On the Rise: Highest level of Cesium-137 in Bay Area topsoil since April

[flamingdem]

UCB Food Chain Sampling Results, University of California, Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering, June 10, 2011:

Collected June 3 in Alameda, CA

* 1.17 Bq/kg of Cesium-137 <31.62 pCi/kg>

Collected May 18 in Alameda, CA

* .73 Bq/kg of Cesium-137

Collected May 2 in Alameda, CA

* 1.11 Bq/kg of Cesium-137

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2525

via enenews

[FBaggins]

1. Not a particularly honest title.

You do know that the half-life is about 30 years, right?

All of the samples are consistent with a prior deposition and then no appreciable additional fallout... which is itself consistent with the fact that air monitoring hasn't shown any new surges of cesium.




And then there's the kicker of course. You would have to consume 7,000 pounds of the stuff to get a .05mSv dose... and this is topsoil we're talking about.

That would be one heck of a case of pica. :)

[flamingdem]

2. To me the point is that it's in the top soil, not decreasing, and the consequences nt

[FBaggins]

3. As I said... it has a half-life of 30 years

Unless there's a mechanism for it to go away (in crops or with runoff), it's going to have a fairly constant contamination level for quite some time. The difference between one reading to the next is entirely consistent with normal variability in samples.

and the consequences

What consequences? Again... 7,000 pounds would need to be eaten to get .05 mSV (itself less than 1% of the average American's annual dose).

[SpoonFed]

4. Typical.

You have used language "constant", "normal", "consistent" to downplay this contamination yet again. You have provided no citation for your graph/data. I wish there was something in your post to discuss bssides the fact that it is typical and content-less except for the usual impression left that radiation fallout from Fukushima is nothing to worry about.

Truth be told, the 30-year half-life of a nuke contaminant it will be around long after we're all dead. I'm not sure how that is supposed to make anyone feel better about it.

Explain how there is any normal variability in samples for an unprecedented event in Japan? Your sample size is way too small to be making statements like normal variability in any credible sense of the statement.

Furthermore, a single effort of monitoring (or even a handful of ad-hoc stations) is totally unacceptable in my opinion. A major nuclear INES level 7 event is something that I think the whole world should be monitoring down to every last detail possible, which certainly isn't what I see happening.

If we're talking with a focus on the US, how about Hawaii which is a heck of a lot closer, why does the university there no have some data to report from March-present?

[FBaggins]

5. Downplay the contamination?

You don't have a clue how incredibly tiny this amount is, do you?

You have provided no citation for your graph/data.

The source is the same as in the OP. If you were actually reading these threads instead of stalking my posts... you might have looked less foolish (though not likely).

Truth be told, the 30-year half-life of a nuke contaminant it will be around long after we're all dead.

If it's at the levels reported in the OP... who cares? Have you ever even TRIED to figure out how those levels compare to anything else?

Try this one - look up the average Bq/kg for your body and compare it to that soil reading. You'll be forced to laugh at your own concern.

Explain how there is any normal variability in samples for an unprecedented event in Japan?

How could there NOT be some variability? Were you under the impression that the contamination was a constant level everywhere? If you dig up two samples of soil from just a few feet apart, there's going to be a minor difference in the readings.

Your sample size is way too small to be making statements like normal variability in any credible sense of the statement.

Nope. But thanks for trying.

Furthermore, a single effort of monitoring (or even a handful of ad-hoc stations) is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

That's ok. The opinion of the people who actually know what they're talking about is more valuable. NONE of them think that there's any need for such monitoring in the US. INES 7 does not mean "OMG... the entire world has to protect itself!!!"

If we're talking with a focus on the US, how about Hawaii which is a heck of a lot closer, why does the university there no have some data to report from March-present

Because the testing that HAS been done has NEVER resulted in a reading that implied that further caution was needed.

The short answer is that irrational paranoia on your part does not require behavior modification on the part of others.