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

caraher

(6,359 posts)
20. This is a real jumble of factoids
Mon Dec 23, 2013, 02:52 PM
Dec 2013

How did they come up with a figure of "10 times?" I couldn't figure that out at all.

Reading the Woods Hole piece they link is much more informative. Bear in mind the graphic the Washington's Blog links compares surface concentrations nearby to levels in water contaminated by Chernobyl hundreds of miles away... it tells us nothing about overall levels of discharge, contrary to the OP article's claim. Later in the Woods Hole article we learn

Buesseler reviewed the range of current estimates of the total cesium releases. Their totals vary widely, he noted, but are “beginning to converge” on a total cesium-137 release of between 15 and 30 petabequerels (10^15 Bq). In comparative terms, he said, this is slightly more than the amount put into the sea by Chernobyl—although the total environmental release from that accident, at 85 PBq, was much higher.


So I don't see at all how this can support a claim of a "wave of radiation" 10 times greater...

The most interesting part about the Woods Hole article, to me, was the role of ocean currents in inhibiting dilution. So if you must worry, and are concerned about the US West Coast, worry instead about Japan's East Coast! Though apparently levels even there, as of a year ago, were within EPA drinking water standards...

“Dilution due to ocean mixing should be enough to cause a decrease in concentration down to background levels within a short period of time,” Buesseler told his audience at the Fukushima and the Ocean conference in November 2012. “Yet all the data we have show that measurements around the site remain elevated to this day at up to 1,000 becquerels per cubic meter.”
He hastened to put that number into context. “A thousand becquerels is not a big number for cesium. Just for comparison, that’s lower than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s limit for drinking water. At that level, Buesseler stressed, the cesium in Japanese coastal waters is safe for marine life and for human exposure.

Recommendations

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

Nope. FBaggins Dec 2013 #1
Should be required reading for everyone madokie Dec 2013 #2
He beat you to it Demeter Dec 2013 #3
Yup madokie Dec 2013 #4
Seriously? You found that "informative" FBaggins Dec 2013 #5
Whatever you say, Mr madokie Dec 2013 #6
It's not "whatever I say"... it's reality. FBaggins Dec 2013 #7
"its reality" darkangel218 Dec 2013 #22
Nope... not "as perceived by me" FBaggins Dec 2013 #26
I call BS. lol darkangel218 Dec 2013 #27
You can "call" whatever you like FBaggins Dec 2013 #32
Lulz!!! darkangel218 Dec 2013 #34
What difference does 3 miles vs. 50 miles make? NickB79 Dec 2013 #37
Huge difference. darkangel218 Dec 2013 #40
Interesting. The Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones aren't as large as I thought NickB79 Dec 2013 #43
BTW, TEPCO dumped an incredible amount of irradiated water into the Pacific Ocean, darkangel218 Dec 2013 #50
The nearest nuclear power plant to me.. PamW Dec 2013 #46
STILL TRIVIAL PamW Dec 2013 #8
THERE you are! Demeter Dec 2013 #9
Lmao!!!! darkangel218 Dec 2013 #10
ooPS! Demeter Dec 2013 #12
- 1 million, Pam darkangel218 Dec 2013 #11
Whatever... PamW Dec 2013 #52
Talk about not knowing how to read... NNadir Dec 2013 #13
Welcome to the discussion! Demeter Dec 2013 #14
You and kristopher appear to be in agreement -- do you also have "a thing going on?" phantom power Dec 2013 #16
Not after he yelled at me Demeter Dec 2013 #17
I don't know if it's still running, but I think this thread needs a DUZY Demeter Dec 2013 #15
And the DUzy goes to the poster with the most Caps!!! darkangel218 Dec 2013 #18
Here's the thing about that. FBaggins Dec 2013 #19
FBaggings.. darkangel218 Dec 2013 #21
HOGWASH!!! PamW Dec 2013 #28
Pam, give it up. darkangel218 Dec 2013 #29
Seriously.. PamW Dec 2013 #35
lol.. darkangel218 Dec 2013 #36
Why get so upset over a change of font PamW Dec 2013 #39
Honey, im not only upset over the font, darkangel218 Dec 2013 #41
What's "not working" PamW Dec 2013 #44
"I really do NOT care if you learn anything." darkangel218 Dec 2013 #45
Well good! PamW Dec 2013 #47
Most of that OP is from a Woods Hole article, including the infographic kristopher Dec 2013 #23
Lol... except for... FBaggins Dec 2013 #24
So Pam is not the only one using bold heh darkangel218 Dec 2013 #25
Pam's rhetorical abuses are not that she uses bold FBaggins Dec 2013 #30
FBaggings.. darkangel218 Dec 2013 #33
WRONG Again PamW Dec 2013 #38
Bold again, Pam? darkangel218 Dec 2013 #42
Yes - bold. PamW Dec 2013 #48
"members of the target audience", eh? darkangel218 Dec 2013 #49
Which still leaves it head and shoulders above the content of ... kristopher Dec 2013 #31
See post 30 madokie Dec 2013 #51
This is a real jumble of factoids caraher Dec 2013 #20
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Radiation from Fukushima ...»Reply #20