Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
19. From the site
Thu Feb 6, 2014, 06:15 PM
Feb 2014

"January 28, 2014
The first results from seawater samples come from La Jolla and Point Reyes, Calif., and Grayland and Squium, Wash. Four samples from these three locations show no detectable Fukushima cesium. We know this because Fukushima released equal amounts of two isotopes of cesium: the shorter-lived cesium-134 isotope (half-life of 2 years) and the longer-lived cesium-137 (half-life of 30 years). Cesium-137 was found at levels of 1.5 Bq per cubic meter (Bq/m3), but this was already detectable prior to releases at Fukushima and came primarily from nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific during the 1950s and 1960s.

This so-called "negative" result has two immediate implications. First there should be no health concerns associated with swimming in the ocean as a result of Fukushima contaminants by themselves or as a result of any additional, low-level radioactive dose received from existing human and natural sources of radiation in the ocean (existing levels of cesium-137 are hundreds of times less than the dose provided by naturally occurring potassium-40 in seawater).

Secondly, and just as important from a scientific perspective, the results provide a key baseline from the West Coast prior to the arrival of the Fukushima plume. Models of ocean currents and cesium transport predict that the plume will arrive along the northern sections of the North American Pacific Coast (Alaska and northern British Columbia) sometime in the spring of 2014 and will arrive along the Washington, Oregon, and California coastline over the coming one to two years. The timing and pattern of dispersal underscores the need for samples further to the north, and for additional samples to be collected every few months at sites up and down the coast.

For this reason, we are also pleased to report that funds are already in hand to continue sampling at both the La Jolla and Pt. Reyes locations thanks to the foresight and generous donations of the groups who volunteered to adopt these sites. We expect levels of cesium-134 to become detectable in coming months, but the behavior of coastal currents will likely produce complex results (changing levels over time, arrival in some areas but not others) that cannot be accurately predicted by models. That is why ongoing support for long-term monitoring is so critical, now and in the future.
scale"

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That is so wonderful! ananda Feb 2014 #1
So I followed your link that is linked to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution snooper2 Feb 2014 #2
Apparently not as radioactive as some are claiming. longship Feb 2014 #3
You making things up yet again RE? FBaggins Feb 2014 #4
Oh, it's there RobertEarl Feb 2014 #11
A simple "yes... I'm making it up" would do FBaggins Feb 2014 #12
Yes it is RobertEarl Feb 2014 #13
I have... in fact I posted it already FBaggins Feb 2014 #14
Oh, you need help? RobertEarl Feb 2014 #15
2011? FBaggins Feb 2014 #18
That's what I wrote earlier RobertEarl Feb 2014 #20
... SidDithers Feb 2014 #5
Ocean water off La Jolla coast being monitored (and not) for Fukushima radiation Octafish Feb 2014 #6
Indeed RobertEarl Feb 2014 #7
If researchers can't get funding for Fukushima, it must mean there's nothing to worry about. Octafish Feb 2014 #8
No one needs to make it seem worse than it is RobertEarl Feb 2014 #10
Check out this chili recipe zappaman Feb 2014 #9
I think the SOP of GD should be updated to include the phrase "No (deliberate) misinformation". Vashta Nerada Feb 2014 #16
You? Again? RobertEarl Feb 2014 #17
Abso-fucking-lutely... SidDithers Feb 2014 #21
That's not true RobertEarl Feb 2014 #22
From the site RobertEarl Feb 2014 #19
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Scientists in mad scrambl...»Reply #19