New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

No Fukushima Radiation in Tests off U.S. West Coast

Tests of water off the U.S. West Coast have found no signs of radiation from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, although low levels of radiation are ultimately expected to reach the U.S. shore, scientists said on Tuesday. Results obtained this week in tests of water gathered by an Oregon conservation group and tested by East Coast scientists came in as expected with no Fukushima-linked radiation, and five more tests are planned at six-month intervals to see if radiation levels will climb.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Courtney Sherwood

PORTLAND Ore. (Reuters) - Tests of water off the U.S. West Coast have found no signs of radiation from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, although low levels of radiation are ultimately expected to reach the U.S. shore, scientists said on Tuesday.

Results obtained this week in tests of water gathered by an Oregon conservation group and tested by East Coast scientists came in as expected with no Fukushima-linked radiation, and five more tests are planned at six-month intervals to see if radiation levels will climb.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"We've seen radiation halfway across the Pacific, north of Hawaii, but in U.S. waters there has been none, yet," Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution senior scientist Ken Buesseler said.

Tests of some fish species, which can race across the ocean more quickly than slow-moving currents, have shown higher levels of radiation, although radiation levels in sea life off the U.S. shore are still safe, Buesseler said.

York Johnson, water quality coordinator with Oregon conservation group Tillamook Estuaries Partnership, which collected the water samples, said scientific models of ocean currents suggest that cesium 134 isotopes from Fukushima could reach Oregon's shores later this year in low levels.

His organization is one of dozens that are essentially crowd-funding the study of ocean radiation after the federal government opted not to track the spread of cesium 134 from Fukushima toward the United States.

"We wanted to be able to talk to the community about what we are seeing – and to have evidence," Johnson said, adding that the coast should still be safe for recreation even if radiation levels climb over the next several years as expected.

Tests off the coast of Japan shortly after the 2011 earthquake and nuclear plant disaster measured radiation at 50 million becquerel per cubic meter, Buesseler said. A "becquerel" is a unit of radioactivity.

"When it is at 50 million, you have direct effects on mortality, reproductive effects. That is a seriously high number," Buesseler said. "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allows us to drink water up to about 7,400."

He predicts that water off the Oregon shore will peak at around 10 to 20 becquerel per cubic meter of water as ocean currents carry radiation from Japan in the years ahead.

 

(Editing By Cynthia Johnston and Sandra Maler)

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe