then complain to the anti-nuclear commenter who was only talking about caesium.

In other words even an isotope with a million year half life can become more harmful at the end of its half life by decaying into another isotopes which can be readily taken up by living cells and thus cause more toxicity and death .

And I asked you to give an example.

The truth is , the radiation has been increasing every single day since the disaster at fukushima three years age and it will keep leaking and posioning the whole japan and in the end the whole world for a long time .

No the truth is samples taken by groups from both pro- and anti-nuclear sides have shown levels decreasing.

The more radioactivity we have in the environment , the more diseases , the more mutations we will get . Both for humans and other living things

And again, if this was true then people and animals living in areas with higher backgrounds (like Denver) would have more diseases and mutations than those living in areas of low background (like Miami) and real actual data shows this not to be the case. Your claim is false.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Chernobyl was considered the worse accident till fukushima took it to a whole new level .

Now how many people died from Chernobyl? Hundreds? And how many died from Fukushima? Zero?

Yeah, Fukushima is a whole new level.

Now as to modern history and man made disasters we have Bhopal 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries with 4,000+ deaths. then there is the Banqiao dam collapse which killed 170,000.

Chemical s may only CARRY radiation

No, nothing 'carries' radiation. Radiation is like light and radio waves (well actually light and radio waves ARE radiation), it is energy that once emitted dissipates and ceases to exist. The radioactive isotopes that emit the radiation are just like any other chemical and can (and are) diluted.

If you are claiming plants and animals from higher radiation levels living just as healthy and as long as the ones from the low radiation levels , you are bsically claiming that radiation is not harmfull .

I am claiming, and lots of science proves, that plants and animals living in areas of higher background radiation are not sicker and don't die earlier than plants and animals from areas of lower background radiation. What I am basically claiming, since the science backs it up, is that at low doses and dose rates radiation is not harmful.

It is just like thousands of other toxins. The dose makes the poison . If I take one aspirin tablet a day for a year there will be no ill effects, but if I take all 365 aspirin tablets at once I will die. At low doses aspirin is not toxic but at high doses it is deadly.

Lets look at radiation. Light, including UV, is radiation. It consists of photons, the same thing as gamma rays and x-rays (although at different energies). If I go lie out an an Australian beach at midday in the summer with no protection for 4 hours I will get a painful sunburn and may even need medical attention. But if I limit my exposure and/or use sunscreen I will not get sunburnt, I will not need medical attention, what i will end up with is a nice tan.

I am claiming what science has conclusively proven and what common sense should show anybody without bias is the real world situation.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

SO even though radiation itself can be a ray it can be carried around by a chemical particle . So radiation is an alpha beta or gamma RAY , and the CARRIER molecule is a plutonium , uranium , iodine etc molecule.

So many mistakes in these sentences, where to start. OK, radiation does not get carried around. It doesn't even exist until it is emited from a radioactive isotope. Plutonium, uranium, iodine, etc. are atoms not molecules. Alpha and beta radiation are particles not a ray.

until it ceases to exist it can give you cancer and mutations and death ,, and sometimes it does that for a couple of million years

No, alpha and beta radiation ceases to exist within seconds of being emitted. Gamma rays can last longer but only if they don't hit something. Once they hit something they transfer their energy and cease to exist.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The federal drinking water health standard is 7,400 Becquerels per cubic meter

Poor folks, The Feds priorities are off with these High Numbers

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites