Graduate student Danielle Burnett, who traces heavy metals in kelp, collected the macrocystis off Orange County for the radiation tests. Colleagues also sent Manley samples from Santa Barbara, Pacific Grove and Santa Cruz.
“We demonstrated the usefulness of using giant kelp as monitors for radioactive isotopes from nuclear accidents,” Manley said.
Manley’s idea is to get an organized group of people to grab kelp blades a few times a year to gather background values. Then if a radioactive event occurs, they would take samples daily and chart what happens and which coastlines are affected.
“One of the beauties of this is you don’t need real fancy equipment,” he said. “It’s very simple to sample kelp blades and dry them in the oven and grind them up and put them in a tube and count [the isotopes.]”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. declined to comment on the report or whether they will consider monitoring kelp. The EPA measured air and milk on the West Coast after Fukushima and concluded that “radiation levels remained well below any level of public health concern.”
Fisher cautioned that people get bigger doses from living in high altitudes, flying on airplanes and having x-rays.
“It’s appropriate to be concerned about it and test for it and monitor -- and that’s what we’re doing,” he said. “But irrational fear doesn’t make sense. The main point is that there is a natural radiation background that marine organisms always have been exposed to.”
The kelp study can be found at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es203598r
This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
42 Comments
Add CommentThanks for pointing out all the naturally occurring radioactive material in the ocean. Too bad you didn't put it on page 1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the effects on fish: do they live long enough to get thyroid cancer? Would anyone notice if they did?
If there was that much Iodine-131, one might guess that there were other radioisotopes as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid they only sample for Iodine? If so, why?
People who read Scientific American are not innumerate. They know a becquerel from a Sievert. Some of us don't like either. Though the former be small and the latter be large, they are both measures of a deadly thing; radiation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe rely on scientific instruments to measure this deadly thing and we argue whether the presence of radiation in our environment is a worthwhile risk. Weighing in on this argument requires knowledge, experience, and careful attention to detail.
Pro-Nuke charges like "scare mongering" etc. hold as much water as Fukushima Unit 2 is holding, not enough to have a positive effect.
Please do continue to report your studies and measurements and receive my whole-hearted support while you brave the assaults of the violent and ignorant (from both sides) opposition which trolls in the comments sections of your articles.
If you read the article properly, you would have noticed, quote, "The scientists only measured iodine 131, although other isotopes were in the plume from Japan that also accumulate in kelp. One of them, Cesium 137, has a 30-year half-life."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, so. Why is most everyone is ignoring the chemical, heavy metal and asbestos carcinogens that last FOREVER!?! You ever hear of a Hollywood personality killed by radiation? Nope, because there isn't any. But the actor Steve McQueen died of an asbestos related cancer, caused by handling asbestos pipe insulation when he was in the Navy. Thousands of tons of asbestos fibers, impervious to giant Oil & Gas infernos, were released by the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. Every person in Japan is breathing those microscopic fibers as we speak, the fibers that lodge in the air sacs of their lungs, causing scar tissue to form. In turn, untreatable cancers can develop later in life. The Japanese gov't has admitted they have been remiss in monitoring Asbestos released, instead their focus has been - BY ALL SCIENTIFIC MEASURE - the much less significant 11 kg of radioisotope releases from the Fukushima Daiichi scewup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJMatthews
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou cut the quote from the article about caesium 137 off so as to exclude the continuation..
"....Fisher said the levels they found in the fish 30 kilometers off Japan "are not a problem…"
Wonder why.
Nice rant dwbd! There's always someone like you spraying their mental illness all over the internet. Get on some meds or something, or at least go work out and lower your blood pressure. You are dead wrong about the "11kg of radioisotopes" assertion. DEAD WRONG!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou must admit, you have no idea how much Plutonium 239, how much Uranium 235, how much Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 was released. Let alone the noble gas emissions. This was a HORRIBLE release, so bad, we don't know what the long term consequences will be. Nor do we have reliable data on how much is being released into the environment even now. The endoscopy data published recently show that only 60 cm of water is present in Unit 2. 70+ Sieverts measured in the containment OUTSIDE the reactor show its a full meltdown. Your statement "there is more radiation in many natural environments than exists right INSIDE the Fukushima Daiichi site." is so uninformed I only refer to it so the people who are monitoring your outbursts don't miss it. Nowhere in the natural world on earths surface does mult-Sievert radiation occur. Except in your uninformed head.
Why don't you just admit it is you who is scared and fed up with subjects that frighten you. Take some deep breaths, stay in the moment, and reflect on the data presented and RESPOND to them as opposed to REACT to them.
The article presented failed to mention Cesium yes? Comment on whether you think that Cesium 137 in ANY dose is beneficial in some way before you give me advice like "Why don't you take the trouble to learn a bit about radiation before you make stupid comments:". I only hope you are being paid by the nuker community to spew what you spew, because if you are doing it for free your disordered mind is Axis 1.
well, just go ahead & eat the fish then....barf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell, just go ahead & eat the fish then....barf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisahh, the internet comments section. Bastion of the coolheaded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of freaking out, I'd like to point out a small inaccuracy. 250 FOLD is different than 250 TIMES. This is not an interchangeable expression. 250 x 1= 250. 2^250-1=1.80925139 × 10 power of 75.
When you fold something it doubles. When you fold it again...well, you get the idea.
Please fix-this is a math thing, not a language thing.
Not a problem nancy. I would. But then I worked in a Uranium mine open cut & later in an enrichment plant making uranium yellow cake back in the sixties. We did not even wear respirators. I have outlived most of my contemporaries who have never been near a nuclear facility. Take a walk on a mineral sands beach or through a granite formation & you will get a higher dose than those fish contained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt sad to see an organization that is dedicated to science, as Scientific American is, being smeared by corporate trolls that have little to no formal education. The fact is that radiation is not your ordinary chemical pollutant and even infinitesimal amounts of certain isotopes can can cause long term illness and even death to large numbers of people and other inhabitants of this planet. That is the subject of this article, not the entire world's collection of toxic substances. That is another story that has in fact been the subject of thousands of other articles that SA has published in the past. Is this what new age discussion of science has been reduced to has a result of anonymous postings with no editorial control? If the person using this forum as a place to argue irrelevant matters ( most likely just to read is own wit, or lack thereof) actually had a real education in science, they would have known that SA is all about specifics not generalizations. There is plenty of unqualified generalizations on political sites to comment on if that is your game.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe relevance of the radiation found in kelp on the west coast is indicative of much a much larger problem that the nuclear industry has unleashed on Japan and now apparently the entire pacific ocean. As a resident of Hawaii, I would certainly like to hear more about the subject by qualified researchers and a whole lot less from armchair crackpots who fancy themselves as intellectuals.
@Carlyle Yellow cake and natural uranium deposits are not in the same category as refined nuclear fuel when it comes to toxicity. Your observation is noted, but I fail to see how this is at all relevant to the radiation released in Japan by the melt down of several entire reactors that were fueled with highly refined radioactive material which then leaked into the air and water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissinging flea :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour pompous pseudo high-mindedness really backfires, because the people who are very poor at supplying substance to their allegations are precisely the anti-nukers.
If you are genuine in your wish to hear from real experts, and not just indulging in point-scoring try this :
http://www.radiationandreason.com/
by a professor who is a nuclear and medical physicist at the University of Oxford.
There are sites which are moderated and where all allegations have to be backed-up. Funnily enough they tend to be pro-nuclear, like
bravenewclimate.
If you don't want to leave a lasting impression as a hypocrite and scare-monger, you could make a start by explaining the relevance of your allegation
"even infinitesimal amounts of certain isotopes can can cause long term illness and even death to large numbers of people and other inhabitants of this planet", and start researching on how many people in the world have actually been damaged by radiation, and under what circumstances.
You could also take a course in logic, if you're not capable of working out for yourself that it's the quality of the substantive arguments that counts, and not the imputed motives ("corporate trolls"), which lazy or incapable minds use to avoid having to analyse things they can't understand.
Yes, yes, those industry sites are really unbiased. Just about as unbiased as the Japanese (or US) nuclear regulators.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLots of FUD around. Truthfully the worst fears on one side and the highly optimistic views on the other side are equally dubious. The notion that the contamination from FD is negligible is pretty laughable. OTOH it is rather unlikely that vast numbers of people will be badly affected by radiation either.
However, there are some things people need to realize. There is a HUGE difference between environmental exposure to ionizing radiation and exposure to bioaccumulated radionuclides. Ionizing radiation such as the 'background' radiation we all experience is general whole-body exposure. When you accumulate or are contaminated with radionuclides your body, in whatever place the nuclides accumulate in receives much higher specific doses. The type of radiation is also different. Alpha is much more damaging than the beta and gamma/x from background. You simply cannot compare the two things 1:1.
To all the people out there freaking out over "Any Radiation is bad for us"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep in mind these simple facts.
You have been exposed to 350 Mrem per year of radiation every day of your life, all of Earth is bathed in radiation constantly, and has been for the last 4.5 billion years. We have evolved with it.
In real terms, you get hit with 15,000 discrete points of radiation every second, of every day, of your life. There is no avoiding it.
So to think radiation only comes from Nuke plants and X-Ray machines is stupid beyond the point of moronic.
You live in an ocean of radiation, the few extra drops from Fukushima aren't going to do a dam thing to you. There is way more in life to spend your energy on, this is non-sense to worry about. You make Chicken Little look like a wise prophet.
"...Nice rant dwbd!..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might want to learn what a rant is before you accuse people of doing what you are actually doing. Whereas I answered your erroneous statements point by point, you just launch a rant full of ad hominems, no citations, and a lot of Greenpeace propaganda.
"...You are dead wrong about the "11kg of radioisotopes" assertion..."
No I ain't. Although there is some variation in numbers from the NISA & NSC, the bulk of radionuclides in mass are Cs-137 in amounts of about 10 kg:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#Air_releases
"...ou have no idea how much Plutonium 239, how much Uranium 235, how much Cesium 137 and Strontium 90 was released. Let alone the noble gas emissions..."
Nonsense. They can easily sample for trace amounts of U-235, & Pu-239/241 etc and they have. The isotopic mix is close to natural levels indicating virtually all the Uranium and Plutonium (trivial amounts) is from Natural sources or Atomic Weapons testing in the 60's. Max 50 gms of Plutonium isotopes released, and that much is disputed.
Noble gas emissions quickly dissipate into the atmosphere and are minor. How about all the Noble Gas emissions right into peoples homes from your Natural Gas? You could care less about that.
"...there is more radiation in many natural environments than exists right INSIDE the Fukushima Daiichi sit...is so uninformed I..."
Nope. You're wrong again. See:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/f1/
As you see all sample points inside the Daiichi site, except right at the Reactor buildings are below 70 uSv/hr, and all but a couple sites are below 30 uSv/hr which is 260 mSv/hr which is found at natural locations in Brazil, France & Iran. Anything below 3 mSv/day is going to be harmless, so all but the sample points right next to the Reactor building are quite harmless for PERMANENT human habitation. And those levels are dropping.
"...Nowhere in the natural world on earths surface does mult-Sievert radiation..."
Nobody said anything about multi-Sievert Radiation existing, so you are making Straw Man arguments. I showed you the radiation map, you are just making crap up.
"...Why don't you just admit it is you who is scared and fed up with subjects that frighten you..."
Scared?!? What a stupid and moronic statement. No I AIN'T scared. It is you who are either paranoid about radiation OR you just are advancing your Big Oil disinformation FUD campaign.
"...Alpha is much more damaging than the beta and gamma/x from background. You simply cannot compare the two things 1:1..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell,duh. That's why they have the units of Rem or Sieverts which takes into account the Biological Activity of absorbed dose be it gamma, alpha, beta or neutrons.
"...HUGE difference between environmental exposure to ionizing radiation and exposure to bioaccumulated radionuclides..."
Yep, all that bio-accumulated radioisotopes like K-40 we consume. That is taken into account by the absorbed dose equivalent - by inhalation or ingestion. Always curious how you anti-Nuke Greenie types are so eager to fearmonger about asborbed dose of trivial amounts of radionuclides (but only from Nuclear Energy - emissions from Coal, NG and Shale Gas doesn't count with you) but you completely ignore and don't want to mention anything about absorbed dose of heavy metals, mercury, lead, zinc, arsenic all released in thousands of Oil & Gas fires. Or all the asbestos released into the environment - that don't count. Or all the dioxins, PCB's, PAH's, furans and other carcinogens all released by the tsunami & earthquake. No problem there.
Quite a rant you launched there singing flea man. No citations, no science, no logic or argument but lots of Ad Hominems. Anyone who is pro-Nuclear is automatically a corporate troll, but all greenie anti-nuclear types are "qualified researchers". Talk about an anonymous troll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, you greenies refuse to compare Nuclear emissions to Fossil fuel emissions, it is amazing the lengths you will go to avoiding that OBVIOUSLY CRITICAL argument. Total lack of scientific objectivity on your part.
"..SA is all about specifics not generalizations. There is plenty of unqualified generalizations on political sites.."
I would say that is a good summary of your political rant.
You're my Hero. Why the heck can't the media talk to you to gain perspective on this subject rather than rely on BS they either make up or get from ignorant fear spewing anti-nuke types?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho said anything about being anti-nuke? You know-it-alls are always putting people in categories without any knowledge at all about those people. To you, anyone who calls your bluff is a 'greenie ant-nuke liberal freak'. Do you know what that makes you? It makes you an uninformed and uneducated blow-hard with a right slanted agenda. That is hardly what I would call a scientist. Science is all about open minded objective observation. As soon as you label someone as a 'liberal greenie', you lose all objectivity along with your ability to reason without logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The article is designed to scare the shit out of the poor ignoranti of the population."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the kind of statement that is truly pompous if ever there was one in this thread.
The article was in fact making the point that there was no real threat to humans on the west coast. The problem is that the radical righties that call me pompous never read the article, but rather troll along because of the headline and the fact that real scientists did the research, not their paid propagandists.
Seriously! It's not the radioactive releases of nuclear plants that matter, it's the COST of making meltdowns a remote possibility for 40 - 80 years that makes nuclear power impractical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power is coming in at around $7 per W in market economies (lowball Chinese "prices" for reactors ignore cutting corners on safety and design, horrible working conditions, horrible pay, government subsidies, currency manipulation and downright lying). This $7 / W is artificially low because the NRC is too friendly with industry and repeatedly lowers safety standards just to get nuclear plants to pass inspections. Nuclear costs are also artificially low because the Federal Government picks up the tab for the nuclear industry's liability insurance. In fact, insuring against a Chernobyl or Fukushima-style event is impossible on the private market, so the feds step in because nuclear power is supposedly "in the national interest".
That $7 / W is the price of the Vogtle plant under construction in Georgia. A similar set of reactors is being built in South Carolina (VC Summer) for $5 / W, but this cost ignores necessary transmission upgrades and the fact that the power company will get to bill its customers $1.4 BILLION to help finance the plant before it cranks out even 1 electron. If the plant construction fails, and the nuclear industry has dozens of failed reactor projects in its resume`, the ratepayers are out of luck and, just like the last time the nuclear industry imploded, might even be on the hook for all the worthless bonds the power company took out to finance reactor construction.
By the way, solar panels are below $1 per W, generate RETAIL electricity at the point of load, ease grid congestion during the day (practically the ONLY time it happens) and when they experience critical failures, they don't spew radioactive isotopes over the globe or make state-sized chunks of land uninhabitable!
Oh, and you can't make nuclear weapons with renewable energy technology either, unlike the way that India, Pakistan and now Iran are using their civilian power programs as a cover for their weapons program.
dwbd, you decrease the value of the internet with this information warfare campaign of yours. I'll give you some sources of information. First:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://enenews.com/ap-amount-radiation-released-fukushima-unknown-recent-studies-suggest-japan-continues-significantly-underestimate-scale-disaster
PERMANENT human habitation?
Even Tepco disagrees with you.
I suggest you move to fukushima prefecture, that way your genes have a far lower chance of replicating. You could win a darwin award!!! :D
Did you read the endoscopy data released the other day? All of the containments are leaking, all of them. They have been leaking for over a year. The cumulative release is HUGE!!! WAY WAY WAY OVER your 11kg drunken monkey number. Try not to give advice on syllogistic logic unless publicly shaming yourself is a form of performance art you like to engage in. Ad hominem? You are one big example of it.
"nobody ever said anything about multi-sievert readings"
Tepco has:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/still-critical-radiation-levels-at-fukushima-can-kill-in-minutes-7595018.html
Your alluding to the dangers of other, hydrocarbon based contaminants is classic straw man. You are ignoring the challenge you've been issued. Substituting a similar but non-equivalent construct with objects not germaine to the discussion. Your last paragraph is a straw man holding an academy award being applauded by greenpeace. If this is your best game, the nuker community is in trouble.
The article has evoked some strong comments in support support and opposition of the importance of the potential health consequences. Well and fair, we really don't know yet. [And living in Southern California about 10 miles off the coast, I particularly don't feel great even about a question mark.] But one thing no one could challenge was the statement that this was: "... a sign that the spilled radiation reached the state’s urban coastline, ...]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts truly a small world after all -- and we are all deeply interconnected as individuals, communities, and nations, by ties of politics, economics, ecology/climate/disease, vast and super-rapid communication of events and culture, and who knows how many other dimensions that are coming out of the woodwork as the coupling tightens to non-linearity -- secondary, even tertiary and cross-coupling components, arising to significance.
It is becoming a very complicated global environment, and seems beyond the individual human ken to accurately model, much less control.
From bacteria to flocks of birds, fantastic accomplishments have been made by other species by adding to their own rapid and intricate mutual communication and understanding, with -- in an unconscious sense -- mutual responsibility, altruism, a natural unity. This brought about amazing capabilities in sensing environment, and lightning fast utilization of this knowledge by a corporate intelligence.
One cannot help but have the feeling that we, using our very advanced human consciousness, need to bring ourselves to the human equivalent of such corporate entities on a global scale to survive and thrive moving further into the century. We seem to have all the makings -- the only thing missing is the will to mutual concern, mutual responsibility.
"..Who said anything about being anti-nuke.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPretty obvious from your comments. And perchance in some bizarre way you actually support Nuclear Energy - perhaps Thorium - it is not helpful your willingness to jump on Big Oil's disinformation campaign on the Fukushima incident. Show us where you have commented on the many thousands who were killed needlessly by the tsunami due to the terrible preparation of the Tsunami prep authority. Show us where you have commented on all asbestos, diesel, gasoline, PCBs, dioxins, PCDDs, PCDFs released by the earthquake, tsunami and Oil&Gas fires. Show us how you are balanced & fair in your position.
"..greenie ant-nuke liberal freak.."
I never said that you were a liberal or a freak. So does your Mr. Science self-delusion include just making stuff up? And actually I AM liberal. But when you talk like a greenie, walk like greenie and act like a greenie it is likely that you are a greenie.
"..Science is all about open minded objective observation.."
That may be, but unfortunately Energy like so many issues in our society, i.e Healthcare, Prisons, Drug War, are dominated by politics, corruption, lobby's, lobbyists and payola - the corporatocracy or oiligarchy at work. The science is pretty obvious - a rapid, WWII style expansion of Nuclear Energy is needed. #1 Environmentalist in the World James Lovelock knows that, as does #1 Climatologist in the World Jim Hansen and very prominent Environmentalist George Monbiot.
"..problem is that the radical righties that call me pompous.."
Ok to call anyone who criticizes your irrational statements a "radical rightie" though. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
You have one mickey-mouse link from a rabidly anti-nuclear site quoting some unknown Norwegian Radiation authority claiming higher emissions - but not much higher than the most reputable authorities are reporting, namely NISA & the NSC:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"..later reporting on 12 April estimated total caesium releases at 6,100 TBq to 12,000 TBq, respectively by NISA and NSC — about 2–4 kg.[63]..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Caesium-137
Once again you ignore all factual information and instead resort to Ad Hominems.
As I showed you from the Daiichi Site Radiation map most areas are below the radiation level that exists at several natural sites in Iran, Brazil and France, where people have lived for centuries without any evidence of radiation induced illness. Another map to show how wrong you are:
http://www.simplyinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Feb2012MonitorCarResults.jpg
So even back in Feb, most areas on the Daiichi site are below the safe level of 100 uSv/hr. And that will drop with weathering, even pressure washing will reduce the level by 70%. So this is right inside the Daiichi site levels outside the site in Fukushima district are CERTAINLY at safe levels, and dosage will be lower with people living inside buildings.
http://japan.failedrobot.com/#
AS you see radiation levels are very low by REAL PROVEN Radiation Safety Science.
"..The cumulative release is HUGE!!! WAY WAY WAY OVER your 11kg drunken monkey number.."
Another idiotic statement. You calling the NISA & NSC "drunken monkeys", why don't you just call Greenpeace up again and get your data and they will also tell you how they know that the Greenland Ice Sheet will be gone by 2030.
"..All of the containments are leaking.."
Yeah, so where is all this radiation - not showing up on any of the radiation surveys of the region. You are being ridiculous.
"..nobody ever said anything about multi-sievert readings" Tepco has.."
Another stupid and desperate effort to change the argument to your suiting. I specifically stated radiation readings on the Daiichi site OUTSIDE of the immediate area around the Reactor buildings. Undoubtedly the readings inside the buildings are > 1 Sv/hr - after all there is still the corium in there. But even right in the vicinity of the buildings I see only one spot of >1 Sv/hr, as of Feb 8. As-a-matter-of-fact almost everywhere is below 1 mSv/hr - so where is all this "HUGE WAY WAY OVER" leakage of yours:
www.simplyinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Feb2012map1.jpg
"..Your alluding to the dangers of other, hydrocarbon based contaminants is classic straw man.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNO it ain't. You anti-nukes are consistently DESPERATE to evade having to compare Nuclear Energy hazards to those of Fossil Fuel. The Fossil Fuel Interests love to fund your anti-nuclear ENGOs and pay the press to avoid articles on Fossil Fuel disasters and focus on Nuclear Incidents. Any danger or accidents from Nuclear Energy MUST be compared to the substitute Energy sources. Anything else is disingenuous.
Notice not one article on SCIAM or on CNN on the giant mega-disaster in Indonesia where NG drilling caused a Mud Volcano that releases 6 million cubic feet of mud per day, causing the evacuation of 13,000 families already & a dozen deaths, homes buried forever, and is expected to continue for another 80 yrs. Compared to which the Fukushima Nuclear Incident looks like a bad rainy day.
"..You are ignoring the challenge you've been issued.."
Another stupid comment. No I didn't ignore it. While you ignored and refuse to discuss the FAR WORSE, FAR MORE DANGEROUS pollution of Asbestos, Benzene, PCBs, Heavy Metals, Dioxins etc from Fossil Fuel fires and spills I did destroy your arguments claiming a "HUGE" level of risk from Radiation releases. You also show a typical Greenie apathy to the 19,000 people who died as a result of the Tsunami and Earthquake. Whereas ANY HUMANITARIAN, anyone with a common level of Human Compassion would focus on the MAJOR DISASTER, namely the terrible loss of human life and the total failure of the Japanese Gov't to prepare adequately for a Tsunami - many thousands died needlessly. And for any American or Canadian who are JUST AS LIKELY to face a similar event on the West Coast - you would think the focus would be on how do we avoid making the TERRIBLE mistakes that the Japanese Gov't made in Tsunami safe zones and the non-existence of Tsunami Safe Buildings/Evacuation centers which are EASY to build. And Tsunami Warning systems that don't rely on Grid Power & Tsunami preparation drills. Instead you Greenies along with the Mainstream Media jump on Big Oil's ignore-the-loss-of-human-life ghoulish propaganda campaign.
A little education for you on the comparison between Nuclear Incidents and REAL Fossil Fuel DEATH & DESTRUCTION:
nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/how-many-lives-does-coal-and-oil-have.html
Deaths per TWh of energy:
Coal: 161
Oil: 36
Biomass: 12
NG: 4
Hydro: 1.4
Wind: 0.15
Nuclear: 0.04
nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html
@ dwbd...This article is not about other forms of pollution or mega-mud volcanoes. It is about radiation detected in kelp on the west coast. That is what the article is about. Let me repeat this for dead beat trolls who insist it is not. It is about detecting radiation in kelp on the west coast. What part don't you get?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you insist on going off topic as if anybody really cares, you should at least mention the biggest pollution problem on the planet, the mountain of spent nuclear fuel waste that absolutely no-one, including yourself has even a clue how to dispose of safely for the next 30,000 years or more.
For the record I am not ant-nuke as you insist, I am a realist and understand that it is not yet technically feasible until a solution to the waste problem is first proven to work.
Meanwhile, because there is no solution, I have to educate myself about the hazard that this untreatable waste leaking out of reactors thousands of miles away will have on my back yard.
For the record, I live less then 12 miles away from the one of most polluted beaches in America, Ka'aalu'alu Bay near South Point on the Big Island of Hawaii. Why is it polluted? It is a result of millions of tons of plastic that is driven by wind and currents across the Pacific and blown onto the beach here as the huge mountains Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa deflect ti wind ans current south on the eastern side of the island chain. It has nothing to do with locals dumping their trash on the beach as you no doubt will accuse us of next. In fact it is one of the most remote beaches in the entire chain with only a handful of visitors on any given week.
For those of you that have been paying attention, mega-tons more of floating crap is headed our way to be dumped on our beaches this spring. How much of it will be radioactive only time will tell, but to ignore the possibility or down play the possible threat is just plain foolish. Just Google Hawaii's Plastic Beaches if you really want to understand the implications of pollution drifting thousands of miles of the once pristine Pacific Ocean...and this all in just the life span of just one dying sea turtle.
The radiation risk of Fukushima is low. Of the 8,300 plant and emergency workers, only 6 got the highest radiation dosage of 250 mSv. People living in the beaches of Brazil get a higher natural radiation of 700 mSv every year. People undergoing chemotherapy get as much as 80,000 mSv. It's not fatal but they lose their hair.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrangelove... You need to do a lot more research on the subject. The average background radiation for most of us is around 6 to 7 mSv annually. The beaches in Brazil do emit higher concentrations of background radiation but no one spends 24 hours a day and 365 days a year buried in the black sand there which is what you would have to do to get even close to 700 mSv a year. The fact is that Ramsar in Iran has the highest measurable background radiation near it's hot springs and people living there receive about 132 mSv a year. Studies show that the local inhabitants have developed some immunity to the radiation, however this is not true for people not as tolerant as was demonstrated after Chernobyl when an estimated 30,000 people above the national average, received enough of a dose in a relatively short amount of time to get some form of cancer. The average nuclear worker normally is exposed to no more then about 20 mSv a year. What they did in Japan was to raise the limit of the workers to 250 mSv total and many of those workers got that dose in the first day or two. At times the radiation was leaking at the rate of 400 mSv an hour! A dose of just 100 mSv a year causes measurable changes to red blood cells. A dose of higher then 500 mSv a year is considered to be a very toxic dose and just 1000 mSv can cause nausea and damage to white blood cells that can last for years. About half of the people that received over 5000 mSv after the nuclear bombing in Japan died within a few months.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again singing-flea refuses to properly compare Nuclear Energy & Radiation Risk to Fossil Fuel Energy & Pollution Risk. Ever hear of Opportunity Cost? Comparative Risk Analysis? So it is obvious to ANY rational person that any amount of Radiation from the Fukushima incident MUST BE compared to the other Pollutants released by Fossil Fuels, chemical industry etc. That is how you put damage in context. Something singing-flea does not understand - but is desperate to avoid comparison with his Fossil Fuel Industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"..biggest pollution problem on the planet, the mountain of spent nuclear fuel waste that absolutely no-one, including yourself has even a clue how to dispose of safely for the next 30,000 years.."
That has got to be one of the stupidest comments ever posted at SCIAM. I told you that Nuclear Fuel waste is an easy problem, Finland & Sweden have there own repository being built, India is planning on burning their Spent fuel, the Presidential Commission concluded it is no problem, and Deep Seabed is a proven safe, permanent solution. And I showed Flea just one chemical site in Canada that is 5X larger than ALL the Spent Fuel in Canada and requires PERMANENT, FOREVER maintenance - and Flea just completely ignores the fact. So in fact the Spent Fuel can be burnt in GenIV reactors, or CANDU's or reprocessed - and Flea claims there are "no solutions" when I have just mentioned a half-dozen solutions. But flea won't comment about the million times greater Fossil Fuel waste dumps.
An example of Spent Fuel disposal that will generate $10's of trillions in clean energy:
atomicinsights.com/2011/11/tedx-new-england-nuclear-entrepreneurs-aiming-to-use-waste-for-fuel.html
A good look at flea's Fossil Fuel Waste dumps:
nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/how-many-lives-does-coal-and-oil-have.html
"..Studies show that the local inhabitants have developed some immunity to the radiation.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShow us a citation on that. You won't because you just made that up - admit it.
"..A dose of higher then 500 mSv a year is considered to be a very toxic dose and just 1000 mSv.."
You like to confuse acute doses like over 1 SV in one day with background doses spread out over a year. And there was ZERO deaths from 140 Chernobyl personnel who recieved 0 to 2000 mSv acute dosage. and ONE death from 2000 to 4000 mSv out of 55 individuals, acute dosage.
You might want to learn the facts about radiation:
www.physics.ox.ac.uk/nuclearsafety/webpptMay07.pdf
"...General conclusions (within factors of 2):
-Radiation is like other hazards –life has defences
-Low-dose repair time is on the scale of a day or so
-Doses below threshold (100mSv) cause no damage.
-Above threshold, permanent damage (scar tissue) results. Such scar tissue may remain benign, or later become malignant, like other scars
-A single dose of 100mSv or a dose rate of 100mSv in any
week should be allowed (5000mSv/yr).
Note: in radiotherapy healthy tissue receives up to 1500mSv/day repeatedly, with generation of scar tissue..."
So one of World's foremost experts on Radiation is concluding, based on the scientific evidence that 5000 mSv/yr is a safe dose, certainly it is LUDICROUS to limit dosage to less than 1 mSv/day or 500 mSv/yr.
Does radiation really cause cancer? Conversation among professionals:
atomicinsights.com/2012/01/does-radiation-really-cause-cancer-conversation-among-professionals.html
These are REAL Radiation Specialists talking:
"...radiation's principal effect is on the defenses. Low radiation doses/levels stimulate all the defenses reducing the incidence of cancer. High doses/levels have the opposite effect.
While radiation alters DNA, this effect is usually small compared to the spontaneous rate of DNA alterations. Let s consider whether there is a small chance that a cancer may develop due to DNA altered by a near-lethal dose of radiation.
Wade Allison points out that radiation treatments of tumors and post-surgical follow-up radiation treatments irradiate large amounts of healthy tissue (organs too) at 200 rad [2000 mSV] each day for 4 weeks. That amounts to 200 x 5 x 4 = 4000 [40 SV] rad in a month. There are many cells in this healthy tissue (10^9 per gram), and Allison says that these tissues recover. These irradiated areas do not become cancer ridden..."
It's you who needs to read more and do a little more logical thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFishermen and resort owners live in beaches. Haven't you been to a beach? Gamma rays from natural radiation can penetrate concrete and radiation suit. Fishermen and resort owners don't usually wear radiation suit and carry lead shield, which provides only partial protection from gamma rays. If natural radiation level higher than in Fukusihima is dangerous, these people would already be dead or afflicted with cancer.
As for Chernobly, the 1998 World Health Organization (WHO) study claimed 212 deaths over 12 years from the 72,000 workers who cleaned up Chernobyl and exposed themselves to high radiation. This death toll figure was endorsed by the environmental activist group Greenpeace. This translates to 0.025% mortality rate for this high-risk population.
Note that the average mortality rate in the US is 0.84% according the CIA Factbook (2012). The average American is more likely to die than the Chernobyl clean-up workers.
According to the National Cancer Registry of Ukraine, from 1989 to 2006 the highest incidence of thyroid cancer in the country was 0.001% for males and 0.005% for females.
Now compare that to the thyroid cancer incidence in the US according to the World Health Organization (WHO) 0.005% for males and 0.015% for females. The average American male and female are 5 times and 3 times more likely to develop thyroid cancer than Ukrainians who live near Chernobyl.
A person exposed to a single dose of 1,000 mSv or higher would show symptoms of radiation sickness. None of the Fukushima workers got 1,000 mSv. Six got 250 mSv, the rest had lower dosages.
BTW the mortality rate of the 100,000 Hiroshima bombing survivors was 0.5%. That's lower than the average mortality rate in the US (0.84%). The average American is more likely to die than Hiroshima survivors.
Good comment. Well said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDWDB and Strangelove, didn't anyone tell that the Hartland Institute is not a peer reviewed publication. They still insist tobacco is harmless product and Joe Camel is mascot for freedom, not a peddler of poison to our kids. You can believe anything you want, but belief is like religion, it has nothing to do with facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...Hartland Institute..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this??? Never heard of them. Are you stoned?
"Are you stoned".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that your only retort. Typical response of a right wing nut case.
My source of data is not Heartland Institute. My references are the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). If you don't believe me, check out the data yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a teen, which deserves more concern: exposure to radiation or...Cars? Statistically, cars are the leading cause of teen deaths in the U.S. Are we making plans to get rid of cars? Hell no.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot being a scientist myself, and only having a high school level science education, I can't act as a figure of authority when it comes such discussions, but from what I've observed over the years, there seems to be a new catastrophe every few years that dominates public consciousness and causes a tremendous amount of controversy, debate, and, worst of all, stress (but more on that later). Some of you may have a problem with me comparing Y2K, 2012, and the controversy surrounding the Large Hadron Collider to this, but hear me out: there will always be misinformation out there that looks like science, sounds like science, but it sure as hell ain't science. In fact, the best most of the proponents of these phenomena were able to do was bring up ideas loosely based on real science, yet still not crossing the thick line between pseudo-science and science.
An example of this was the scare regarding "micro-black holes" potentially being created by the collisions in the LHC. To their credit, if I'm not mistaken, such things were in fact created, but as Stephen Hawking asserted beforehand would be the case, nothing happened. The problem was that these armchair "physicist" heard "black hole" and freaked out, because they did not truly understand the nature of these "bringers-of-the-end-times." It turned out, if I'm remembering what I read several years ago correctly, that the micro-black holes simply did not have enough mass to sustain themselves.
I think this current issue is similar: a lot of misinformation being eaten up by those who don't understand, or who have a very vague grasp of nuclear physics. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe in 25 years we will be seeing the effects of this catastrophe, but will we not also be seeing the effects of the increase in obesity, alcohol and drug abuse, fast-food conglomerates gaining more influence and further decreasing the general quality of nutrition, video and computer games keeping people from exercising, etc.
For what it's worth, Michio Kaku, a parent of string theory, and a leading physicist in the U.S. and around the world admitted that the problem is a lot worse than initially thought, but stated that despite the fact that radiation is being leaked into the environment,it is primarily radioactive iodine, which has a half life of 8 days, and the concentration decreases greatly as it gets further from the source. He went on to say that there was a spike of iodine in New York's milk, but it was still in very small amounts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStephen Hawking is an armchair physicist. He's a wheelchair physicist :-D
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichio Kaku is more concerned with gamma ray burst from outer space than radioactive iodine from Fukushima. You will probably get more harmful radiation from sunbathing in the beach. That UV rays can damage your cells and cause skin cancer.
Yes, smoking and fast food are greater threats to health than nuclear radiation. Just look at the statistics. Tobacco causes respiratory ailments including lung cancer. Fast food causes obesity which leads to heart diseases. These are the top two causes of death in the US - heart diseases and lung cancer. No death in the US due to nuclear accident in 50 years.
BTW you are more likely to get struck by lightning than die of nuclear radiation.