EPA data shows Fukushima Uranium in California

[flamingdem]

http://www.llrc.org/

Elevated levels of Uranium have been found in air samplers (filters) operated by US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the north Pacific. Recent data for the Mariana Islands (2800 km south of Fukushima) Hawaii, California and Seattle have been found in the RADNET EPA website.

The graph left has been created from the very limited data provided. It shows that uranium (and probably also therefore plutonium) particles have been or are being released by the Fukushima catastrophe. They are appearing in California some 8000km away at levels which are greater than background. (Note: EPA has not provided baseline data. The background level indicated by the blue line on the graph is based on averaged measurements at UK Atomic Weapons Establishment.)

The increasing trend with proximity to Japan suggests that Japan is far more heavily contaminated than any of these sites, as we have predicted. It is of the greatest concern that no data on uranium and plutonium have been published by the authorities there.



Location


date


U-238


U-234

Anaheim CA


15 March


ND


1628

Anaheim CA


20 March


ND


ND

Riverside CA


15 March


703


1300

San Francisco CA


18 March


518


ND

Saipan, Mariana Is.


21 March


10,360


4800

Saipan, Mariana Is.


24 March


7770


7030

Guam (Mariana Is.)


19 March


ND


ND

Guam (Mariana Is.)


23 March


7400


11,100

Oahu, Hawaii


23 March


4810


5920

Kauai, Hawaii


21 March


8140


7030

Seattle WA


18 March


ND


740

Mean levels AWE (Atomic Weapons Establishment, UK)


1998-2002


<200


ND

[FBaggins]

1. Do you know what the prefix "nano" means?

If you don't... then why are you posting this thread?

If you DO... then why are you posting this thread?

Why is it not being reported? Because it's an entirely irrelevant amount. Uranium is everywhere. It's an incredibly common element.


The average person consumes about 1 microgram of uranium per day (breathing, drinking, and eating). One gram of common uranium is about 12,000 Bq... so one microgram would be .012 Bq. The highest level on your chart was about 10,000 nBq. That's .00001 Bq per cubic meter.

So it would take 1200 cubic meters of this air to get one day's average intake of uranium... and the average person breathes in 10-20 cubic meters per day. 2-4 months to add one extra day's worth of uranium and uranium is well down on the list of normal exposures (radon is much higher).

You really think that's newsworthy?

On edit... whoops my mistake. That's not for natural uranium... it's just U-238 ("depleted" uranium essentially). The natural uranium you breath in every day would probably have twice that activity level. So call it 4-8 months of breathing in this dangerous stuff to add one day's dose of uranium.

Time to panic!

[flamingdem]

2. I don't think it's nano in Japan, and we've learned it's lie after lie

and health is in the balance.

[aquart]

3. Depleted uranium?

That's the stuff causing health problems in Iraq? Kinda ironic.

[flamingdem]

4. Here is a discussion about uranium in CA water on the Berkeley site

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2691

Some controversy of course because of DU depleted uranium and naturally occurring uranium.

Now http://www.llrc.org says this latest is from Fukushima. I don't exactly see that and I'd like clarification.
They aren't a woo woo outfit so they must be basing this on previous data or another signature of Fuku. isotopes


So they are basing it on increasing levels - there is something to that but baseline is needed:
edit: (Note: EPA has not provided baseline data. The background level indicated by the blue line on the graph is based on averaged measurements at UK Atomic Weapons Establishment.)
The increasing trend with proximity to Japan suggests that Japan is far more heavily contaminated than any of these sites, as we have predicted. It is of the greatest concern that no data on uranium and plutonium have been published by the authorities there.

[FBaggins]

7. Wow... that's an entertaining chain

The original post looks fine, but it's followed by a long chain of bad information (particularly where "depleted" comes into play) - sprinkled with more good data.

The link in the first post to the EPA standard is a good place to start though. The safety standard for drinking water was given as 30 micrograms/L

That's a number of orders of magnitude greater than what was reported.

[AndyTiedye]

5. If It's "nano" in California, It is probably "mega" or "terra" in Japan

Certainly newsworthy, and not good. It means a shitload of uranium and probably plutonium has been (and probably still is) spewing from Fukushima.

[FBaggins]

6. Perhaps?

If you're going to make things up... why not go large, right?

[SpoonFed]

10. If you're an immoral, reprehensible shill for the nuke industry...

you might as well go all fantasy land and claim that airborne uranium (and plutonium and everything else found in the reactors in Japan) that is being detected by legitimate sources like the EPA is no worry to anyone's health.

Consider yourself officially out of the closet.

No quantity of purified, refined plutonium or uranium is found naturally occuring on this planet. It certainly isn't found flying around in the air outside of the nightmare that is the nuclear weapons and nuclear power industries. Plutonium is incredibly toxic. They're still not really talking about that yet.

This is incredibly bad news and it is beyond newsworthy. It should be front page news world wide.

Beyond any doubt, this data confirms that JAIF/TEPCO/IAEA/NRC/Japanese/US Government/EPA have been lying by omission and misleading the general public and humanity at large about the severity of this accident since the first moments. This data from the EPA is over a month old at this point. Explain that.

If I was in Japan, I'd shit myself over this news.

[FBaggins]

11. No need to pretend.

The airborne uranium is NOT a "worry to anyone's health". You're taking in more than that all the time.



Dishonestly spinning plutonium into the mix, eh? They have yet to find a SINGLE amount of plutonium that can definitively be associated with the reactor incidents. There's bound to be SOME, but the amount has been so small that it can't be distinguished from the plutonium that was already there for decades. Obvious fail on your part.

The second is just wildly inaccurate and highlights how little you know of this stuff. "Refined uranium"? How much more dangerous do you imagine that the "refined" uranium is than naturally-occuring uranium?

They're still not really talking about that yet.

Because they have yet to FIND enough of it to make it worth talking about.

This data from the EPA is over a month old at this point. Explain that.

Nothing to explain beyond the obvious fact that you don't understand how the testing is done. You can't DETECT levels this low unless you catch it in a filter for a LONG time... then it gets sent for testing. They don't have a sensore they can hook up to the internet and report the readings from hour to hour for numbers this insanely low.

If I was in Japan, I'd shit myself over this news.

Now that may be the first correct thing you've said on the issue. I have no doubt that it's true.

It isn't rational... but it's almost certainly true.

[AndyTiedye]

17. If the Japanese Government Would Release Data on U and Pu, We Wouldn't Have to Guess

Since they haven't, and given their previous behaviour, I don't think assuming a value of "0" is a good idea.

[DCKit]

8. Must be nice to be a mutant life-form, thriving on toxins and radioactivity.

Not so much for the rest of us.

[kristopher]

9. +1

[FBaggins]

12. So I take it that your answer was "no"

You don't know what it means.

Here's a homework assignment for you. Look up what the NORMAL distribution of uranium is in the soil in your part of the world. Then calculate how much uranium is sitting in the first six inches of dirt in your back yard.

Then report back to us how that number compares to this one so we can all have a laugh at your expense.

If you want a REAL kicker... tell us what the safety standards are for Radon in your home and compare THAT to this number. Do you know where Radon comes from?

[DCKit]

13. "...so we can all have a laugh at your expense."

OMG, please. Stop already. My sides hurt, and I've got a cramp in my diaphragm.

I look forward to every episode of your show: "Honey, I Shrunk the Argument"

[FBaggins]

14. Is it the facts or the arithmetic that's causing you the problem?

Neither is open for debate. Why wallow in ignorance when the truth is readily available?

These simply are NOT levels that are worth any more attention than casual interest. They aren't even 1/1,000th of such levels.

[DCKit]

15. Yes. YOUR facts, YOUR arithmetic. On every subject relating to radiation and toxic waste.

Just as there is no "safe" level of mercury exposure (an argument we've had before), there is no "safe" level of exposure to either plutonium or uranium.

Additionally, I'm not only exceedingly fond of clean water, I've been told it's necessary for the continued survival of most life on the planet.

Your arguments (corporate talking-points) to the contrary are dangerous B.S..

[FBaggins]

16. Still dodging?

Regardless of how much is "safe" in your mind. The question is how much do you run into on a daily basis?

Feel free to use any numbers you can source.

[kristopher]

19. Attacking DUers for their value judgments? Your trust in the fission industry is noted.

Value judgments are just that - judgments made on the basis of values that people hold. You trust the fission industry and others do not. It isn't your place to hector and harass other DUers for their values, so stop doing it.

[FBaggins]

20. Nope. Neither "attacking" nor doing so for "value judgements"

Just correcting really bad information and assumptions.

Always a good idea to inform your "value judgements" with actual facts. You should try it some time.

[kristopher]

22. You are harassing and hectoring DUers for their values. Stop it.

You trust the nuclear industry because you hold traditional values.

Others hold altruistic values that cause them to evaluate the information you are calling "actual facts" in a different light than you do.

[FBaggins]

24. I'm doing neither. I'm correcting misinformation.

Since your hectoring and harassing relies on that misinformation... I can see why you would feel threatened.

What I can't see is why you think anyone would fall for it.

[kristopher]

31. It is exactly what you are doing. If others do not trust the nuclear industry, you badger them.

That trust or lack thereof is a DIRECT RESULT of two different value systems.

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.



Here is the abstract:
Abstract and references are intended for public use and distribution

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.

[FBaggins]

32. Can't go a day without spamming the board, eh?

Not enough news for you?

Of course you don't see that as harassing or hectoring.

Why do you think DU bans it? You think it's to save bandwidth? :rofl:

[kristopher]

34. "attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values"

The research is unambiguous. It states, "attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy."

You are engaged in systematic harassment of other DUers based on their PROGRESSIVE values.

[FBaggins]

35. Facts, however, are NOT a function of "values" or perceptions.

You wouldn't understand that because you allow your so-called "values" to influence your perception of reality and make you blind to the facts. Like the creationists and the anti AGW crowd, you allow your "values" to drive your reality. It's how, for instance, you allowed youself to believe that China had trippled world PV production in just a couple few years.

The classic liberal position is just the opposite. We seek facts first and mold our values to match. We are unswayed by irrational phobias or paranoia or the rantings of those who suffer from same.

So I guess the obvious question is why I would allow your RW logic to influence me?

[kristopher]

37. You are badgering and hectoring people about their risk perceptions, ergo, their values.

Your trust in the nuclear fission industry doesn't extend to the majority of posters here.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.

[FBaggins]

39. "Risk perception" and "values" are NOT synonyms.

They're only releated for people (like you) who create their own imagined reality to match their values.

The rest of us have to live in the real world.

[kristopher]

40. The paper is clear.

Your trust in the nuclear fission industry doesn't extend to the majority of posters here.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.

[FBaggins]

42. As well as clearly wrong.

As is your use of it.

And by that I don't mean your constant spamming of it (though that too is wrong).

[meow mix]

18. contamination is fun!!

for you.. :puke:

[FBaggins]

21. Is the entire ocean contaminated when one drop of oil is spilled?

Why not apply a little perspective? When you see a report of a given amount of a substance... why not ask "how much is that and how does it compare to common levels of the same stuff?"


It's like being worried that you're going to get arsenic poisoning by taking homeopathis arsenic.

[kristopher]

23. Is everyone supposed to trust the nuclear industry like you do? Is that your point?

Stop hectoring people for their values.

[FBaggins]

26. The EPA is the nuclear industry now?

Feel free to take any ACTUAL data reported by ANY valid source and you'll get the same answer.

The reported levels are tiny TINY fraction of the uranium you run into every day. The uranium whose decay products you breath in EVERY breath.

Do you know what they call people who are irrationally afraid of every breath they take?

[jpak]

27. How does the Happy Talk Memo deny away the trend of U concentrations and distance from Fukushima

and the values above background?

clue - it can't

yup

[FBaggins]

28. The "trend"

From 0 to 0.000000001 over a few weeks? When the source is dying out?

There's no need to deny anything. Simply take the data as accurate and recognize that it presents no additional risk.

[jpak]

29. Happy Happy Talk Talk

yup yup

[FBaggins]

30. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the difference in activity between your home and the one next door

is greater than this amount. It's entirely irrelevant.

We're talking measurements reported in NANObequerels for heaven sake! An entire bequerell is an insignificant amount of radiation and a nBq is one billionth of that amount.

[jpak]

36. So you are saying that there are no uranium aerosols being released from Fukushima

and uranium aerosols have no human health consequences when they lodge in your lung tissue?

Happy Happy Talk Talk indeed

yup

[FBaggins]

38. Nope. I've said no such thing.

In fact I've said the opposite.

But I've also said that, when deciding how much risk this entails, the amount that we are exposed to does matter.

[DCKit]

33. If I haven't said it before (or recently), thank you, so very much.

Your tireless effort in ensuring that nearly all threads regarding nuclear meltdowns and chemical spills make it to the greatest are very much appreciated.

[jpak]

25. K&R - uranium releases - not good

yup

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. And like everything else the alarmist have spoken about

it's predicted and predictable given the history of previous accidents.

Happy talk indeed.

This is not surprising, but hardly good news.