EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Radioactive Rice "Far Exceeding" Safe Levels Found in Japan
TOKYO - Japan found the first case of rice with radioactive materials far exceeding a government-set level for a preliminary test of pre-harvested crop, requiring thorough inspection of the rice to be harvested from the region, the farm ministry said late on Friday.
A rice field is seen in Soma, about 40 km (25 miles) north of the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, in Fukushima prefecture, September 10, 2011. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon The ministry said radioactive caesium of 500 becquerels per kg was found in a sample of the pre-harvested rice in Nihonmatsu city, in Fukushima Prefecture, 56 km (35 miles) west of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant which was crippled by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, triggering the world's worst nuclear disaster in 25 years.
The ministry said the Fukushima Prefecture will expand the inspection spots nearly ten-fold to around 300 areas.
It is the first case in Japan of rice containing radioactive caesium exceeding 200 becquerels per kg, a level which requires further thorough testing of the area for the harvested rice.
The government introduced inspection guidelines in August, with preliminary tests followed by more before approving shipments.
If preliminary tests found rice to contain radioactive caesium levels of 200 becquerels per kg or more, the crop will be tested more thoroughly before approvals are made for shipments.
If the level of caesium in rice exceeded the government-imposed cap of 500 becquerels per kg, shipments from locally produced rice will be halted.
So far, no rice crop has been banned for shipments.
If the follow-up tests of rice harvested from Nihonmatsu city find radioactive materials exceeding the government-imposed cap, it would deal a huge blow to Japan.
The country has been struggling to regain public trust in the safety of nuclear power so it can resume operations of nuclear reactors to supply energy as well as food safety after wide-ranging products from water to vegetables were found with radiation contamination.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
103 Comments so far
Show AllBefore the debate begins, I thought it would be helpful to know what is the radiation dose implication of eating rice contaminated with cesium-137 at the maximum allowed by the Japanese government. When cesium is ingested it is absorbed through the GI tract, distributed uniformly around the body, and is subsequently excreted with a biological half-life of 70 days. The amount of rice (dry, uncooked) that would cause an additional daily dose equal to the natural background radiation to which we are exposed, if it were contamiated at the Japanese limit amount, i.e. 200 Bq/kg, is about 1 pound of rice per day. At the dinner table, assuming cooking with 2 parts water to 1 part rice, 1 pound of cooked rice weighs about 3 pounds. Thus the standard the Japanese have established will result in a fractional increase above natural background (the fraction being what fraction of 3 pounds of cooked rice one consumes per day) that one would experience if he consumed that amount on a continuing basis each day.
It still takes ingesting just a particle of the isotopes mentioned to start the eater on the road to cancer. The rest of your post is the same old same old... Posted by better nuclear industry reps than you are...
Finston said “3 pounds per day” to be in danger, but he omits the 70 YEARS half life! That’s a long time for a meal to live in the "colon"… Or as nuclear proponents call it – “home.”
I didn't say 3 pounds per day was safe or dangerous. I said that amount of rice if contaminated to the level of the Japanese limit would produce on a continuing intake basis the same dose as is received from natural background. The physical half-life (30 years actually) is taken into account in the dose calculation, but more important is the known metabolism of cesium which clears from the body with a biological half-life of about 70 days. I understand the possible confusions in this issue, but the facts remain that even rice contaminated at the Japanese limit will not produce a significant change in one's radiation dose when consumed in the usual amounts.
You are equating external radiation sources with internal emission of radiation.
I am giving the internal doses that result from either external or internal emission of radiation. The cells don't differentiate from whence the ionizing radiation they experience originated.
Sorry, but it seems intuitively obvious to me that inhaled cesium-137 is going to be more dangerous than externally existing cesium-137.
I agree, if we are speaking of the same quantity of activity. Nonetheless the bottom line is the resulting dose to the body tissues from the specific amount that is postulated to be either outside or inside the body.
You are utterly full of it. If half of what you have to say is somehow accurate, I'd be surprised. I think it's far more likely that you work for the industry and are paid to cut and paste, post some misleading things, and generally try to distract people from the valid criticisms of an industry that cannot survive without massive government aid. Not even solar and wind power need the subsidies that the nuke industry has always needed to make any profit at all.
You, and the industry you represent, are the real Cadillac-driving welfare queens.
I have been a retired health physicict for some 18 years. I was never employed by the nuclear industry, rather by Universities. No one is paying me. My interest has been in the subject of radiation dosimetry. I am attempting to share reliable scientific information on this subject.
Now I know you are a liar too. No one who works for a university would utter that kind of rot. All the professors know that they're there because industry and government subsidize them. So, even if you were a university professor, you are/were/would have been paid by the nuclear industry.
Then there's the claim of attempting to share information... My neighbour was a physicist at the University of Alberta, if I asked him to post such information I know he'd also provide a nice link to the paper to back up his argument, (actually, even people who are studying a bachelors degree know enough to do that) especially when what you've got an audience that's not as 'knowledgeable' as you claim to be.
Finally there's the claim of being an 'expert' of whatever. On the internet. Where on dating sites you'll find guys who claim they're girls. Where on political sites you'll find leftists pretending to be righties (and vice versa). Where on cultural and gaming sites you'll find everyone pretending to be someone else.
Get real, binky. You're as reliable as my insane sister is sane.
>>valid criticisms of an industry that cannot survive without massive government aid.<<
A question is begged. How come so many free market proponents are so pro-nuke industry, an industry that cannot survive without SOCIALIZED funding?
The 'free market' loves industries that are involved in making weapons. And that is the major reason that there are those who defend the indefensible. The pro-nuke shills that we are getting might not only be the ones who work for the actual nuclear power companies, but they are also likely to be the missile operators who are trained to kill us all.
RFinston: Sorry for quoting years instead of days previously. But how can you gloss over cumulative effects? Even more important, the radiation you cited in 1 cup of rice will soon be found in their fish, their fruit, their vegetables, etc., not to mention the water you cited to make the rice. EVERY MEAL, EVERY DAY. And assuming the Japanese have been breathing, we should probably add air quality to the list. This is trivial?
Hi Dave,
I wasn't glossing over cumulative effects if by that you mean cumulative dose from long-term ingestion. The intake of 3 lbs of rice per day at the Japanese limit of contamination will cause an additional dose per year of 3 milisieverts which is the typical total dose we all get from background (2mSv) and other sources (1 mSv). The contamination level in the other foods and water is of course important and should be monitored and limited in the marketplace. Air concentrations should also be measured and the consequent dose made known. Because the diet in Japan cannot be so much as 3 lb of rice per person per a day, my belief is that the additional dose from rice all other sources of Cs-137 in most of Japan will not exceed an amount equal to the pre-Fukushima dose. Near the reactor in the evacuation zone it is another story until decontamination efforts are accomplished. Nonetheless the levels of contamination are clearly lower and less widespread than those from Chernobyl which rather than melting down actually explosively disassembled by sustaining its chain reaction on prompt neutrons rather than delayed neutrons so the power escalated out of control.
There were no lethal exposures at the Fukushima plant vs 31 dead of prompt radiation effects at Chernobyl. Nothing about Fukushima is trivial but it isn't in the same class as Chernobyl, so far. I hope it stays that way and the physics is such that with each day the likelihood of further releases diminishes.
~~RFinston's~` continuing claim on many other threads and here once again on this thread of (70 days) half-life of cesium-137 in the body is utter crap... It is an unproven theory by pro-nukers and RF is well aware of that fact.
Consuming cesium 137 or any other radioactiv isotope is not as dangerous as inhaling any of the radioactive poisons.. ~Finston~ howevr claims even inhaling cesium 137 is not very harmful... Either is however.
Pay zero attention to RF would be alright, except we must reply to such damaging people, as unsavory as it is to feed a troll, but somone may believe them... They often sound rather credible, being "professors" and "health experts" and (such)...... (Such) bull.
There would have been many rather quickly die of radiation poisoning at Fukushima if the Japanese had done what the very brave Russian workers, firemen and helicopter pilots did at Chernobyl.
There were no credible measures taken to stop the radioactive poisons from releasing at Fukushina, no covering the melted down cores with sand and concrete... Not the same situation ~~RFrinston~~, of course you know that and how is the radiation released at Fukushima going to reduce? The three melted down cores are still radiating poisons.
It's true, the information offered by RF wasn't in favor of demonizing the event and calling for justice for all the innocents who will develop various cancers, especially the children. What I find hilarious is how your reaction to the neutral dissemination of information is so overblown. RF claims to be a doctor and provides information. Whether or not it's biased is up to you to color it yourself in my opinion, but only a fool would read the sentence, "Hitler was a vegetarian." and feel that tells you everything you need to know about the man. Only a fool reads someone's opinion and draws a portrait of their position by what was missing.
Welcome nuke defender,
RF is not doing "neutral dissemination of information" he is here defending nukes. You are FREE to pretend otherwise but your colors are clear, you are also here defending nukes.
And after the hundreds of posts RF has made here, he has provided much more than a single opinion, nothing is missing, his work and his purpose are clear, he is here to defend nukes. We certainly know enough to draw an accurate portrait of his position.
What i find hilarious is your fake concern for our reaction. That is absolutely standard tactic for nuke defenders: change the subject to the emotions of the people who are resisting the nuke industry. No, the issue is not anyone's emotions, the issue is the murderous practices of the nuke industry and its defenders.
Any possibility that RF has access to more than one computer and more than one name?
Ever notice when shills are getting hammmered and they finally can't reply to common sense with their bull anymore, that a late arrival (sails) in to defend them?
There is more than one way to be obtuse and stupid.
Ever notice how idiots automatically assume someone is creating other accounts to defend the people they harass so it's the same person, so pathetically unable to defend their own position that no other should, even by absolute chance, defend it? You make the species proud.
Ever notice how shills automatically attack someone who comments on the shill practice of creating other accounts? They harass the non-shill by pretending shills don't use multiple id's, when it's been shown to be a common shill habit time and again.
"Before the debate begins, I thought it would be helpful..."
RFinkston, there is not a "debate" and you are not here to be helpful. There is a well-funded smoke-screen of pro-nuke propaganda, and you are here to support the nuke merchants of death, as you always do, by prattling on and on about sterile technical constructs while ignoring basic truths.
Excellent work monitoring Common Dreams for articles about nukes, and pouncing first to attempt to distract the comment thread with your excuses for the nuke merchants of death. You provide a dose of distractions and obfuscations far exceeding natural background levels.
You nailed that one.
Yes CT,,, with rail road spikes and a 12 pound sledge.
.
Thank you both for your work here!
My goodness, why can't the Japanese government just raise the thresholds to twice the current levels and solve this picky little problem? There are creative solutions to be found for this "problem". Just triple the cost of the rice and call it "preventative cancer treatment". These are curious times that call for curious solutions.
You obviously know a little something, but you need to understand that cesium-137 radioactive particles are different than "background radiation". The problem with cesium is that it looks like a mineral to your body, and it absorbs it as such, but it is not the benign essential that the body would use to its benefit, it is a cancer producing terrorist.
Background radioactive speicies Carbon-14 and Potassium-40 also just look like stable carbon and postassium so they too fool the body. Just the same as you say you are concerned about with Cesium-137.
Cesium is in the same column of the periodic table and is treated much the same as is radioactive natural potassium and stable potassium. There is no difference in any significant manner in the way the body metabolizes any of the forms of cesium and potassium whether they are stable or radioactive, man-made or natural.
And, how much of the natural background radiation is due to cesium-137?
"..the
isotope of most concern for
Department of Energy (DOE)
environmental management
sites and other areas is
cesium-137 which has a halflife of 30 years. Its decay
product, barium-137m (the
“m” means metastable)
stabilizes itself by emitting
an energetic gamma ray with
a half-life of about
2.6 minutes. It is this decay
product that makes cesium an
external hazard (that is, a
hazard without being taken
into the body)...While in the body, cesium poses a health hazard from both beta and gamma
radiation, and the main health concern is associated with the increased likelihood for inducing cancer."
More at:
http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/Cesium.pdf
to RFinston:
You forgot to mention those fractions of rice add up over time. What would be the steady state amount of cesium 137 in your body consuming rice at every meal? Also, background exposure would be external, whereas cesium 137 in your body would be much more intimately involved with organ tissue.
My dose estimate was in based upon the lifetime dose resulting from a one-time consumption of 200 Bq of Cesium-137. So this is a steady-state dose calculation for long-term consumption of contaminated rice.
Background radiation that comes from external sources that are energetic enough to penetrate into the body are 'intimately' involved with all our tissues, and of course radioactivty that is ingested or inhaled is similarly spread throughout the body be it natural or man-made in source..
do you come with a brochure?
RFinston: First, I appreciate your grown-up tone in the face of so much criticism. So you say it’s no Chernobyl. Others are all over the place, from it’s less, to it’s worse, to you are selling nuclear weapons (good thing this topic isn’t emotional), Obviously, most of us think nuclear energy is too hazardous in light of Murphy’s Law (me included).
But assuming it’s no Chernobyl, can we agree some people will die earlier than they would have? If so, in the spirit of learning, what are your 1.) Opinions about how many people will have shortened life spans, and by how many years on average? 2.) Opinions on nuclear energy risk/benefit in general?
Hi Dave,
The doses that the people of Japan have and will experience is what need to be known to determine the estimated number of people whose lives will be shortened as the result of Fukushima. The major cause of life-shortening will be the induction of fatal cancers. So far no radiation releases have caused any acute injury at the plant but the workers there too will be subject to an increased risk of cancer proportional to the dose they receive. The number of people who will die depends on knowing the collective dose to the society in units of person-rems (or in another unit 100 times larger, person-Sievents). The most widely recognized scientific groups who promulgate risk extimates are the International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP which has been in existence since the 1920's, and here in the U.S. the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, BEIR. The order of magnitude of risk is that if one is exposed to 1 rem the odds of causing fatal cancer death is on the order of one in five thousand. So as soon as we learn about the collective dose resulting from the accident some estimates will be possible to make. Others here have pointed to a much larger risk estimate (by orders of magnitude) but that has been promulgated by a hand-full of individuals whose estimates have not been corroborated by peer review nor given credence by the radiation safety community. Time will tell if their estimates are correct. The standard which the Japanese are keying toward is that no member of the public should be exposed to more than 0.5 rem per year from the accident. If that is achieved, while there no doubt will be additional cases of cancer, the underlying cancer rates had the accident not occured are such that they will be unlikely to be detected unless very careful epidemiological efforts are made.
In general while the benefit of producing electricity without burning fossil fuel is attractive, the accident risks, the yet to be completed long-term radioactive waste disposal solution, and the capital costs of the plants and the infrastructure to mine/mill/refine the nuclear fuel, on balance lead me to oppose further public funding of this industry.
Talking to yourself now?
RFinston: Thank you for your thoughtful reply (to me and others). You obviously have far more knowledge on this topic than most, and surely more than me, so I was glad to hear you think the industry should receive no further public funding. (I assume you extend this to mean no private funding either, no new licenses, and a gradual phase out.) In addition to all the other concerns, turning mountains into sand for handfuls of fuel seems as foolish as deforesting the Amazon. (Except the Amazon might grow back one day.)
You also make sense about this accident being the kind where most of the health effects will not be known for many years. It’s good there are expected to be very few death in the near future from it. And I hope you’re right about the long term effects not being the major disaster so many feared. Still, given the ocean based food chain of the Japanese, plus the airborne dosages so many received, it seems the final results will be an monumental health tragedy, even if not the epic proportions of Chernobyl.
~~dave gresham~~, wrote,,, ("RFinston: Thank you for your thoughtful reply (to me and others). You obviously have far more knowledge on this topic than most").
Are you really that confused to allow RFTinston to fool you? __ Most of what you wrote makes sense, but don't get snarled up in Finstons web of deceit.
You really should read further and read all of Hero-4-PEACE and ~~Aleph Nulls~~ comments, they are very credible.
I was unaware that there have been determined "safe" levels of additional radiation (aside from natural backgound occurance) in food! As many nuke activists point out, there really aren't "safe" minimums from a scientific standpoint, merely government labels to give the appearance of managable levels.
"Safe" in the headline is apparently the word chosen by the Editors of either Reuters or Common Dreams. Ingestion limits for the public are a judgement based upon the health risk per unit dose of radiation in comparison to the risk associated with changing the dietary sources that are available and practical. No responsible scientist or government official would claim absolute safety from any additional radioactivity ingested or inhaled
Background radiation shines on a body, similar to light. Ingested particles become carcinogenic building blocks which emit speeding particles that leave bubble tracks in cellular jelly. Radioactive particles or wave energy scramble genetic code, like bowling pins hit by a bowling ball.
Natural background radiation consists of external rays (cosmic and gamma rays from radioactivity in the earth) as well as natural radioactivity in the air, water, and foods that we consume. There is no difference between man-made radioactivity injested and natural radioactivity injested. The issue how much ionizing energy per gram of tissue is absorbed (dose), not where it came from.
How much background radiation results from cesium-137 ? I'm sure you are aware of the term, internal emitter, particles ingested into the body. How much naturally radiating cesium-137 exists in the environment?
All cesium-137 is man made so is not considered background. Here in the US there is much more cesium-137 from the atmospheric exploding of nuclear weapons tested between 1945 and 1967 as compared to the that from Fukushima or Chernobyl. The dose from all cesium here in the US is small compared to natural background. Near those accident sites the reverse it true.
Notably, nuclear apologist RFinston steers around the issue of internal emitters. The intensity of all radiation follows the simple rule of decreasing by the square of the distance from the emitter. An almost immeasurably tiny amount of radiation from an internal emitter, active for decades - such as a single cesium atom integrated into body tissues - can cause havoc in cells which are only microns away.
BTW, RFinston: When you eat your tasty bowl of radioactive rice, you have ingested it. The level of seriousness of the psuedo expertise you offer here is injested.
Please pardon my spelling error. The dose calculation includes the inverse square law and is taken into account for all the emissions of cesium-137 in the body as well as for the body anatomy. The dose is measured in energy absorbed per gram and no biological significance has ever been observed to be dependent upon the microscopic issue of a single radioactive atom only microns away. The impact of beta rays and gamma rays are no different even though one interacts sparsely while the other densely. The impact of alpha rays is about 20 times more damaging per energy unit absorbed than those types and is taken into account in the dose calculation. Cesium-137 is a beta/gamma emitter.
You are clearly tripping over your own contradictions now. You say that the dose calculation "includes the inverse square law,." and then explain that this means energy absorbed per gram - that anything finer than this level of measurement is unnecessary because "no biological significance has ever been observed to be dependent upon the microscopic issue..."
If you take the inverse square law seriously, then your calculations keep magnifying down to the micron level, where lies the concern over internal emitters; A concern you ignore not for scientific reasons, but out of unwarranted and unsafe assumptions.
The biology and dosimetry of radiation has not revealed anything supportive of your contention of a notably different dose/effect relationship by considering the micron level of dose. The ionizing particles do interact at the micron level but the dose and effect of the radiation have long been based upon the energy absorbed/gram of tissue with the only modification I mentionned alreadly of a greater impact from very densely ionizing alpha particles, etc. The insoluble 'hot-particle' theory for inhaled radioactivity was promulgated several decades ago and found to be unsubstantiated by epidemiological studies. Even more relevant is that if ingested cesium-137 is the subject of discussion, no hot particles will cross the gi tract to get to the blood stream and hence to the tissues. The chemical form needs to be soluble for that to occur. The radioactivity in the rice is apparently soluble and that is accounted for in my comparitive dose calculation
Where is the peer-reviewed research that 'millions have died'? I believe (and so-stated here, so a 'few dozen' is not 'my story') that on the order of tens of thousands will die world-wide from Chernobyl, which is also the estimate of the US Union of Concerned Scientists. May we see your calculation about "specific cross-section probablilities causing DNA mutations and then cancerous precursor tissue" and the resulting epidemiology? Has this been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?
I am retired, so no 'pay grade' to speak of.
Thanks for the clarification Hero. It is very welcome. Those shills emit a lot of technical verbiage that most of us are not qualified to critique.