Plutonium-238 in the Northern Hemisphere detected by U.S. EPA in March 2011 - What it means

[flamingdem]

http://www.idealist.ws/

EPA pu238 data in excel format included on link

The EPA's data includes negative values - which have no physical meaning. In order to trust the positive values put forward by the EPA, we must determine if there is a negative bias, which would drag down positive values. This is an important point because the EPA has a history of maintaining a negative bias in their analysis of samples. 'Oddly enough, in 1982 there were some months in which many cities were reported to have large negative concentrations of radionuclides in milk, which can have no physical meaning.11 It is possible to have slight negative readings because of statistical uncertainty in measuring milk with zero levels of radioactivity, but it is not possible for such uncertainty to reach levels of greater than -5 picocuries per liter.'('The Energy Within,' by Jay Gould, Four Walls Eight Windows, 1996, p. 57, more on pp. 58-60).

To be able to make conclusions on this data, we need to have the EPA's full data that was printed from their instruments - this includes blanks and QC samples. Only using such information - all obtainable from EPA - as the detection limit(s), raw instrument data and 'blank biases' (a blank should always be zero and any positive or negative value will bias the analysis) will we be able to trust the data. Because a very, very small amount of plutonium-238 - if ingested - can exceed an individual's expected lifetime radiation dose, any bias can have a huge impact on calculated dose. MORE AT LINK

[Taverner]

1. Tell me, should we stop drinking milk in California or not?

I'm a computer guy, not a nuclear guy

I don't understand much of this other than the concept of half-lives

[flamingdem]

2. Luckily we have UC Berkeley running tests

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2174

The idea is that it is a small amount but those who are aware of the impact of bioaccumulation and low level radiation will argue that this leads to multiple health impacts.

The easiest way to avoid problems in CA imo is to avoid milk for now and broad leaf veggies like lettuce and spinach as those tested positive for cesium and iodine in CA as well and they catch it on the broad leaves.

No we're not in the same danger as those near the plant but this will drag on and on and better safe than sorry, your mileage may vary, warning most people don't pay attention so prepare to be looked at as a henny penny..

[FBaggins]

6. Only one way to be sure your milk is safe to drink.

Check the sell-by date on the carton.

There is no radiological concern at all. The highest levels that UC Berkley is detecting are so low that you would have to drink thousands of liters of the stuff just to add up to one dental x-ray's dose.

[flamingdem]

7. A warning was given to women in France, it's not "nothing" as you'd like us

to believe. There is plenty of research on low level radiation especially important since this disaster is far from over and it will accumulate

[TheWraith]

14. There is plenty of research on low level radiation. All of which says the opposite of what you think

This faith-based obsession with the idea that one single micro-particle of radiation is automatically harmful would be laughable if so many people didn't believe it. The simple scientific fact is this: there is no radiation danger from bio-accumulation, either in France, or in California, or in Hawaii. Anyone saying otherwise is fearmongering. If you don't believe me, try expressing those radiation levels in millisieverts.

[Someguyinjapan]

8. Okay Bildo...

Time for you to come clean.

There is no radiological concern at all.

You just finished castigating me on another thread for not providing any sources to back up a position of mine. Turn about is fair play-exactly what are you basing this on? If you are basing it solely on the data that was referenced in this thread, that would indicate to me that you have advanced knowledge of nuclear physics to make any sense of these numbers. Your contributions in debates in this area would lead me to believe otherwise. You were also carrying on in another thread about "since when did physicians become physicists?" Since when did you? Yet you constantly set yourself up as a person of authority on this subject, so I want to know:

1.) Are you a physicist?
2.) Are you a nuclear physicist?

I'm not, but I'm also not making myself out to be some kind of authority on the subject either. You are. So time to come clean.

[FBaggins]

9. How can you call for a citation... when one was already given?

I was accepting flamingdem's source (UC Berkeley). They're not associated with Japan... or TEPCO... or anyone else. It's just a university performing independent measurements.

They report both the detected levels AND the amount that you would have to drink at that level in order to get the same dose as a dental x-ray.

The numbers have been ridiculously low. It's like I told you on the other thread... if you don't like certain sources than pick some that you do trust. You won't find ANY reputable source producing numbers in the U.S. that even come CLOSE to a concern.

If you are basing it solely on the data that was referenced in this thread, that would indicate to me that you have advanced knowledge of nuclear physics to make any sense of these numbers

Yep.

Your contributions in debates in this area would lead me to believe otherwise.

Only because you yourself lack the background to judge and prefer to listen to scaremongers.

so I want to know:

1.) Are you a physicist?
2.) Are you a nuclear physicist?


I don't earn a living as a nuclear physicist, but I did major in the subject and spent more than a day or two in the engineering spaces of a couple submarine classes a couple decades back. You can decide for yourself whether that makes a "yes" or a "no".

As for the OP... as you can see from the text, even the author doesn't have a clue what it means. So allow me to translate it. There is no plutonium detected that can be attributed to Fukushima in the U.S. - This should not be a surprise, since (until they get readings back from the sea floor), they haven't been able to detect that much even right next to the reactors.

[Someguyinjapan]

11. Clarify

Giving a definitive answer will allow me to decide by myself. I work with a physicist; when he is asked the same question, he answers "yes". He doesn't give an ambiguous bs answer. By default, if you graduate with a physics degree, the default title for you isphysicist, much the same as if you graduate with a philosophy degree you are a philosopher, a history degree you are a historian, etc.

Majoring in a subject is not the same as having a degree in it. So do you?

[FBaggins]

12. I disagree.

Graduating with a history degree doesn't make you an historian... nor does a philosophy degree (my other undergrad major) make me a philosopher. Certainly not just an undergrad degree.

Nor, IMO, would an undergrad degree in physics (concentrating in nuclear or not) make someone a nuclear physicist. Again, in my opinion, it would take a PhD and/or actual work in the field.

That I do not have... so I won't call myself a nuclear physicist.

But I do have substantially more background in the subject than folks who rely on UFO websites and Gunderson for their "facts". :)

I can, for instance, explain the data in the OP beyond what any of the "PU detected in the US for over a month!" sites can. It translates to "no... we can't detect anything that we can attribute to Fukushima"

[Gregorian]

3. Stunning facts on their site. These numbers are hard to fathom.

For starters, people need to realize this one fact-

* When inhaled and lodged in lungs, Pu238 acts like a point of perpetual radiation on local DNA




Then once you know that, take a look at this-


* Only 1.176 nanograms of Pu238 in one year would exceed DOE worker exposure; and 1/500th of that amount, or 2.3 picograms, would exceed public exposure limits

* 1 nanogram of Pu238 contains 2,530,000,000,000 atoms and is about the weight of one skin cell. Humans shed 40,000 skins cell every minute so you can imagine how infinitely light a nanogram is. Inhaling just one of those skin cells as pure Pu238 would exceed a radiation worker's annual dose and be equivalent to 500 years of your annual dose.


I don't know what it means in terms of doses floating around in air or water. Or whether it's smart to stop eating vulnerable carrier plants and animals. I mean, the half-life of Pu238 is 90 years. So even after a century, we're still going to be seeing this stuff. I just don't know what to do. I have the feeling that the worst is happening right now, as free material floats through the air. But still, it's not going away. I think we're kind of screwed. You either start a different life, eating and drinking and breathing, or just continue, and hope you aren't one of the unlucky ones who ends up with radiating particulates in your body. I'm betting we'll find out the answer to this question soon.

[flamingdem]

4. We need some honest aid in understanding those numbers

and what they mean in terms of plutonium. For instance if they have
records going way back that indicate the same numbers then it's not
such a concern, as long as there is an explanation, like bomb testing.
However if these are new numbers, and the implication is that they are
from Fukushima then we need an explanation.

The people on idealist.ws would like the EPA to provide more information
about how they are defining their test levels. I didn't read that they
are seeking base line, I'll check that again.

The EPA owes it to the taxpayer to be transparent. They do not have to
make a call for pregnant women to stop drinking milk, as an NGO did in
France even though they have one tenth of what we have in the USA....
they just need to let Americans decide for themselves about the levels..

[Gregorian]

5. Comparison is a good way. I think the article said Pu239 is bomb material. Not the Pu238.

They also said they're waiting for more info. I appreciate your posting this stuff. I've been lax about it.

[flamingdem]

10. Thanks for noticing that about Pu238 vs. Pu239

That may be how they know it is from Fukushima vs. bomb tests

[Massacure]

13. The data in that graph isn't very useful.

The first concern I see is that the earthquake happened on March 11, and March 11 is the earliest data sample taken. We have no data from before the quake to compare Pu-238 levels too.

The second concern I see is that all of those samples are taken at different locations. We can not see trends in increasing or decrease concentrations of Pu-238 because each location was only tested once (according to the graph shown anyways).