Fukushima radiation found in California kelp

[marmar]

from the SF Chronicle:


Kelp off California was contaminated with short-lived radioisotopes a month after Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant accident, a sign that the spilled radiation reached the state's coastline, according to a new scientific study.

Scientists from CSU Long Beach tested giant kelp collected off Orange County, Santa Cruz and other locations after the March 2011 accident and detected radioactive iodine, which was released from the damaged nuclear reactor.

The largest concentration was about 250 times higher than levels found in kelp before the accident.

"Basically, we saw it in all the California kelp blades we sampled," said Steven Manley, a CSU Long Beach biology professor who specializes in kelp. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/07/BAO51O00HO.DTL#ixzz1rb33DIln

[gateley]

1. Seriously? We're screwn. That radiation is EVERYWHERE -- why on earth do they pretend

like they can "contain" it? This makes me so damn angry!

[TheMadMonk]

6. Seriously, you need to get an education. Coal fired plants emit more "fallout"...

anually, than Chernobly and Fukushima will put out over the next thousand even if left entirely to their own devices.

Did you go to the article and read the very next paragraph after those quoted?

"The radioactivity had no known effects on the giant kelp, or on fish and other marine life, and it was undetectable a month later."

Radio-iodine decays so fast that 250 times normal is still essentially zero.

[got root]

9. sure are wasting a lot of money on all those containment facilities than

if it is no more harmful than the fall out from coal power plants.

[TheMadMonk]

15. GLOBAL and LOCAL are two very different things.

We spend all that money on containment facitities, because the effects of concentrated radiation are of course significant, no one is saying otherwise.

[truedelphi]

36. Thanks for your very sane comment.

Not going to get you very far in this day and age, when for-profit research tells us that we can bathe in MTBE, brush our teeth in cesium and thoroughly relax about the crap in our air and water.

But I appreciate your sanity. Really do. Even though such thinking tends to get drowned out in all those who want to protect the Big Nasty Polluting Industries.

[gateley]

11. Gosh! I had NO IDEA cole fired plants emit fallout! Well since they're WORSE, lets

keep the nuclear facilities up and running and expand!

And you're comforted by the "no known effects"? Just wait.

You wasted your snarky reply because you're not changing my attitude toward nuclear energy, no matter how "educated" you are.

[TheMadMonk]

16. Actually, I'm comforted by you lot, despite fifty years of trying, failing...

...to come up with anything new in the way of arguments against nuclear power.

But hey, you know what you know and you'll be damned before you'll let mere facts interfere with that knowledge.

I have no interest in swaying the likes of you. However I have no intention of abandoning the field, and those still open to swaying.

[Generic Other]

24. The earth is flat

The sun revolves around the earth.

Curses cause disease.

Marijuana is a gateway drug.

The earth is 4000 years old.

Thomas Kinkaide is a great artist.

Radiation can't hurt you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. 6000 years old

And Jesus rode a dinosaur.

Kids these days, don't know to the real numbers.

[TheMadMonk]

41. NO! Radiation can hurt you. It can hurt you a lot IF you get a big enough dose.

However, even in the vicinty of Fukushima, the likely dose is sufficently low, that harm is extremely unlikely to ensue. And even less likely to be demonstrable.

If it turns out the dose response at low levels is not directly linearly proportional to demonstrable harm at higher levels, as suggested here, http://www.democraticunderground.com/112710716 (yes my OP) then harm will be even more unlikely.

[Generic Other]

50. My relatives live within 100 miles of Fukushima

They told me to tell you they don't believe anything you say. Their food is contaminated. Their children's shoelaces are contaminated. The family farm is contaminated. They don't sleep as soundly as they once did. They worry about their future. They worry that no one will buy their rice. They worry their kids will get sick. They worry their kids will die. Your facts versus theirs.

[TheMadMonk]

52. Belief and worry are almost certainly doing your relatives more damage...

...than the radiation is.

[Generic Other]

53. You willing to eat their crops? For how long?

A meal? A day? A week? A month? A year? 10 years? 100 years?

They will be worrying the whole time.

You are a ghoul.

[TheMadMonk]

54. Perfectly willing. I'm sure you're aware of the health effects of stress.

That is ALL I said in my previous post, the KNOWN demonstrable effects of stress almost certainly far outweigh the predicted, but untestable, effects of low dose radiation. Untestable, because the predictions lie almost entirely inside the statistical limits of natural variation.

So I'm not exactly sure where you get "ghoul" from.

[Generic Other]

56. What goes around comes around

I have no more to say to you.

[gateley]

26. Well in all sincerity, I wish you luck and I wish I COULD be swayed.

You'll find plenty of people who are willing to listen, I think -- I am just obstinate about a few subjects and this is one of them. My fingers are in my ears and lalalalalala I can't hear you! So I'll just continue to jump on threads and voice my horror at anything nuclear, and you can present your facts.

And seriously, you might be met with more acceptance if you don't start out a post telling someone they need to be educated. Don't know how it would sound in real life, but on a message board it "sounds" pretty fucking condescending.

[TheMadMonk]

42. Really? When, with a different subject, (and poorer spelling) your post might...

...have been lifted straight from FR? Methinks I could have been a lot, lot worse.

You were either being a smartarse or revelling in willful ignorance. Either way you "punched a button" and I jumped in to "voice my horror".

[Warren DeMontague]

46. It was undetectable later because, as you note, it was radioactive iodine they were checking for.

The question I have as a conusmer of Pacific seafood is, how much of the radioactive Cesium, for instance, has made it into the food chain.

A different, and salient, question.

[TheMadMonk]

51. Since AFAIK, nothing concentrates caesium in it's tissues, like kelp...

...does iodine, probably considerably less.

Given what I understand of the dispersal of pollution from Fukuskima, there's a lot more caesium already in the fish from atomic bomb tests, than Fukushima will ever contribute, except in its immediate vicinity.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Hope you're right. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Should I pretend to be a smidgen surprised?

No really, should I?

[Rex]

40. Only if you forgot about all the conversations we had

last year saying it was only a matter of time before it reached the West Coast. I see the pro-nuke crowd has somehow mysteriously disappeared from the face of DU. How odd.

[Journeyman]

3. "If I should remark that in the Pacific depths. . .

bubbles trickle ominously through concrete boxes,
what would you answer?"

Evan S. Connell
Points for a Compass Rose
1973

[FirstLight]

4. f-----!

So they measured this a MONTH after the earthquake/meltdown...and are just releasing it NOW...?

I'd hate to think the information is being released in small trickles to avoid a panic or anything...

so, no swimming in the ocean
no eating of fish or crab from the Pacific
what else to avoid?

when will the ocean start to glow?

shiiiiit!

[uppityperson]

5. "it was undetectable a month later. Iodine 131 "has an eight-day half-life..."

from the article in OP. Poor fish eating it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Iodine 131 has a half life of eight days

It was there, it was gone. The dose is actually NOT that high... but significant since it has a half life of eight days.

There are other things that have a half life measured in decades coughstrontiumcough, coughcesiumcough, but no, the ocean is not going to glow. But they are making their way to... the food chain as little fish are eaten by larger fish and get concentrated in muscle... and will remain in the food chain for decades to come. Doses, IN GENERAL, should remain low, but the old adage applies... why region of origin kind of matters.

That said, I am all but shocked or surprised it made it all the way to here given the amounts that were leaked, from there in ocean currents... also kelp (and blueberries and cows) absorb it like crazee. Why we did not drink milk off shelf for a few months, and quite brutally honest, these days I still buy shelf stable... it's nice NOT to have to shop for milk every third day.

Oh and life is amazing. There is a type of mushroom that has already adapted to the crazy levels of radiation around Chernobyl. The little thing does not glow, but do not put a dosimeter by it... goes crazee.

[TheMadMonk]

7. I notice you conveniently omitted the following paragraph...

"The radioactivity had no known effects on the giant kelp, or on fish and other marine life, and it was undetectable a month later."

Which pretty much totally negates the four used (by you and the original writer) in a fashion likely to cause readers to draw an erroneous conclusion.

[neverforget]

8. Maybe it was omitted because only 4 paragraphs are allowed to be excerpted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=copyright

Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt with a link back to the original.

To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

Democratic Underground believes we have an ethical responsibility to respect the rights of copyright holders. For this reason, we strongly encourage our members to refrain from violating copyrights when posting here, and we make a good-faith effort to deal with copyright violations posted on our site when we are aware of them. However, please be aware that as a matter of law, individuals who infringe on copyrights in their postings on this site or elsewhere can be held individually responsible for copyright violations they post. Democratic Underground does not necessarily have a legal responsibility for the things members post on this website.

[TheMadMonk]

12. That's more likely to be excuse than reason. Four is a guideline...

...not an absolute rule, as the following sentence indicates: "Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems."

Many people often only read the first few paragraphs of an article. That article was written to be acurate enough, but also to be misleading, particularly to those with preconceived negative notions about nuclear energy.

Further down the article I found this little gem.

"In addition, giant kelp concentrates radioactive iodine - for every 1 molecule in the water, there would be 10,000 in its tissues."

Actually it concentrates iodine full stop. Radio-iodine just goes along for the ride if it's present.

Read with some actual knowledge of the subject matter, what this article tells us, is how little radioactivity is dispersing into the wider environment (local conditions notwithstanding).

Read without that knowlege, it's "Ooga booga, nuclear, radioactive stuff from Japan is in California."

[got root]

10. sure, nothing to worry about, coal fall out is even worse

and just because those weak particles made it over doesn't mean the more long lived type particles can.

you tell mad monk

[marmar]

14. Umm, I always post the first four graphs of any article, with a link.....

...... Thought I'd share that with you, so that you don't go making accusations next time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Oh he will...

[TheMadMonk]

20. Even if those four paragraphs beg a different conclusion, than...

...might be inferred from the article taken as a whole? Nice to know.

I might be a little more charitably inclined, if you didn't have a history of playing the Fox News game of "We report. You decide."

It seems ALL you every do in an OP is post the first four paras, then sit back and wait for a bun fight to develop.

[marmar]

21. "It seems ALL you every do in an OP is post the first four paras, then sit back and wait ..."

I guess clicking a link is "hard work"? ...... Paranoid fantasies much?

[TheMadMonk]

30. I in fact do click links. I also know (as I'm sure you do) that a hell of a lot...

...of people do not. They reach their conclusions based on what's put before them. In fact going by the nature of a lot of people's responses here, they do not proceed past the title before jumping to conclusions entirely unsubstantiated by the article contents.

BTW, I just got through clicking thirty more links from a search for "posts by marmar". Care to guess what I discovered? 1 deleted post, 26 x 4 paragraphs plus link, 2 videolinks and a cartoon. And not a single word of your own in the originating posts.

Indeed, <i>It seems ALL you ever do in an OP is post the first four paras, then sit back and wait.</i>

I don't got paranoid fantasies. I do got a bit of problem with people who can't (or won't) make an argument on its merits, but rely on the dishonest debating methods handbook to make a point that they can't make honestly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Like me, he always posts the first four paras

that said, you are next gonna tell me to go buy and eat bananas? Will do that in your honor in the morning.

Next time I fly transcontinental I will think of you... or worst, when I get a chest X-Ray...

Oh and NOT necessarily in a good way either.

[Mimosa]

25. Cancer rates will go up.

The statistics will be masked of course. Right off the top of my head I can figure out one cover story: 'aging population'.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Well it's not cover

You are right...here are the ones to keep your eye on...childhood leukemia and rare forms of childhood thyroid.

Adult clusters in the US are far more fidgety to tell, but not in Japan. They will see them, period.

For the record, historically the rates of both childhood and adult cancer around three mile island and Chernobyl are up. There are indeed clusters. (Leukemia and Thiroid are good markers)

Problem is how it spreads, not a blanket, more like snow drifts.

Wait, I am told this is as safe as eating a banana.

[TheMadMonk]

33. Around Chernobyl yes, but in much lower numbers than doomsdayers...

...predicted. Around Fukushima, quite possibly, but given the relatively (to Chernobyl) low exposure levels, probably in numbers low enough that it will be dificult to tease them from the natural background.

TMI, Sellafield, and other bogeyman cluster sites? Someone recently did a reverse statistical analysis, just to see what size and distribution of clusters ordinary random variation might produce, ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT of any causative agency. Result, ALL of those "strongly indicative" cancer clusters turned out to be pretty much indistinguishable from background noise.

This is not to say that TMI, Sellafield, etc. are absolutely and definitively not causative agents, simply that it can not be demonstrated (or honestly argued) that they are, or even might be, and no amount of wishing, wailing, gnashing of teeth and poking holes in maps with righteously jabbed fingers will change that.

More people die unnatural, non-accidental deaths around the refineries and other oil facilities of Texas EVERY YEAR than Chernobly has demonstrably killed in the last QUARTER OF A CENTURY.

On a related note: Overhead powerlines, and cellphone towers are a lot more ubiquitous than nuclear power plants. For them it CAN be argued with a great deal of certitude, that they present minimal danger to the genome and their greatest carnage is entirely to the hip pocket.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Yup, this is why Chernobyl is still an exclusion zone

Try to peddle that somewhere else.

As to TMI... again, try to peddle that somewhere else. Nobody said, learn to read, that people around TMI are falling dead... but one study versus how many? Look specifically for Thyroid, bone and Leukemias... the latter the rare types to be exact.

The increase IS statistically significant.

Go peddle that somewhere else.

As is the leak at TMI compared to either Chermobyl or the continuing fun at Fuku... was child's play. Of all three it was the least problematic... oh and Fuku is NOT over yet.

[TheMadMonk]

34. Almost certainly. By an amount so small as to be essentially indistinguishable...

...from natural variation. 25% to 25.001%. (Numbers plucked from arse for illustrative purposes only.)

Unfortunately, you are quite probably correct. Some dickhead will attempt to "cook the books".

Fortunately, they'll almost certainly go way too far and their efforts will stand out like dog's balls against the historical record.

Unfortunately, you lot will probably play merry hell with the simple fact of evidence tampering, whilst simutaneously refusing to accept any honest assessment of the degree of that tampering.

[abelenkpe]

13. Doh

We went to the beach everyday last summer...

[TheMadMonk]

35. Fergedaboutit. Minus time from the smog certainly helped more...

...than even using that kelp as a mastubatory aid could possibly harm you. (Yeah, Eww, right back at you.)

FFS, simply walking a metre further from the kerb in the vicinity heavy traffic will do you far more good than any special effort to avoid the fallout from Fukushima. The stress of the effort alone would be more hamful, than anything actually avoided.

[NuttyFluffers]

22. i look forward to it being in the toothpaste of our economic overlords.

it'd go well after oil in our seafood.

y'know, share and share alike...

[malaise]

23. Get your bananas

[MineralMan]

29. Not surprising. There was a release from

Fukushima, and kelp is an iodine-concentrating plant. Interestingly enough, it probably captured much of the radioactive iodine and held it until it decayed, thereby removing it from the water.

No release of radioactive isotopes is a good thing, but it's not at all surprising that it showed up in that kelp.

Nuclear power generation is not safe. It has never been safe and cannot be made to be safe. That said, there is virtually no risk at all from radioactive iodine trapped in giant kelp. Few animals eat giant kelp, and the iodine has long sense decayed and ceased to be radioactive.

[truedelphi]

37. the problem is much bigger than the iodine -radiation

Late last spring, when the monitoring sites in New England found cesium* in THEIR air samples, I knew it was trouble for everyone living on the West Coast. My spouse and I quit eating anything but two year aged cheese.

How simple would it be for the government to tell us the truth? But the EPA's response to the Fukushima event was to CLOSE the monitoring stations on the4 West Coast.

*Cesium's half life is much longer than I care to think about.

[MineralMan]

38. Sounds like a pretty boring diet, really.

Yes, there was contamination from Fukushima. That's to be expected. How much risk that generates for people in the US is pretty much not known.

Nuclear power generation is not safe. It has never been safe and cannot be made to be safe. That said, it exists and is in operation all around the world. Occasionally, there is a release of radioactive isotopes. That is why it is not safe. As for what the government tells us, I can go look up the monitoring results, if I like. Not much to do about what has already happened, though.

[lovuian]

31. that beautiful coastline in California is going

to be death zone

[zappaman]

32. No, it's not.

[MineralMan]

39. Not until the next major earthquake, it's not.

The amount of radioactive isotopes from Fukushima on the west coast is minor, and will have little effect on human health.

Nuclear power generation is not safe. It has never been safe and cannot be made to be safe. That said, it's important to maintain some perspective and look at actual risks from incidents like Fukushima. Panic is not warranted, and no "death zones" have been created in the US.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. If San Onofre goes...

the levels of radiation are NOT that high... but cesium and strontium ARE in the food chain. Iodine... long gone.

[suffragette]

43. Apparently this was from rain during that time

From a longer article:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=radioactive-iodine-from-from-fukushima-found-in-california-kelp&page=2

In Southern California, the kelp was collected after rainstorms, which would have washed the radioactive material from the air onto land and then into the ocean.

Other sites that were measured – including Orange County’s Laguna Beach and Crystal Cove – were less contaminated than Corona del Mar, since the latter gets urban runoff via a creek that winds through much of Orange County.

“A whole confluence of things were happening. You’ve got this plume that moves along, and then when it rains, that’s when the material comes out in the rain,” Manley said.


And from page 1 of this article:
The scientists only measured iodine 131, although other isotopes were in the plume from Japan that also accumulate in kelp. One of them, Cesium 137, has a 30-year half-life.




Hmm, that kelp was not the only matter being rained on at the time (says the soggy Seattleite), nor was California the only locale.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Hold it, some of us said 8-10 days for jet stream to bring it over

if it was fast... and our fans of nuclear laughed at us...

Ah yes, I remember those days, not so fondly.

[suffragette]

48. Yes, I remember those days, too, and in the same way

The SA article notes the "kelp was collected on April 15 of last year and tested five days later."

Isn't that around the time that higher than normal levels of I-131 were being detected in along the West Coast?

Seems there should have been much more systemic and continued testing done.

BTW, not sure if you ever saw this. It was being conducted in that same time period:

http://www.qciobserver.com/Article.aspx?Id=4908
No-drink order in Old Massett, following radiation increase
April 8, 2011 4:36 PM

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. You remember correctly

and we had a few of those no drink orders since levels rose above the point of concern, but bellow clear health effects.

I will need to go get some bananas today.