General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScientists in mad scramble to establish ocean WQ monitoring
Since radioactive water from Fukushima is about to begin washing up on the coast from Baja to Alaska, and the US government is looking the other way, independent scientists are establishing their own private data base.
Desperately seeking donations to fund their cause, they have gone so far as to ask the general public for money.
Time is of the essence. A baseline database must first be put together so that as the plume washes ashore the rising levels of Cesium can be determined.
Already, in their review of established data, some Fukushima pollution has been found off southern California.
You can read all about it at:
OurRadioactiveOcean.org
That is: Our Radioactive Ocean
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ananda
(28,858 posts)I'm also saving money with the Medicare Advantage plan I have.
I pay a total of $180/mo. and my out of pocket costs are much
less than they were before.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Oh, and look what they have to say....
Robert Robert Robert LOL
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989
What is the state of fisheries off Japan and along U.S. West Coast?
The coastal fisheries remain closed in Japan near Fukushima, where there is a concern for some species, especially the bottom dwelling ones, which are being tested and many have been found to be above the Japanese government's strict limits for cesium in seafood. These contaminated fish are not being sold internally in Japan or exported. Because of the dilution that occurs even a short distance from Fukushima, we do not have a concern about the levels of cesium and other radionuclides in fish off the West Coast of the U.S.
Are fish such as tuna that might have been exposed to radiation from Fukushima safe to eat?
Seawater everywhere contains many naturally occurring radionuclides, the most common being polonium-210. As a result, fish caught in the Pacific and elsewhere already have measurable quantities of these substances. Most fish do not migrate far from home, which is why fisheries off Fukushima remain closed. But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, can swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan. However, cesium is a salt taken up by the flesh that will begin to flush out of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters less affected by Fukushima. By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima. Moreover, the dose from Fukushima cesium is considered insignificant relative to the dose from naturally occurring polonium-210, which was 1000 times higher in fish samples studied, and both of these are much lower relative to other, more common sources, such as dental x-rays.
Will radiation be of concern along U.S. and Canadian coasts?
Levels of any Fukushima contaminants in the ocean will be many thousands of times lower after they mix across the Pacific and arrive on the West Coast of North America some time in late 2013 or 2014. This is not to say that we should not be concerned about additional sources of radioactivity in the ocean above the natural sources, but at the levels expected even short distances from Japan, the Pacific will be safe for boating, swimming, etc.
longship
(40,416 posts)My question is why would anybody want this disaster to appear worse than it is? That's downright barmy.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)None is listed on their "current results" page. http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Kinda buried, but it's there.
Point is that is old news. Everyone already knows the US got hit with airborne radiation in 2011.
The fact that they actually presented it on their site is what is important. It means they can deal with reality. And most likely will tell the Truth as more Cesium-137, hits the beaches in the near future.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)No. It isn't.
They've explicitly stated that their readings have yet to find anything from Fukushima in those readings.
The fact that they actually presented it on their site is what is important
Except that only occured in your imagination.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You just haven't researched it.
It's like you saying the melted down Fukushima cores were not hot.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024272590#post25
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)Woods Hole says that they haven't found any cesium from Fukushima in their coastal testing.
Feel free to actually point to the reading you claim they're reporting.
It's like you saying the melted down Fukushima cores were not hot.
Correct. Both are true statements.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But of course you do...
On the map page, click the 2011 link.
When that 2011 map pops up, center on the marker off Southern California.
Zoom in.
See that behind that one marker are several more markers?
Click on those and you'll see that on April 13, 2001, Cesium 134 was detected. Cesium 134, as you know, is a tell-tale sign of a recent nuclear reaction.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)How is that news? That was publicaly reported back when it happened. It doesn't tell us that the the plume in the Pacific has arrived.
The debate is whether their current monitoring has shows that the radioactive elements carried by sea water have arrived on the coast yet.
They haven't.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It is not news that the US got hit with Fukushima radiation after 3/11/11.
You're a little slow, but you're getting there, eh?
What is great, as you have just confirmed, is that the site does show that Cesium134 was found, and they have the balls to report it. The fact they reported it says a lot for their integrity.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)By Pat Sherman
La Jolla Light, Feb. 4, 2014
EXCERPT...
In 2011 Thiemens and a crew of UCSD atmospheric chemists reported the first quantitative measurement of the amount of radiation leaked from the damaged nuclear reactor in Fukushima, following the devastating earthquake and tsunami there.
Their estimate was based on radioactive sulfur that wafted across the Pacific Ocean after operators of the damaged reactor had to cool overheated fuel with seawater — causing a chemical reaction between byproducts of nuclear fission and chlorine ions in the saltwater.
Thiemens has, for the past several years, unsuccessfully sought to obtain grant funding to follow-up his research, first reported on Aug. 15 2011 in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
However, he said neither the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board or National Academy of Sciences (of which he is a member) were interested in funding additional research to measure the Fukushima fallout.
“It’s probably one of these things that just fell through the cracks,” Thiemens said. “It doesn’t quite fall under classical (research criteria).”
CONTINUED...
http://www.lajollalight.com/2014/02/04/ocean-water-off-la-jolla-coast-being-monitored-for-fukushima-radiation/
I wonder what they do consider legitimate research when a respected scientist and a dean at a major research university can't get funding to investigate radiation from Fukushima.
What do they consider legitimate? I guess if the big boys say it's ok, then it's ok.
What I found interesting about the Our Radioactive Ocean site, is that they did list a finding of Cesium-134 from back in 2011. So they seem to be bucking up against the big boys.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Otherwise, there'd be funding from governments, universities and corporations for all sorts of research projects, examining questions like what and how much is where and getting ingested by what and whom; and when did it start, and is it ongoing?
Thank you for the link to Woods Hole. Science means truth.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2014, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)
But no one "officially" will say how bad it is.
The WHOI folks, at least, are saying it ain't over. And they do seem to be bucking the trend that says "there is no need to research the matter".
Indeed they are saying there will be more radioactive seawater and that in the interests of science we need to be ready for it's coming.
In a sea of denial, I do find theirs to be a glowing response. <grin>
zappaman
(20,606 posts)1 pound dry ziti pasta
1 onion, chopped
1 pound lean ground beef
2 (26 ounce) jars spaghetti sauce
6 ounces provolone cheese, sliced
1 1/2 cups sour cream
6 ounces mozzarella cheese, shredded
2 tablespoons grated Parmesan cheese
Step-by-step ViewDirections
1. Bring a large pot of lightly salted water to a boil. Add ziti pasta, and cook until al dente, about 8 minutes; drain.
2. In a large skillet, brown onion and ground beef over medium heat. Add spaghetti sauce, and simmer 15 minutes.
3. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Butter a 9x13 inch baking dish. Layer as follows: 1/2 of the ziti, Provolone cheese, sour cream, 1/2 sauce mixture, remaining ziti, mozzarella cheese and remaining sauce mixture. Top with grated Parmesan cheese.
4. Bake for 30 minutes in the preheated oven, or until cheeses are melted.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Don't we have a Creative Speculation group where this stuff can be addressed?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)How come? What's up?
The website and the report is to a real, scientific based, research program.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Robert could post this in E&E, if he hadn't already been banned from the group for posting just this kind of misinformation.
Creative Speculation, however, is still open to him.
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I was banned because I did not submit to the demand from a host that I ignore a pro-nuke shill.
But really, there is no use in posting anything in E&E, hardly anyone goes there any more. Gee, I wonder why?
No, this world wide web info has been posted in its proper place, so that more people can see and absorb it. I get that a few wish it would all just go away, as I do, but like the science says, it comes closer and closer.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)"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"