UC Berkeley detects itsy bitsy amounts of iodine, cesium, barium and krypton,

[flamingdem]

Radioactive particles arriving in the Bay Area, but pose no risk, say scientists and health officials

By Lisa M. Krieger
San Jose Mercury News (California)
March 18, 2011

While public health officials anxiously downplayed fears Thursday that a plume from Japan's crippled nuclear reactors was descending on California, scientists at UC Berkeley declared they were already detecting radioactive particles from 5,000 miles across the ocean.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17645236?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com&nclick_check=1

The differing accounts illustrated the confusion on the fallout from Japan's crisis as contamination continued to spew from the damaged power plants, but scientists and public health experts were united on one front: Whatever radiation may drift to California and the West Coast will be too minuscule to pose any health risks here.

"We see evidence of fission particles -- iodine, cesium, barium and krypton, a whole dog's breakfast of radiation," said Ed Morse, professor of nuclear engineering at UC Berkeley, whose students have set up a monitor on the rooftop of the campus's Etcheverry Building. A monitor at Lawrence Livermore Lab is also detecting the particles, he said.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

1. and Krypton?

Superman will never show at Berkley now!

[Sirveri]

2. far less than reported in the Bay Area after the Chernobyl explosion in 1986

That's all you need to know right there. Stop buying up a bunch of stupid junk you don't need (KI and geiger counters).

[flamingdem]

4. I swear I didn't buy either!

Nor a gas mask or hazmat suit!

[DLnyc]

3. Great article; it even has an actual number in it.

"a picocurie per cubic meter of atmosphere"

Maybe some experts here could help check my calculations and info, but it looks to me like:

1 picocurie per cubic meter = .001 picocurie per liter = .001 X .02 mrem/year (according to a sentence* found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/gwcontaminants.htm ) = .00002 mrem per year (or, in fractions, 1/50,000 mrem per year).

Since background amounts from sun, earth, etc. are typically like 300 mrem/year (I think), I guess it is reasonable to say that .00002 mrem/yr is fairly insignificant.

I think.

Sorry if I am boring people with actual numbers, but it seems to calm me down some.

*Sentence is "The average concentration of cesium-137 which is assumed to yield 4 mrem/year is 200 picocuries per liter.", which implies a picocurie per liter gives 4/200, or .02, mrem/year, I think.

[DaveofCali]

5. Um, it's not the amount of radiation that is of concern, it's the isotopes themselves

Ingesting or inhaling isotopes is more harmful than the actual radiation they emit since they can get into your body, get lodged in your muscles or bones, and continually emit harmful radiation that may damage cells around it. Now, cesium and other radioactive isotopes that are fission byproducts already occur in the environment due to nuclear weapons testing, (thus one or a few particles may not be a significant health threat) but I just wanted to respond to that.

[DLnyc]

7. Yes, that is a point I would like to know more about.

The amount of iodine-131 (is that the typical one?) may be not enough to be significant as far as radiation, but it is concentrated, as I understand it, in the thyroid. So what level of iodine-131 is enough to be of concern? What is the 'natural' level? What is the typical level today? And, of course, one might ask if these levels differ greatly, after years of nuclear testing and reactor accidents?

Or, alternatively, is it better just to avoid numbers and precise knowledge and rely on vague ideas of fate and providence? (Sorry, I don't know how to make the sarcasm thingy.)

[Arcana]

6. Is there another monitoring station closer to Los Angeles?

Or Nevada?