Fukushima's radioactive ocean water arrives at West Coast
Radiation from Japan's leaking Fukushima nuclear power plant has reached waters offshore Canada, researchers said at the annual American Geophysical Union's Ocean Sciences Meeting in Honolulu.
The background level of radiation in oceans and seas varies around the globe. WHOI
Radiation from Japan's leaking Fukushima nuclear power plant has reached waters offshore Canada, researchers said today at the annual American Geophysical Union's Ocean Sciences Meeting in Honolulu.
MSN Weather: What causes a tsunami?
Two radioactive cesium isotopes, cesium-134 and cesium-137, have been detected offshore of Vancouver, British Columbia, researchers said at a news conference. The detected concentrations are much lower than the Canadian safety limit for cesium levels in drinking water, said John Smith, a research scientist at Canada's Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
Tests conducted at U.S. beaches indicate that Fukushima radioactivity has not yet reached Washington, California or Hawaii, said Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Woods Hole, Mass.
"We have results from eight locations, and they all have cesium-137, but no cesium-134 yet," Buesseler said. (Isotopes are atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei. In this case, cesium-137 has more neutrons than cesium-134.)
The scientists are tracking a radioactive plume from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Three nuclear reactors at the power plant melted down after the March 11, 2011, Tohoku earthquake. The meltdown was triggered by the massive tsunami that followed the quake. [Fukushima Radiation Leak: 5 Things You Should Know]
The initial nuclear accident from the Fukushima reactors released several radioactive isotopes, such as iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium-137. Cesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years and remains in the environment for decades. Cesium-134, with a half-life of only two years, is an unequivocal marker of Fukushima ocean contamination, Smith said.
"The only cesium-134 in the North Pacific is there from Fukushima," he said. Cesium-137, on the other hand, is also present from nuclear weapons tests and discharge from nuclear power plants.
Smith and his colleagues tracked rising levels of cesium-134 at several ocean monitoring stations west of Vancouver in the North Pacific beginning in 2011. By June 2013, the concentration reached 0.9 Becquerels per cubic meter, Smith said. All of the cesium-134 was concentrated in the upper 325 feet (100 m) of the ocean, he said. They are awaiting results from a February 2014 sampling trip.
The U.S. safety limit for cesium levels in drinking water is about 28 Becquerels, the number of radioactive decay events per second, per gallon (or 7,400 Becquerels per cubic meter). For comparison, uncontaminated seawater contains only a few Becquerels per cubic meter of cesium.
Cesium-137 levels at U.S. beaches were 1.3 to 1.7 Becquerels per cubic meter, Buesseler said. That's similar to background levels in the ocean from nuclear weapons testing, suggesting the Fukushima plume has not reached the U.S. coastline yet, he said.
The new monitoring data does not show which of two competing models best predicts the future concentration of Fukushima radiation along the U.S. West Coast, Smith said. These models suggest that radionuclides from Fukushima will begin to arrive on the West Coast in early 2014 and peak in 2016. However, the models differ in their predictions of the peak concentration of cesium — from a low of 2 to a maximum of 27 Becquerels per cubic meter. Both peaks are well below the highest level recorded in the Baltic Sea after Chernobyl, which was 1,000 Becquerels per cubic meter.
"It's still a little too early to know which one is correct," Smith said.
The impending arrival of radioactive contaminants from Fukushima has raised concerns among coastal residents in the United States and Canada. But oceanographers and radiation experts say the radiation levels will be too low to threaten human health.
"These levels are clearly not a human or biological threat in Canada," Smith said.
Fukushima’s radiation reached coastal Canada first because of the powerful Kuroshio Current, which flows from Japan across the Pacific. The plume will then flow down the coast of North America and circle back toward Hawaii, models predict.
MSN Weather: Check your local forecast
But Buesseler thinks even low levels of contamination merit monitoring, both for human health information and for the wealth of data about Pacific Ocean currents such monitoring could provide. On Jan. 14, he launched a website called "How Radioactive is Our Ocean?", where the public can make tax-deductible donations to support the analysis of existing water samples, or propose and fund new sampling locations along the West Coast.
And at Fukushima, radioactive water continues to escape from the damaged power plant into the ocean. A new leak was reported last week, although that one did not empty into the ocean.
Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
There is a tested and proven solution to treat such a contaminted water without generating any additional sludge. It has been just tested @ nuclear certified laboratory. Test results are now disclosed..
See the following CCN iReport about it:
It will be o.k. , really !!! ------- It will , ,,, right ? , ? , ? ,, -- RIGHT !!!!!
I'll just be quite and eat my glowing food , Mmmmm .
I am not scared of this, BUT, I responded because the person that wrote the original article did no research, OR, forgot to tell ALL of us Silly, ignorant, without a clue Peeps, what Cesium is....... And what it means to our Eco-system........28 Becquerels, per cubic meters allowed in our drinking water?????? what does it MEAN to us Simple folk, NOT STUPID folks.....Just not educated in the way of these chemicals..........Oh. Wait. You live & probably work San Onofrey ?
OK, If & when this facility possibly would fail & you are on duty, Or near by, as you said you live near by, what would you do in the event it Fails????
TO MY LITTLE FRIEND greengo, missing the entire point to say the least. So before spouting off similar to a buffoon that has had too many Starbucks yesterday. Please fill me in. I have Family Doctors that live in this area affected . Dealing with this tragic event as we speak. A History on Syria is not what we need. similarities and the chain of evidence and recent events lead already proven evidence to much more that you can imagine. And certainly much more than you know. So until all the facts are in. Then please submit your educated response.
OH BY THE WAY I see you have chosen not to receive email responses.. Just be fair Please let us see your educated factoids. We all welcome strengthening the minds with continued education. Not what the News Agencies , Fakebook, IE Government Spy and Government Agencies tell you to believe or read. Oh and don't believe the " If you saw it on the Internet. Then it must be true... thing" It really does not work that. But I am sure you knew this, being that you are educated and all.
1. They do not have a right to poison us. This is a violation of human rights. You cannot poison millions of people, even in what they like to term "small doses" without consequences. Stand up for yourselves, people. Are you citizens or subjects?
2. There is no such thing as a "safe dose" of radiation. Period. The framing and phrasing of this issue is bogus and unscientific. My source is the Center for Disease Control, the EPA, the National Academy of Sciences and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission! They all admit there is no such thing as a safe dose. Yet the media frames the issue in terms that the only story is the one that minimizes public concern. http://joegiambrone.wordpress.com/radiation/
3. Harm from nuclear disasters (not "accidents;" there are no nuclear "accidents") is studiously undercounted by the international bodies IAEA and UNSCEAR. This is made clear in the linked article and in the documentary film NUCLEAR CONTROVERSIES (online) that shows how a 1995 Chernobyl study by 700 doctors and scientists was censored by the World Health Organization and never published.
4.Nuclear states have a vested interest in manipulating the data and public perception. The state/nuclear industry partnerships cannot be underestimated.
5. Birth defects from radiation are under-counted and uncounted, using the same bogus rationale as is used for undercounting cancers: the "no biomarkers" defense. It's easy to not see what you don't want to see.
In sum: zero cesium contamination is what you should have, and what you should demand. Those who poison you and your children with cesium contamination should be held accountable. The "banana boys" spin lies by trying to substitute one element for another, as if that was scientific. It is not. All radiation is not interchangeable nor identical. See the Academy Award winning Chernoby Heart film and ask yourself why the heart problems of the children of Ukraine and Belarus are not talked about in these so-called definitive UN studies? (Nor in the myriad article on Fukushima. This is all precedent, and will happen again.)