Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Radioactive Iodine-131 in rainwater sample near San Francisco 18,100% above federal drinking water s

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:11 PM
Original message
Radioactive Iodine-131 in rainwater sample near San Francisco 18,100% above federal drinking water s
Energy News is reporting this. Wondered if anyone here had seen these reports.


Radioactive Iodine-131 in rainwater sample near San Francisco 18,100% above federal drinking water standard
Nuclear policy expert: Striking that radioactive iodine-131 in California rainwater is so far above level permitted in drinking
water
Radioactive Iodine-131 in Pennsylvania rainwater sample is 3300% above federal drinking water standard
EPA: Radioactive Iodine-131 levels in PA & MA rainwater exceed maximum contaminant level permitted in drinking water

http://enenews.com/ny-times-contributor-confirms-califo...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Liberal_in_LA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Some DUers won't like this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Why? I'm scared...I want to be reassured
he public authorities have sought to avoid grim technical details that might trigger alarm or even panic.

They dont want to go there, said Robert Alvarez, a nuclear expert who, from 1993 to 1999, was a policy adviser to the secretary of energy. The spin is all about reassurance.

On March 21, Stanford University presented an invitation-only panel discussion on the Japanese crisis that featured Alan Hansen, an executive vice president of Areva NC, a unit of the company focused on the nuclear fuel cycle.

Clearly, he told the audience, were witnessing one of the greatest disasters in modern time. Clearly, theres no access to the core, said. The Japanese are honestly blind.

http://enenews.com/public-authorities-avoiding-details-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_in_LA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. They don't think the situation is dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. Looking @ NUC Berkeley website I can't find this. Could be false reporting
Edited on Sun Apr-03-11 01:50 PM by uppityperson
This is the latest I find on their website. Edited to add "The federal maximum level of iodine-131 allowed in drinking water is 0.111 becquerels per liter." found elsewhere


http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling
Results Log
3/31 (8:00pm): Our first preliminary tap water samples have been analyzed. The only isotope we have detected besides background is I-131, at low significance: 0.024 0.014 Becquerels per liter. This level is much lower than our rain water measurements by a factor of approximately 300, and lower than our milk measurement by a factor of 30. We will be continuing measurements of tap water to confirm this result; the level is so low it is approaching the threshold of detection.

Quick updates on our other samples: Rainwater results have been updated to be current as of the last rainfall on Saturday 3/26. Air filtration will be posted this evening to be current to 3/30. A sample of milk from before Fukushima has been added to the milk sampling results.

One additional note: There was some confusion about the dating of the milk data. Yesterday we listed the date incorrectly as "Purchased on" but the date was in fact the "Best By" date. The date itself was wrong -- the sample listed yesterday as 3/25 was actually 4/4. The background sample posted today was 3/25. Apologies for any confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. This level is much lower than our rain water measurements by a factor of approximately 300
Is this what they were reporting on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Looking @ dates, all I can figure. I've been wrong before but can't find any other data
If someone else can, I'd appreciate it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. I found this vis Bay Citizen. Off to check the UCB link (note 0.111 becquerels/Liter)
Edited on Sun Apr-03-11 01:49 PM by uppityperson
http://www.baycitizen.org/japan-disaster/story/governme... /

As shown in the graph below, published by UC Berkeley, Iodine-131 peaked at 20.1 becquerels per liter, a measure of radioactivity, on the roof of Etcheverry Hall during heavy rains a week ago. The federal maximum level of iodine-131 allowed in drinking water is 0.111 becquerels per liter.
Source: The Bay Citizen (http://s.tt/12cPx )

"3/31 (8:00pm): Our first preliminary tap water samples have been analyzed. The only isotope we have detected besides background is I-131, at low significance: 0.024 0.014 Becquerels per liter. "

So, looks like there was a peak last week on the 24, now is ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nc4bo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
34. I hope it is a mismeasurement but
I want to get to the truth, so sick of the lies and efforts at deception coming from those above us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Indeed. Here is NUC Berkeley sampling page, links to several sampling things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #36
105. i don't like the fact you don't have recent (continual) data...
March 17, 18, 19 seem to be the sample dates of rainwater. Those dates make me wonder if they are 'good' days to take samples. Good = Those rainfall samples taken during days which air quality modeling would have calculated a high(er) level of radiation is likely due to spikes previously being detected in the air at the site in Japan. Modeling can determine the day prevailing winds would bring a radiation spike to the San Francisco area (where these samples listed where taken). EPA (and others) act like there is no way to model a very concise method to take both air quality and water quality samples.

We have the modeling ability to pinpoint the trajectory of high radiation releases into the atmosphere. We can takes those trajectories of air borne releases and determine where they might fall back to the ground via rainfall. I've used EPA backward trajectory modeling programs to detect where a high source of Ozone, Mercury, and other air toxins came from (point-source) while working with Tribal Air Quality programs. Yet nobody is talking about such models in the United States. Here is an article on Backward Trajectory as used by American Indian Tribes.
http://www4.nau.edu/itep/air/docs/NVFall_05.pdf


I'd also love to see daily rainfall samples from Oregon and Alaska. It seems the Pacific Northwest has been the target of most radiation plumes according to the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) modeling (if those models are indeed real). I know that Portland, OR saw record rainfall in the month of March. Daily radiation samples are what is needed to determine what concern may exist for direct human exposure, as well as, contamination of any agriculture. Those daily samples should be dry deposition (air quality samples) as well as wet deposition (rain water, snow). To me, air quality modeling like that of NILU

If this is a valid model, then we know where to take rain samples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wJninXiYIM


I wonder if radioactive waste can somehow latch onto evaporating water molecules from the ocean and then fall back onto land as rainfall?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
55. Me too...
...and to realize that we're being kept in the dark--for profit, is enough
to make you want to scream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #55
109. Yeah, I thought it was odd that the state of Mass. was releasing rainwater results
but for some odd reason no one thought to measure what's been coming down in the pacific northwest. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #17
100. Not sure if it differs, but tap water versus rainwater.
It seems the 3/31 text in your post states "tap water". The article talks of rainwater. Is there a difference?

Granted many may not drink rainwater, but we all utilize rainwater for gardens and commercial agriculture. Hopefully there are many PhD students in the USA who are about to embark on long-term monitoring of spikes in radiouclides and toxins (from radionuclides) found in U.S. produced agriculture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
68. Reassurance won't work with me. But I'll have to take it as it comes. No escape, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mrs. Overall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
86. Yep--I have been called "nutty" for asking questions about Seattle and our 2 weeks of solid rain--
WA State milk has already tested for low levels of radiation. But it's "nutty" to have concern about the two weeks of rain and the satellite images of the jet stream coming across the Pacific.

I think this is going to be a bigger story for all of us--when we finally receive actual news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #86
96. Actually that blast of wet weather that I had to ride my bike through this morning
may have a protective effect. unfortunately that means the fallout from Fukushima will be pushed north to Canada, but that stream of air pushing this storm front didn't pass over Japan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cppuddy Donating Member (40 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
107. 1
I'm a enviromental scientist and work for an envirometal
science company. I deal with town and city water tests
everyday. If I saw a number this far out I would have retested
the sample, and location. Continual monitoring of samples from
all sites over a longer period of time should be used; to see
if there is above normal levels of Iodine. One site over one
day, is an outer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. holy shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. I would now,for the first time,advise all in that area to talk to a doctor about potassium iodide
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. 18 *THOUSAND* percent above normal/safe. Right in my area.

:wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
30. that was a comma...I thought that looked odd too
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
39. Here is link with links to what they checked and results.


http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling

For instance
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2278
Tapwater
The following are results for tap water samples taken from a sink in Etcheverry Hall, UC Berkeley campus. The only isotope we have detected besides background is I-131, at low significance: 0.024 0.014 Becquerels per liter. This level is much lower than our rain water measurements by a factor of approximately 500, and lower than our milk measurement by a factor of 3.

In the table below the plots, we are providing two numbers for each of the isotopes. The first is a standard concentration unit of Becquerel per liter (Bq/L) which describes the number of particles decaying over the period of one second. For the general public, we have converted this number to an exposure dose per liter of water consumed. The number in parentheses is the number of liters of water that one would need to consume to equal the radiation exposure of a single round trip flight from San Francisco to Washington D.C. (0.05 mSv). For more information on how this equivalent dose is calculated, the details are here: How Effective Dose is Calculated

The tap water measurements are done with the same setup as the Rainwater Collection Experiment.

I-131
Sample Date Bq/L (liters**)
Estimated Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) 0.018
3/29/2011 7:54 0.024 0.014 (110,000)
3/30/2011 11:50 less than MDA


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
56. THis is what ticks me off
I have some in the emergency kit but if tptb do not tell you there is a problem then who can tell when one needs to take it? I have some nieces and nephews that are young that I would give it to if I knew it was needed. It is so frustrating when you know you will not get any info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #56
69. We think alike
I have it. BUt I need good information to go by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nc4bo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Oh dear.
Edited on Sun Apr-03-11 01:19 PM by nc4bo
We have all sorts of filter impurities out of water with the exceptions being prescription drugs, hormones, probably some other chemicals I don't know :puke: and now radiation.

How can you filter out radiation?

Is any agency bothering to begin testing fresh water supplies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. The same way you filter out the other stuff.
If you take out the Iodine 131 the radiation doesn't stay behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Great
Say, I have an Iodine-131 remover for sale.
How many can I put you down for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. ZERO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nc4bo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. If things don't get under control, that Iodine-131 will not be the only
thing we'll be needing to remove.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
50. And therein lies the problem. Any I131 that reaches us here will be
a lot less dangerous because if its short half life. Cesium, Strontium, and Plutonium, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #50
97. The media keeps indicating that those won't be an issue because they are so heavy...
I don't recall them being a problem all the way over here in the US after Chernobyl, but it bears watching, I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nc4bo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. I keep hearing reports of testing this and that but what's lacking is
any reassurance that there is a solution to the problem, besides the obvious, short term one of getting those reactors cooled down and sealed up. What about long term?

What public protections are there and why isn't it being discussed. If there were any, wouldn't you think that along with these reports of higher than average radiation levels would be immediately followed by a statement on the steps being taken to ensure uncontaminated fresh water supply?

I get the feeling that there is nothing that can be done. Nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shockra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #19
71. Zeolites
http://www.etszeolite.com/html/human.html

"The reason zeolites are now attracting so much interest lies in their strict crystalline structure with minute channels running in different directions which have a negative charge allowing the absorption and adsorption of heavy and radioactive metals and numerous toxins. Most toxins are positively charged, while zeolites have a negative collective charge, which allows them to act as a magnet and a sieve for such substances, attracting them into zeolites' numerous channels and removing them out of the body. This property was used during the Chernobyl disaster - a huge amount of zeolite was thrown into the reactors to decontaminate them, and was used to decontaminate both people and soil. People were given zeolite in cookies and other food to help remove radiation out of their bodies. This property is extensively used nowadays by the military forces for the same reasons."

The most reliable zeolite formula I know of is Natural Cellular Defense. I used that about 5 years ago for metal poisoning, and the difference was dramatic, for me. I remember reading about Chernobyl and its use for radiation back then.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nc4bo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #71
87. Thanks for that shockra, had no idea but it's definitely good to know.
Sidenote: I still can't believe that we're even having serious discussions about this.

Mindblowing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. And so it begins
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. I don't like this thread
:(

but I sure appreciate Your posting this. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. My problem is I don't understand half of what is being discussed
But I do understand the concept "any fallout blowing in from Japan = bad news"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #15
67. ha! I'm right there with ya..
:shrug: not sure whut's up,
just know it ain't goood..!
..we are *learning* some STUFF..!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
axollot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #15
84. Have you seen the videos from Arnie Gundersen?
Www.fairewinds.com/updates

Should help you understand - he can explain things in a well reasoned plain language way!

Cheers
Sandy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. Plain and blunt! And scary as hell!
Thanks for sharing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. Have you another backup source? I'd like to read more from another place also
searching doesn't show me anything except 2 days ago. Thank you.

http://www.dailycal.org/article/112565/radioactive_trac...
The records have so far shown miniscule amounts of radiation in Berkeley's air, milk and water supply, despite the public worry that the West Coast would suffer radiation contamination.

"You have to drink about 500 to 600 liters of fresh rainwater to get the same dose (of radiation) as a transcontinental flight," said Vetter, who is also a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. I don't know anything about the website
It links to a variety of sources though including Democracy Now and the NYTimes.

Its BP like logo is disconcerting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. NYTimes link goes to a bay area search, only Berkeley references are guns and repubs.
Bay Citizen link says this "The UC Berkeley researchers also discovered trace levels of iodine-131 and other radioactive materials believed to have originated in Japan in commercially available milk and in a local stream."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Since the article is 3/31, it is referencing UCN Berkeley tests that show minimal, not that much
I'd call it false reporting. The article in OP is dated 3/31, so they could only be using the UCN data that shows minimal, NOT what they are reporting.

Searching on, but this looks like a false report, thankfully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. I appreciate you investigating
I don't want to report inaccurate information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Thank you for posting this also. I don't see how they arrived at those figures.
I like to double check before panicking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
14. NUC Berkeley website doesn't show this as of last post.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling

Results Log
3/31 (8:00pm): Our first preliminary tap water samples have been analyzed. The only isotope we have detected besides background is I-131, at low significance: 0.024 0.014 Becquerels per liter. This level is much lower than our rain water measurements by a factor of approximately 300, and lower than our milk measurement by a factor of 30. We will be continuing measurements of tap water to confirm this result; the level is so low it is approaching the threshold of detection.

Quick updates on our other samples: Rainwater results have been updated to be current as of the last rainfall on Saturday 3/26. Air filtration will be posted this evening to be current to 3/30. A sample of milk from before Fukushima has been added to the milk sampling results.

One additional note: There was some confusion about the dating of the milk data. Yesterday we listed the date incorrectly as "Purchased on" but the date was in fact the "Best By" date. The date itself was wrong -- the sample listed yesterday as 3/25 was actually 4/4. The background sample posted today was 3/25. Apologies for any confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Book Lover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
16. I am far more worried about the plant at Mt Diablo than an isotope w/ a half life of 8 days
(nm)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nc4bo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. How long has this thing been leaking now?
I don't think there'd be nearly as much concern if we knew this was a 1 day or 1 week deal. Even with a half life of 8 days, there's a constant source of material being released.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. I can understand that
You have lived with that very real risk long term. But now we are looking at short term risks that may or may not be increasing as we speak. Until the problem is contained at the source, I am not going to breathe any sigh of relief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
37. At 13,100% it takes 120 days for the water sampled to become safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
64. Do you mean Diablo Canyon? That's not near Mt. Diablo.
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is at Avila Beach near San Luis Obispo. SLO is still close enough to be worrisome but not as close as the East Bay.

There are no big nuclear power plants in the SF bay area but there are small reactors in research facilities.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
22. Obviously it's time to revise the federal drinking water standard.
Upward, to where it's safe for the corporate state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. +1. No better way to prevent panic. As soon as people learn preemptive chemotherapy
is a good thing, we can add a surcharge to their taxes (if they're middle class or lower, of course--a surcharge on the rich would be harmful to economic activity).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. LOL, so true. But what's the benchmark?
Some pro nukers here will swarm to state the emissivity presence of concrete or bananas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
57. Yes, maybe the people will thank the...
...corporations and our corporate-run government for dosing us up with
radiation and giving us all a nice, healthy glow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #22
98. Yikes... They probably would do this....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. If you want a water filter system that filters radiation particles and is used by the Red Cross
in disaster zones:

it holds 10 liters of water

http://www.amazon.com/Katadyn-Drip-Gravidyn-Water-Filte...

extra filter link:

http://www.amazon.com/Katadyn-20720-Gravidyn-Replacemen...

This price on Amazon was the cheapest I could find it last week and has already gone up $20 since I bought it. From what I have read, the filters will filter 36,000 gallons of water, depending on the condition of the water being filtered. They should last a long, long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. Yeah, I've got that in my cart. It looks outstanding...
guess maybe it's time to bite the bullet and get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #46
54. Unless they get the Japan Nuclear reactors under control,
I don't think things are going to improve. Heck, radiation reached Wisconsin. I feel better having my water filter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
48. Thanks just purchased one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. You're welcome.
:hi: I'm glad I bought one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #28
58. I have this one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. Nice. I bought the other one just because the product information said in filtered radiation
Edited on Sun Apr-03-11 04:48 PM by in_cog_ni_to
particles. That was the only one I could find that stated that specifically. PLUS, they sent a bunch of their systems to Japan to help the people filter their water. I thought that was pretty cool. :) Another reason: the Red Cross uses this unit in disaster zones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #28
94. The problem is that we absorb more toxins through our skin while showering
then just by drinking the water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
38. Ok, I tried my best to track this down
The best I can find is this, which I got to from searching on words in the article and clicking related links:

http://www.baycitizen.org/japan-disaster/story/governme... /

The EPAs tardy response to widespread alarm about radiation in rain and the air has been sharply criticized by Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

"Its troubling that the EPA has to date not provided any precipitation data of its own, while measurements that have been made by states and others across the country are indicating somewhat surprising elevations of iodine-131, Hirsch said Friday.

A rooftop water monitoring program managed by UC Berkeleys Department of Nuclear Engineering detected substantial spikes in rain-borne iodine-131 during torrential downpours a week ago.

As shown in the graph below, published by UC Berkeley, Iodine-131 peaked at 20.1 becquerels per liter, a measure of radioactivity, on the roof of Etcheverry Hall during heavy rains a week ago. The federal maximum level of iodine-131 allowed in drinking water is 0.111 becquerels per liter.



I think this is the UC Berkeley data referred to above. The line for 3/23 matches the 20.1 becquerels per liter for I-131

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/RainWaterSampling


3/23 09:06 3/23 18:00 3 20.1




Like you, I don't know how to interpret these numbers myself.



And like you, I have many questions about this:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. That is what I'm finding also. A high report on 3/23 and low before/since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. I am wondering about this in conjunction with the air monitors
undergoing quality review" by the EPA around the same time.

It looks like there was a spike, as reflected by the UC Berkeley data.

Had the EPA detected a similar spike in air a bit before that and blamed it on equipment issues rather than examining it and releasing it as data?

Also, I have questions about the variances in terms of air and rainfall. That is, does the detection in air mean it is passing through whereas if we have rainfall, as we have had so much of recently, it means it has made it to the ground and to our water, food, etc?

I don't know the answers to any of this, but it is raising many questions for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
41. some primary links for this story (including sampling methodology from UC Berkeley)
UC Berkeley College of Engineering American Nuclear Society (links on the site in report)


"UCB Rain Water Sampling Results, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Nuclear Engineering:

Iodine-131 level in rainwater sample taken on the roof of Etcheverry Hall on UC Berkeley campus, March 23, 2011 from 9:06-18:00 PDT

20.1 Becquerel per liter (Bq/L) = 543 Picocuries per liter (pCi/L) Conversion calculator here.

The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is 3 pCi/L. (Press Release)"

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry for Iodine, CDC, April 2004:

EPA has set an average annual drinking water limit of 3 pCi/L for Iodine-131 so the public radiation dose will not exceed 4 millirem"


http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/RainWaterSampling






------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NYT story

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/us/01milk.html?_r=1&s...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Looks like the same info I'm finding, a peak on 3/23 from NUC Berkeley, and a NYT article
that is general, from a few days ago. Interesting info but not to panic about? Nice to find the NUC B site, will be watching what they find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. roger that,this is just so unpredictable due to bio-accumulation,size of injurious dose & randomness
of dispersion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Ok, if I am reading this correctly, we had a one-day spike
that exceeded the annual limit by 540 pCi/L.

Would that be correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #47
74. you need toisten to this dude ...he knows of what he speaks....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
44. Original Article Here (From 3/31/11):
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
49. My virus protection software is blocking this site
Edited on Sun Apr-03-11 02:33 PM by Matariki
:shrug:

"This Web site has exhibited suspicious behavior or is similar to Web sites that are known sources of malware, viruses and spam. Visiting this site may put you at risk or compromise your identity or privacy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Looks like they have a bunch of ads. Go to the NUC Berkeley website for direct info
I posted it upthread a couple times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Oh great!
Just when I was thinking it was safe to get a drink of water, now I have to worry about my computer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
59. I find it interesting the UC Berekely is on top of this, but the EPA isn't.
We got rainwater data for Massachusetts, but no one really thinks to measure what's been coming down in Northern California or the Pacific Northwest, where it's been raining fairly constantly for a fucking MONTH?

Oh, yeah, the "spin is all about reassurance". That's, er, reassuring. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
60. This is not "reassurance spin", but I've been doing a lot of reading about this past couple days
one thing I've come to understand is, I think that the large quantities of I-131 are only produced during active fission. If (big if) the reactors get to a stable cooldown phase, and we're not seeing these blue flash spontaneous criticalities or whatever, then as far as I understand it the iodine levels should start to go down.

I could be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
61. The levels are still very very low.
3 picocuries per litre is the EPA standard for drinking water (that's 0.111 becquerels, the unit the rest of the world uses to measure radiation). The levels reported are up to 540 picocuries, apparently (which is 20 bequerels/litre). The maximum level for liquids intended for consumption, per Euratom guidelines, is 500 Bq/litre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. When this event first occurred...
the Nuke dept at Berkeley started moving their sensitive equipment to the roof of their building. They have been operating around the clock since. Since most of the numbers we get from the assorted journalists are suspect, we need to monitor what the Berkeley group is doing and getting as real numbers.

Since most of the Bay Area drinking water comes from up near Yosemite, there should be some active monitors up there in the mountains as well.

My own feelings are that the figures we get from the media are probably wrong because journalists know little about the subject matter and are hard-pressed for time in sending back any sort of info. The people involved in Japan who really know what is going on are probably too busy--seriously busy--to cope with the press. The people talking to the press may have flawed info.

For us and the rest of the world, a time that calls for patience while all the numbers are being crunched and the physical efforts to contain the problem continue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
65. striking that they got the numbers so wrong
What kind of news source is this.

I'd use the UCB numbers. Plume measurement verified that SF area got the worst contamination so far.

Maybe by error they hit the distilled sampling page? (In which they concentrated the radiation per sample in order to be able to detect very small amounts of contamination.)
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/1906

Sampling rainwater doesn't equate at all to contamination in drinking water, because drinking water sources are not directly from rainwater.

It's never a great idea to drink unfiltered rainwater anyway. Even stream sampling (which will give you a much higher number than drinking water testing) will show much lower levels than rainwater. I think someone's in the "fright" business.

I think the Berkeley page is excellent for those who want to know whether they should be concerned, or just to learn:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #65
103. I'd start mothballing our nukes and switch to wind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rdking647 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
66. according to UC berkley
who I trust,the amount of I-131 of I-131 in rain water is at tiny levels
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/RainWaterSampling

the last day of data they have posted is from 3-27 which is the last day it rained in berkely order to get the same exposure from i-131 that you get on a san fran to washington dc flight you would have to drink 1700 gallons of water
their tap water samples are even lower-300 times lower
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
70. Bad news, good news, bad news.
Edited on Sun Apr-03-11 10:41 PM by caseymoz
The bad news is: this is really bad news.

The good news is: Iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days. Expect it to be gone in six months.

The bad news is: if it's detectable, unfortunately, there are probably worse things in the water. Expect uranium and plutonium.

If this is confirmed, this is sounding scary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #70
88. Uranium and plutonium are physically heavy elements. Thus,
it would be nearly impossible for them to travel on the winds or even in water currents very far from Japan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #88
102. So's iodine!! So is strontium! You're measuring this in atomic units.

Physically impossible? You forget the "heavy" weight you're talking about is weighed in protons and neutrons, not micrograms. They can still be far lighter than say, pollen, which is carried aloft over oceans. If you have dust particles small enough, they can certainly be taken aloft and carried. Iodine has a little more than half the weight of plutonium, which means that a plutonium dust particle made of just half the atoms of an iodine particle will travel just as well.

So, not as many of them will travel so far so fast, but, yes, they will travel. And plutonium is just twice the weight but is far nastier than iodine in the long run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #102
104. You may be right - I am not a physicist and flunked chemistry, lol.
So I was just stating what I'd read elsewhere. Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
72. We are all Fukushima --
Maybe the plastic industry can sew something together to cover our reservoirs!!



:nuke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
73. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator.
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
75. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
76. Who needs water, anyway?
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WheelWalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
77. This could ruin someone's weekend. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradoxical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
78. ...Holy shit...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
80. KNR! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
81. I can't find any other verification of this claim.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theglammistress Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Found this...
http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3...

Don't know if this has been posted or not...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
82. Send Ann Coulter over to sample the water
have her drink a few gallons...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimlup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
89. Yeah, it is raining here today (midwest) and it is the maximum we'll probably get
I'll work hard to stay out of it but I'm more concerned about the kids. They should definitely avoid it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
90. Why not just 181-times normal? That's a 18,000% increase, not 18,100%. Sorry. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
91. !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
92. Looking at the Berkeley site, there was one spike on March 23, otherwise it wasn't as bad. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
93. This really worries me.
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
95. Holy shit! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
99. Unbelieveable. And the government will just let this happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
101. I-131 HALF LIFE IS ONLY 8.02 DAYS ..nothing to worry about.. or something.. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abqmufc Donating Member (590 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
106. Why are AQ models not being used to determine key locations to sample air and water in the USA?
I've used Backward Trajectory models to determine point-sources for air quality pollutants. I did this for 8 years for American Indian Tribes. A brief article on how this is done and why its key for Tribe's is here: http://www4.nau.edu/itep/air/docs/NVFall_05.pdf

It seems the EPA and others are not using modeling to determine locations to sample air and water for contaminates from this nuclear catastrophe in Japan.

If the model from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) is correct/valid, then San Francisco is not the ideal location to take rainwater samples. Samples should be taken daily in the Portland, OR area. Portland has seen record rainfall for the month of March, and it seems from this model, Oregon is the central location air plumes of radionuclies are the most concentrated.

Here is the model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wJninXiYIM

This is the time of year people are planting their gardens and fields, rainwater is essential for crops. It be nice to know several studies are going to be done in key locations (based on air/water quality modeling and monitoring) to study levels of radiation (and other toxins linked to this nuclear accident in Japan) in U.S. based agriculture.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #106
110. Yeah. Odd, isn't it?
I'm not particularly confident about what sort of crap has been raining down on us, lately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
108. Nothing to worry about! SQUACK! Nothing to worry about! SQUACK!


Now, can we please get back to serious problems, like the justified anger of people whose favorite book got burned half a planet away, or the terrible threat posed by pictures of naked and semi-naked women on tv and the internet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 18th 2019, 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC