EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fukushima Radiation Found in California Kelp
Radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan have been detected in the great kelp forests off the California coast, according to a new study released by researchers at Cal State Long Beach. Following the earthquake and subsequent tsunami, a wave of radioactivity traveled across the Pacific Ocean.
Scientists from CSU Long Beach tested giant kelp collected off Orange County, Santa Cruz and other locations after the March 2011 accident and detected radioactive iodine, which was released from the damaged nuclear reactor in Japan. After the Fukushima incident last spring, Stephen Manley and Chris Lowe, biology professors at California State-Long Beach wondered how released radiation would affect giant kelp canopies, a keystone for the coastal ecosystem. What they found, low-levels of certain radioactive isotopes, seemed to have no impact on the kelp's health, but their discovery adds anxiety for those who fear the ability for nuclear fallout to have long-ranging consequences.
Iodine 131 "has an eight-day half-life, so it's pretty much all gone," Manley told the San Francisco Chronicle. "But this shows what happens half a world away does effect what happens here. I don't think these levels are harmful, but it's better if we don't have it at all."
* * *
The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Kelp off California was contaminated with short-lived radioisotopes a month after Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant accident, a sign that the spilled radiation reached the state's coastline, according to a new scientific study.
Scientists from CSU Long Beach tested giant kelp collected off Orange County, Santa Cruz and other locations after the March 2011 accident and detected radioactive iodine, which was released from the damaged nuclear reactor.
The largest concentration was about 250 times higher than levels found in kelp before the accident.
"Basically, we saw it in all the California kelp blades we sampled," said Steven Manley, a CSU Long Beach biology professor who specializes in kelp.
The radioactivity had no known effects on the giant kelp, or on fish and other marine life, and it was undetectable a month later.
* * *
And KPCC in California reports:
Sampling revealed high levels of Iodine 131, as well as in some fish species that feed on the kelp. Iodine 13, a radioisotope, dissipates quickly. It has no known effects on kelp or fish, and Manley and Lowe said it’s not a human health concern.
However, the Corona del Mar sample had 250 times the iodine kelp in the area usually has.
Researchers suspect that airborne radioactivity carried in rainfall ran off into the ocean there.
As a result of this work, Manley and Lowe said they now want to trace longer-lived radioactivity through the marine food web.
# # #
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...
58 Comments so far
Show Allhttp://enenews.com/
I understand your attempt at humor, but that deflection & denial is not much protection, other than emotionally.
The Kelp ( and other foods and livestock products) got most of the same radioactive dose, as the rest of the country is continuously getting -- via rainfall & runoff --dumping radioactive dusts out of otherwise being carried further, on wind currents.
Kelp grows very fast, often more than a foot a day.
Yes, there is less radioactivity being carried on wind, as it progressively dumps out heading Eastwardly, but with various weather patterns, elevations, and air currents -- the rate is challenging to predict. That European radioactive monitoring has long been detecting Fukushima's radiation, is proof that it continues well past the East coast of the USA.
Japan, if interested -- is ALSO able to detect it's own radiation 24,000 miles, and one year later.
I suspect it is much worse for most to consider this, than if it had quite unlikely come across the sea from Japan, in water -- although the balance of that exposure is well along its way.
Yes California and the surfers will take the brunt of that (ocean borne) peril … in parallel and in addition to continued air-borne, food-borne, and drinking water-borne assaults.
Yes, it is wonderful and inspiring news that it was measured and reported (at all)-- but what's more significant is that everyone across the USA, is now similarly :
"light[ing] up in more ways than one"
( i.e. those w/o surfboards are not protected )
You might have objected specifically to the word "denial," and left things at that, and this now lengthy response -- would have just been the first sentence.
------------
Deflection is accurate, particularly as I explained how serious this really is (far more than just California), and specifically in that I clearly preceded and followed that objectionable word, with these qualifiers:
"I understand your attempt at humor, …
not much protection, other than emotionally."
Often humor does use inversion, negation, satire, etc … so I'm reeling from your response, ranging beyond humor's bounds.
You respond as If I had judged, attacked, labeled you as a denier of radioactivity's deadly impacts -- and although I didn't -- I can understand that you obviously do feel that :
"[I] got the wrong number (on [you]) on this one."
Clearly, your emotional awareness and truth -- differs from my own -- and I wouldn't want to be mistaken again, in acknowledging your right to have and express whatever opinions you wish. You are allowed to shoot intuitively/emotionally from your hip, but most would reasonably, then expect sometimes a discussion about inaccurate aiming …
For me, your statement carries along with it an erroneous presumption, that I was over-generalizing beyond today's issue (i.e. humor), and thereby somehow "wrong …on th[ese two]" issues. Usually, I would let this slide (sometimes even affirm your feelings), while today, I feel hypersensitive about such (~ invalidation), so I will challenge you on it -- for irony's sake.
Perhaps, this is your own ego's own amplification of something trivial -- and driven out of your (understandable gang-banged) hypersensitivity -- of a mis-perceived global threat (not humor) -- and then your acting upon that assumption, as if real.
On bad days, I've seen your self-defensiveness understandably escalate when seriously and violently attacked, and on good days such would barely perturb you.
------------
Today, I completely sympathize with your honest objection (one: to my embellishment, denial was wrong word), although I do object to your being unnecessarily mean (two: about things I never said).
Please do forgive me -- for speaking my mind -- because otherwise my sense of vulnerability and truth are eroded, my heart somewhat closed, and things are likely to worsen.
Thank you. I greatly appreciate your perceptive comments and support of those issues FAR BEYOND MERE disagreement.
I've moved a longer reply to the top of the thread.
{ see Apr 11 2012 - 4:15pm }
Siouxrose -- Not that you need any help defending yourself -- you seem pretty 'feisty' to say the least -- but did not think your witty remark warranted a sanctimonious scold.
Not sure why some insist that by maintaining an aura of somber fortitude they are contributing more to a solution than people who are witty.
Maybe they are confusing humor with mere cynicism. Or confusing pomposity with gravitas.
Mark Twain, a mere humorist, remains one of the most important American writers on issues as relevant today as Christian hypocrisy, Amerikan war fever, race relations, and bloody colonialism.
Clemen's extraordinary wit was driven by moral outrage.
Although there are limits to how far they will go (no criticism of Israel), it is revealing that the political analysis of 'humorists' such as Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher are light-years beyond the sober adult babble coming from pundits on CNN, NPR, and heaven forbid, The McLaughlin Group.
If you hope to inform Amerikans on the class nature of our political system, you can suggest Marx, Chomsky or Parenti-- but you'll have better success, generally, by having them watch George Carlin's infamous 5-minute rant describing the 'real owners' of the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
But whoops... Twain and Carlin are funny so they obviously have nothing to contribute.
http://www.historywiz.com/primarysources/marktwain-imperialism.htm
Is my making use of IRONY, as a form of humor and an objection, too bothersome for you to reconsider what the underlying truth is ?
Nonetheless, I forgive you for in coming to Sioux's defense -- even though it is apparent that you (expeditiously ?) based your criticisms of me, on her over-reaction -- not upon the factual matters of my original post.
Both Sioux and you, are clearly over-reacting and making this personal -- particularly when viewed in light of the perilous facts going far beyond mere California surfers, and then I did make my apology.
I can better deal and cope with the real disruptors and distractors, then those sharing much the same motivations as I -- who nonetheless, feel obligated to let loose their egos to feast on another's bones -- to ONLY supposedly deservingly punish them.
Since when is punishing folks for their ideas and comments -- in any manner progressive or serving the public ?
Since when is acting somewhat like a domino in a chain reaction, an example of responsible posting ?
-------------
It is quite tiresome, to deal civilly with deceitful and malicious people -- but it is outrageous to be (accidentally ?) treated as if were attacking another poster's character -- when the only evidence is Siouxrose's inflated and baseless reply (arrogantly claiming thing never even implied).
Your comments are a form that de-humanizes me, while also playing into normalizing the viciously violent bullying nonsensical gang-banging mode, preferred by the really immature and malicious.
I really do believe, that you didn't intend to make things harder on those you consider as friends, and to encourage those with malicious agendas -- but that's why I spend the time to respond.
-------------
I respond in detail, because allies need to consider the impact of their words on each other, either in -- increasing beneficial solidarity, coalescence, and connectivity -- or acting to sever and abrogate the fragile environment, driving greater separation, fear, and reactivity
Both of your comments presume primarily an ocean borne assault, which while true in its inevitable impacts, is not what has been happening over the last year predominantly.
See my comment to Siouxrose, earlier (Apr 9 2012 - 2:59pm).
In fact, it's not just about the Japanese's:
"sushi as a cultural touchstone..."
It's about the entire WORLD's self-limiting presumption of healthy food and water as:
"a cultural touchstone..."
I speak of the daily operations of the fishing industry which has stripped the oceans of 90% of the worlds predator fishes (the ones we like to eat), dumping of industrial toxins that cause the fertility of the remaining populations to drop even further, virtually emptied the oceans of whales (hey, there's Japan again), the dumping of megatons of noxious chemicals, radioactive material and just plain garbage, incidentally resulting in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (among others now developing in the Atlantic), the devastation of ocean birds, coral bleaching, the threat of wiping out the photo-plankton that supply more O2 to the atmosphere than all of the rain-forests combined, ocean acidification and warming, etc. etc. etc. ohmigawd-i'm-gonna-puke-if-I-think-about-this-anymore...
If I didn't resort to black humor so often, I think I would be on my way to commit an act of lethal pre-emptive self-defense.
Good points gailen wain right. These are depressing facts. We are killing our oceans.
Isn't there a whirlpool of plastic the size of Texas swirling somewhere in the Pacific? and Atlantic?
You wanna know New Deal? we need a Green Deal. Or a Sane Survival Deal. Putting people to work cleaning up this planet and making it sustainable. And for goodness sakes recycle your plastic bags and containers so they don't become part of the whirlpool of plastic.
Wishing won't get us there, take it to the polls .... Here's a great start in the right direction ...
http://www.jillstein.org/
I can understand that you missed, my point's greater reach, beyond just radioactivity's devastations:
"self-limiting presumption of healthy food and water"
At some point -- I believe reverence for all life -- will have to kick in and become an integral part and priority in humankind's decision making processes.
We are neither separate from each other, nor the world -- and what is done to the least of us, is literally done to us all.
In fact, the very idea of launching even a few people to Mars, is only going to produce more "toxic waste [&] economic folly," although a sustainable human base there might somewhat mitigate (not prevent) the catastrophic end of the human species, as we're now increasing racing faster towards oblivion.
The costs and time frame (in decades) -- to get to even Mars successfully -- is staggeringly BEYOND even the insane amounts we now spend on warmongering.
Regardless of your opinion of my pragmatic details having supposedly "failed" more so, than your humor -- it seems to me still -- that you continue un-apologetically and unnecessarily, with fear mongering and disheartening fantasy thinking.
Successful solutions require inspiration, clarity, understanding, solidarity, perseverance, and yes sometimes humor.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/the-largest-short-term-threat-to-...
Each Iodine-131 atom decays relatively quickly (statistically speaking), with "a half-life of 8.02 days with beta and gamma emissions", decaying and thereby emitting harmful radioactivity, at nearly 1 MeV before forming Xeon-131.
The half-life math, tells us that if 1 kg of Iodine-131 was suspended and then carried across the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima, that in ~ 3 months time (many times air current transit time), there still would STILL be ~ 1g ( 1/thousandth the mass, in 10 half-lives) available to be absorbed into and measured in the Kelp, or wherever.
If you started with ten times as much = 10 kg, and then waited for ten-times longer = 100 half-lives (~ 2.2 years), the amount would be still ~ 1 g.
Wikipedia explains:
"Due to its mode of beta decay, iodine-131 is notable for causing mutation and death in cells that it penetrates, and other cells up to several millimeters away."
This evidence of exposure is very significant, after almost all official USA govt sources claimed vehemently -- and denied that there was no increased radioactivity exposure risk was present nor was there an increased threat to anyone in the USA.
Any Iodine-131 decay, can severely damage any nearby living cells and/or organisms, through this radioactively, when it occurs. The closer one is to the source (Fukushima), the larger the exposure rate (mass/time) and proportional biological hazard -- while the further away transit time delays are tied directly to natural decay processes, and thereby reduce/mitigate the amount of deadly radioactivity still present, whenever (and wherever).
'The half-life math, tells us that if 1 kg of Iodine-131 was suspended and then carried across the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima, that in ~ 3 months time (many times air current transit time), there still would STILL be ~ 1g ( 1/thousandth the mass, in 10 half-lives) available to be absorbed into and measured in the Kelp, or wherever.
'If you started with ten times as much = 10 kg, and then waited for ten-times longer = 100 half-lives (~ 2.2 years), the amount would be still ~ 1 g.'
Please don't take offense at my correcting your arithmetic. But in 100 half-lives, the original mass would be divided by a VERY large number (over a million trillion trillion). The mass of the Sun is 2E30 kg. If it were composed of a radioisotope, after 100 half lives the mass would be less than 3.5 pounds.
John
( 1. ) You're correct, I made an error in the second example having only 10 times larger mass than the first, where I said "10 kg," needs to be replaced with 1000 kg.
( 2. ) I also made another error, saying "100 half-lives (~ 2.2 years)," where that needs to be replaced with 20 half-lives (~ 2.2 years).
Ten half-lives is 2^10 = 1024
Twenty half-lives is 2^20 = (1024)^2 =1048576
---------
Yes,
one Hundred half-lives is a huge factor of mass reduction:
2^100 = 1.26765E+30
"Moreover, he noted, “Although we measured iodine 131 because we were limited in what our instrumentation allows us to do, the big question was, is another major isotope that came over in the cloud, cesium 137, present in the kelp, too? It has a half-life of 30 years, where iodine 131 has a half-life of eight days,” so cesium may still be present."
In case anyone was feeling good about the eight-day half-life of Iodine 131.
EZ you probably know this, but organic certification is based on practices, not on product. Organic certification does not test for the presence of any molecules; it verifies that the farm (or production facility or retail operation) is using organic methods.
As long as you do not add radioactive material in your agricultural practice, the appearance of radioactivity in your agricultural product will not prevent organic certification.
Kelp is not an agricultural product, it is wild harvested, so it cannot be organically certified.
Sorry to be so dry. Then again several attempts at "humor" in this thread have fallen flat...
The kelp forests are amazing. Everyone should see them.
what is being found there is the remainder, not the main portion...
the tip of the proverbial iceberg...
when do we monitor the farmland product?