Email List
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fukushima Radiation Moving Steadily Across Pacific
Concentrated levels found as scientists sample the Pacific for signs of Fukushima
Teams of scientists have already found debris and levels of radiation far off the coast of Japan, one year after the nuclear disaster at Fukushima. Reports are now suggesting that nuclear radiation has traveled at a steady pace. That contaminated debris and marine life could reach the US coast as soon as one year from now, depending on ocean currents.
A sample of copepods taken during a June 2011 cruise aboard the R/V Ka'imikai-O-Kanaloa off the northeast coast of Japan. (Ken Kostel, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) Radiation from Fukushima's nuclear disaster is appearing in concentrated levels in sea creatures and ocean water up to 186 miles off of the coast of Japan. The levels of radiation are 'hundreds to thousands of times higher than would be expected naturally' according to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). Researchers are questioning how the radioactive accumulation on the seafloor will effect the marine ecosystem in the future.
"What this means for the marine environment of the Northwest Pacific over the long term is something that we need to keep our eyes on," said the WHOI.
* * *
Fukushima Radiation Tracked Across Pacific Ocean (Live Science):
"We saw a telephone pole," study leader Ken Buesseler, a marine chemist and oceanographer at WHOI, told LiveScience. "There were lots of chemical plants. A lot of stuff got washed into the ocean."
The Tohoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, led to large releases of radioactive elements from the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plants into the Pacific Ocean. To find out how that radiation spread in the waters off Japan, in June researchers released "drifters" — small monitoring devices that move with the current and take measurements of the surrounding water.
The drifters are tracked via GPS, showing the direction of currents over a period of about five months. Meanwhile, the team also took samples of zooplankton (tiny floating animals) and fish, measuring the concentration of radioactive cesium in the water.
Small amounts of radioactive cesium-137, which takes about 30 years for half the material to decay (called its half-life), would be expected in the water, largely left over from atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1960s and the Chernobyl accident in 1986. But the expedition scientists found nearly equal parts of both cesium-137 and cesium-134, which has a half-life of only two years. Any "naturally" occurring cesium-134 would be long gone. [...]
The team also looked at the amounts of cesium isotopes in the local sea life, including zooplankton, copepods (tiny crustaceans), shrimp and fish. They found both cesium-137 and cesium-134 in the animals, sometimes at concentrations hundreds of times that of the surrounding water. Average radioactivity was about 10 to 15 Bq per kilogram, depending on whether it was zooplankton or fish (concentrations were lowest in the fish).
* * *
Sampling the Pacific for Signs of Fukushima (WHOI):
An international research team is reporting the results of a research cruise they organized to study the amount, spread, and impacts of radiation released into the ocean from the tsunami-crippled reactors in Fukushima, Japan. The group of 17 researchers and technicians from eight institutions spent 15 days at sea in June 2011 studying ocean currents, and sampling water and marine organisms up to the edge of the exclusion zone around the reactors.
Led by Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist and marine chemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), the team found that the concentration of several key radioactive substances, or radionuclides, were elevated but varied widely across the study area, reflecting the complex nature of the marine environment. In addition, although levels of radioactivity in marine life sampled during the cruise were well below levels of concern for humans and the organisms themselves, the researchers leave open the question of whether radioactive materials are accumulating on the seafloor sediments and, if so, whether these might pose a long-term threat to the marine ecosystem. The results appear in the online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
"Our goal was to provide an independent assessment of what the Japanese were reporting and also to get further off shore to sample in places where we thought the currents would be carrying most of the radionuclides," said Buesseler. "We also wanted to provide as wide ranging a look as possible at potential impacts on the marine system to give a better idea of what was going on in the region, but also to provide a stronger baseline from which to measure future changes." [...]Another open question is why radiation levels in the waters around Fukushima have not decreased since the Japanese stopped emergency cooling operations. According to Buesseler, it may be an indication that the ground surrounding the reactors has become saturated with contaminated water that is slowly seeping out in to the ocean. It may also be a sign that radionuclides in ocean sediments have become remobilized.
"What this means for the marine environment of the Northwest Pacific over the long term is something that we need to keep our eyes on," said Buesseler.
# # #
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...



177 Comments so far
Show AllThen he sed: "I felt that TJ really meant "nuked", when he said "nuked"."
Nuff sed.
'lymphoma sed: "In other words, I assumed that TJ did not really mean that 30,000,000 people were victimized by an atomic-bomb blast."'
'Then he sed: "I felt that TJ really meant "nuked", when he said "nuked"."'
Please correct what you just posted about me. How many times do I have to explain it? You didn't print out the comments and carefully study them, did you? Since TJ said that millions of Japanese had been "nuked", I thought that he was using the word correctly. That they had been killed or seriously harmed. Later, when he posted about contamination and fallout, I realized that he was using "nuked" incorrectly.
John
lymphoma, you just wait right there. That "correction" will be along momentarily. Just, you know, keep hitting the refresh every once in a while. Yep, it'll be along any minute now. Just watch your screen...
So, the poster in question is wrong; and this is the second time I've had to correct him on this well-known aviation hazard. Mushroom Clouds are a pyrocumulus mushroom-shaped cloud of condensed water or debris; they are a meteorological effect that even happen when he jerks off the pot lid on his stove quickly, even if he doesn't know what he's looking at. He doesn't get to redefine hundreds of years of atmospheric research just because he wants to.
Next, he doesn't seem to know what a prompt criticality is which may have happened over Unit Three SFP. Is it a blast? Yes it is, but to "Get Nuked" in colloquial slang doesn't just mean getting killed by the blast, it means getting exposed to radiation by fallout, which is exactly what happened at Fukushima. Wiki says:
Notice, if you will, the use of "µm" to describe MICRON DIAMETER sized particles (Microns are NOT used as a measurement of pressure in this case.) So, that's Strike Two on his vocabulary test.Wait a minute... he's actually failed:
Micron = Micrometer = µm
Mushroom Cloud = pyrocumulus mushroom-shaped cloud
Nuked = radioactive fallout
STrrrrriiiiiikkkkkkeeee Three, he's out of there! This is what happens when you try to B.S. your way through a subject you don't understand.
- OR -
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is how we flesh out the dishonesty of the garden variety PR Firm Troll...
TJ
Another thing is; it really is not one tiny bit funny and Iannetta is a distracting, provem obtuse argumentative liar, who should just fade off and shut up like his faithful sidekick RFinson did.
But without him, we would not learn as much as we do from you and so many other decent intelligent people here.
I was just trying to point out the tremendous population density within 100 miles of the FukU Frankenplants and the fact that the people there are now all just medical experiments since the actual radiation release is more than Chernobyl. People fled in Chernobyl. The Japanese are either in denial or under government/corporate duress, imho. Tepco has lied and bullied everybody during this crisis. They are horrible scum and should be abolished along with all nuclear plants in the world.
TJ
'Next, he doesn't seem to know what a prompt criticality is which may have happened over Unit Three SFP. Is it a blast? Yes it is, but to "Get Nuked" in colloquial slang doesn't just mean getting killed by the blast, it means getting exposed to radiation by fallout, which is exactly what happened at Fukushima....'
Sorry, "get nuked" does NOT mean what you say. No one doubts that people in Fukushima were exposed to increased levels of ionizing radiation. But no one in Fukushima got nuked. I know exactly what "prompt criticality" is. It doesn't occur in an operating nuclear reactor, and it's extremely unlikely that it occured in Fukushima.
'....Wiki says:
' Fallout is the residual radioactive material propelled into the upper atmosphere following a nuclear blast, so called because it "falls out" of the sky after the explosion and shock wave have passed. It commonly refers to the radioactive dust and ash created when a nuclear weapon explodes. This radioactive dust, consisting of material either directly vaporized by a nuclear blast or charged by exposure, is a highly dangerous kind of radioactive contamination. It can lead to the contamination of aquifers and devastate the affected ecosystem years after the initial exposure.
' There are many types of fallout, ranging from the global type to the more area-restricted types of fallout.
[edit]Worldwide
After an air burst, fission products, un-fissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues vaporized by the heat of the fireball condense into a fine suspension of small particles 10 nm to 20 µm in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere
'Notice, if you will, the use of "µm" to describe MICRON DIAMETER sized particles (Microns are NOT used as a measurement of pressure in this case.) So, that's Strike Two on his vocabulary test.'
' If you look very carefully at what you posted, you should see that Wikipedia did NOT use the word "micron" (a unit of pressure). They used "nanometer" and "micrometer".
John
Also, when told about the theory of "Prompt Criticality" thepatient, poster has a cognitive disconnect between Fukushima and normal functioning reactors, which Fukushima Unit 3 is not. The poster knows full well, that we are not talking about anything going on inside a functional reactor. We are talking about an explosion that occurred outside the primary containment area as evidenced by a huge red fireball over the top of Spent Fuel Pool number Three. Watch this video by Fairewinds.com and you will see that VP Arnie Gundersen who both was Senior VP at a Nuclear firm that manufactured nuclear fuel racks, and also a Nuclear Engineer and live reactor instructor for new operators, says may have happened:http://player.vimeo.com/video/22865967?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0
It's a great video. It is worth your time.
TJ
'Untrue. Wikipedia does indeed use the word Micron....'
You may wish to reread my reply. I didn't say that Wikipedia doesn't use "micron". I said that they didn't use the word in the snip that you posted.
' The term micron and the symbol μ, representing the micrometre, were officially accepted between 1879 and 1967, but officially revoked by the ISI in 1967.[1] In practice, "micron" is a widely used term in preference to "micrometre" in many English-speaking countries, and in American English the use of the term helps differentiate the unit from the micrometer, a measuring device, which would otherwise be spelled as a homonym with micrometre....'
I disagree. First of all, the measuring device is NOT a micrometer, but rather a micrometer caliper. And the context of any text would clearly eliminate any confusion of the words. Again, "micron" should be discouraged as a unit of length. You won't find it as a unit of length in any paper in a prestigious journal.
John
Is that a fact? __ I take it you have read every paper ever published in presitigious journals... Lol.
Quite honestly, I have had more good laughs reading your comments Iannetta, than from anyone elses' here at CD.
http://www.convertunits.com/info/micron
But you ~Iannetta~ just had to "correct" ~Thomas Jefferson~, for saying so, start one of your senseless, childish, disruptive, spit ball throwing arguments and display you obtuse ignorance…. And yes the word micron is also used in pressure measurements.
'But you ~Iannetta~ just had to "correct" ~Thomas Jefferson~, for saying so, start one of your senseless, childish, disruptive, spit ball throwing arguments and display you obtuse ignorance…. And yes the word micron is also used in pressure measurements.'
As all readers of these threads know, TJ used the phrase "microns of Am-241". Since that didn't make any sense, I asked "What's a micron of Am-241?", adding that a micron is a unit of pressure. He replied that it's not a unit of pressure, a statement with which you disagree. So of course, I did NOT try to correct TJ for saying that a micron is a unit of length; I merely pointed out that that use of the unit has been deprecated.
Gee WayneWR, you're closing in on TJ for the indoor record of most errors in one comment.
John
Thanks, Satch!
John
My apologies everyone for not being more clear. I was referring to a micron-sized dust-fake coated with say a million Am-241 radioactive isotopes. If the poster really understands radioactive microbiology as he claims, he would have known this. But quite to the contrary, he has instead claimed, many times, that K-40 in our bodies is more dangerous than the fallout at Fukushima.
In an effort to put the matter to rest: let's check wiki's disambiguation page:
A Micron can refer to:
Micron, a non-SI name for micrometre
Micron (wool), is the measurement used to express the diameter of a wool fibre. A small curved diacritic mark above some letters, used to indicate shortness
Micron or millitorr, a micrometre of mercury (µm Hg), a unit of pressure in vacuum engineering
Micron Technology, a semiconductor manufacturer based in Boise, Idaho
Alesis Micron, an analog-modelling synthesizer la made by Alesis Studio Electronics
Micron, a member of the future Justice League in the animated series Batman Beyond
Micron (skate company), an ice skate and roller skate manufacturer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micron_(disambiguation)
Are we engineering vacuums here? No, we are not. So the poster-in-question is wrong. His usage of the word “Micron” as pressure is incorrect. We have been discussing the medical dangers of micron sized dust flakes caught in your lungs from the Mushroom cloud from Unit 3, so micron is in fact used as a unit of diameter as we have been saying to him all along.
Is “Micron” used as length in medical journals? He claims:
‘Again, "micron" should be discouraged as a unit of length. You won't find it as a unit of length in any paper in a prestigious journal. ‘
However when I google “oncology study, mircon”, I see thousands of studies in prestigeous medical journals which use the word Micron.
So he is wrong about this too.
http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=oncology+study%2C+micr...
Why does the poster continue to insist that Microns are only used as a unit of pressure when we have clearly proven him wrong? All I can guess is that he either has no experience in any field of science since he clearly does not posses any empirical knowledge of the hazards of radioactive fallout nor of the common jargon used to describe the diameter of particulates trapped in the lungs, or that he is just dishonest. Now if you want to repair the vacuum line on your car, then you might trust this poster to give you advice on that, but don’t take any advice from someone so inacurate on something as important as radioactive fallout from Fukushima.
TJ
Just One example: The prestigious Chicago University uses square microns to identify cancer cells in tissue:
http://pathcore.bsd.uchicago.edu/PIA/PIA_microvessel.shtml
'My apologies everyone for not being more clear. I was referring to a micron-sized dust-fake coated with say a million Am-241 radioactive isotopes. If the poster really understands radioactive microbiology as he claims, he would have known this....'
I never claimed to know what's in a poster's mind when he uses a term incorrectly, as you did.
'But quite to the contrary, he has instead claimed, many times, that K-40 in our bodies is more dangerous than the fallout at Fukushima.'
All readers of these threads know that the above is untrue. That's why TJ is unable to substantiate the falsehood with a quote. He can't do that, since such a quote doesn't exist. But that doesn't seem to stop him from lying about it.
'In an effort to put the matter to rest: let's check wiki's disambiguation page:
'A Micron can refer to:
'Micron, a non-SI name for micrometre
'Micron (wool), is the measurement used to express the diameter of a wool fibre. A 'small curved diacritic mark above some letters, used to indicate shortness
'Micron or millitorr, a micrometre of mercury (µm Hg), a unit of pressure in vacuum 'engineering
'Micron Technology, a semiconductor manufacturer based in Boise, Idaho 'Alesis Micron, an analog-modelling synthesizer la made by Alesis Studio 'Electronics
'Micron, a member of the future Justice League in the animated series Batman 'Beyond
'Micron (skate company), an ice skate and roller skate manufacturer
'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micron_(disambiguation)
'Are we engineering vacuums here? No, we are not. So the poster-in-question is wrong. His usage of the word “Micron” as pressure is incorrect....'
Nope! See your quote above.
'We have been discussing the medical dangers of micron sized dust flakes caught in your lungs from the Mushroom cloud from Unit 3, so micron is in fact used as a unit of diameter as we have been saying to him all along.'
Of course "micron" is a unit of length, but it's use is discouraged. "micrometer", which has the same meaning, should be used instead. Careful writers no longer use "micron" in that context; I certainly don't. Such use is deprecated.
'Is “Micron” used as length in medical journals? He claims:
'‘Again, "micron" should be discouraged as a unit of length. You won't find it as a unit of length in any paper in a prestigious journal. ‘
'However when I google “oncology study, mircon”, I see thousands of studies in prestigeous medical journals which use the word Micron.'
'So he is wrong about this too.
'http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=oncology+study%2C+micr...'
Yes indeed! I was wrong about that (hangs head in shame). I didn't realize that so many authors were being so lax. TJ isn't the only one who gets things wrong.
'Why does the poster continue to insist that Microns are only used as a unit of pressure when we have clearly proven him wrong?...
Oh, back to gettings things wrong, I see. Of course, I never made that claim.
John
Readers, please note: There's just no way a proffered expert on ionizing radiation on the body from "1959" could be so glaringly wrong. Unless he's never read a single oncology medical journal. He just dogmatically claimed not one prestigious journal used the term MIRCON, when virtually all do. He showed up at CD right after the disaster, making dozens of posts all setting himself up as an expert on the hazards of ionizing radiation for cancer risk. For example, here's a typical one right here by him when he and his sock puppets kept implying that common bananas were more dangerous than Fukushima fallout:
Clearly, the poster in question is speaking as an authority on the subject and he is implying that we laymen are posting misinformation at CD.... When in reality, it's clear he's never read an Oncology journal, and it is he who is posting false information: e.g: he claimed no medical journal uses the measurement term Micron.If he's so dishonest about the dangers of K-40 in bananas and dishonest where the Am-241 comes from in smoke detectors that he implies are more dangerous than Fukushima (and there are many more posts of his like this one,) how can we trust any thing he says? Certainly, he knows nothing of cancer risk if he hasn't read about micron sized tumors.
At least, the poster sorta, finally stated what is already obvious to everybody:
Readers, this poster should indeed hang his head in shame for trying to deceive the public. Fukushima is dangerous to you and your family, and I submit this poster is endangering the public pretending to be an authority on those risks. But it took Days, and a lot of time by Wayne and I to finally expose him as a Charlatan.
TJ
'Let's refresh our memory here: A certain poster, who will remain nameless, said:-
' ‘Again, "micron" should be discouraged as a unit of length. You won't find it as a unit of length in any paper in a prestigious journal. ‘'
Yes, and when you provided evidence that "micron" appeared as a unit of length in many journals, I replied:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes indeed! I was wrong about that (hangs head in shame). I didn't realize that so many authors were being so lax. TJ isn't the only one who gets things wrong. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Readers, please note: There's just no way a proffered expert on ionizing radiation on the body from "1959" could be so glaringly wrong. Unless he's never read a single oncology medical journal....
I don't read oncology journals; I'm not a physician.
'...He just dogmatically claimed not one prestigious journal used the term MIRCON, when virtually all do. He showed up at CD right after the disaster, making dozens of posts all setting himself up as an expert on the hazards of ionizing radiation for cancer risk. For example, here's a typical one right here by him when he and his sock puppets kept implying that common bananas were more dangerous than Fukushima fallout:
Of course, I never implied that. Nor can you post any proof of your false statement. But that won't keep you from posting prevarications over and over, will it, TJ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I urge you to ignore completely what you read about the Fukushima accident. There's been much misinformation disseminated about the event, especially in Common Dreams. But please consider this. Fallout from the accident takes some time to reach the West Coast of the US, with only a small fraction of what was released arriving there. The next step is the descending of the radioisotopes to Earth, followed by their being taken up by plants and animals, and also by getting into water supplies. Then the water/food is consumed; that's when the health hazards of ionizing radiation start.
Alpha and beta particles from radioisotopes like cesium-137 and strontium-90 CAN induce cancer, but it's a random process. Please understand that the potassium-40 in the bodies of human adults emits about 3,900 betas/second. And we all have lead and radium in our bodies, the latter emitting the more damaging alpha rays.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/05-2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Clearly, the poster in question is speaking as an authority on the subject and he is implying that we laymen are posting misinformation at CD....'
Didn't you omit a bit of information, TJ? The post of mine above was a reply to a poster about the discreditied study by Joseph Mangano and Dr. Janette Sherman. But you already knew that, didn't you? I was urging the poster to ignore the Mangano-Sherman study.
'...When in reality, it's clear he's never read an Oncology journal, and it is he who is posting false information: e.g: he claimed no medical journal uses the measurement term Micron.'
Didn't we just go through this?
'If he's so dishonest about the dangers of K-40 in bananas and dishonest where the Am-241 comes from in smoke detectors that he implies are more dangerous than Fukushima (and there are many more posts of his like this one,) how can we trust any thing he says?...
If you're going to tell outright lies, why not go all the way? How about saying that I claimed that horseradish is a mixture of horsemeat and radishes? Or that one can tell the age of a telephone by counting the rings? The possibilities are endless.
'At least, the poster sorta, finally stated what is already obvious to everybody:
' Yes indeed! I was wrong about that (hangs head in shame). I didn't realize that so many authors were being so lax. TJ isn't the only one who gets things wrong.
John
Oh no, of course not!