Fukushima Contaminants Found As Far North As Alaska's Bering Strait 75
Radioactive contamination from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant hit by a tsunami in 2011 has drifted as far north as waters off a remote Alaska island in the Bering Strait, scientists said on Wednesday. Reuters reports: Analysis of seawater collected last year near St. Lawrence Island revealed a slight elevation in levels of radioactive cesium-137 attributable to the Fukushima disaster, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Sea Grant program said. The newly detected Fukushima radiation was minute. The level of cesium-137, a byproduct of nuclear fission, in seawater was just four-tenths as high as traces of the isotope naturally found in the Pacific Ocean. Those levels are far too low to pose a health concern, an important point for people living on the Bering Sea coast who subsist on food caught in the ocean.
Those levels are far too low to pose a health concern, an important point for people living on the Bering Sea coast who subsist on food caught in the ocean, Sheffield said. Until the most recent St. Lawrence Island sample was tested by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the only other known sign of Fukushima radiation in the Bering Sea was detected in 2014 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Those levels are far too low to pose a health concern, an important point for people living on the Bering Sea coast who subsist on food caught in the ocean, Sheffield said. Until the most recent St. Lawrence Island sample was tested by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the only other known sign of Fukushima radiation in the Bering Sea was detected in 2014 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
So what (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of contaminants from lots of things in lots of places.
We can detect tiny trace amounts of them with the instruments we have today.
And of course there is no health concern. I'm glad that was in the summary, because there are people who are ignorant enough to believe otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course there is no health concern.
Indeed. Your body treats cesium like potassium. It does not bioaccumulate. You pee it out. You can speed up this process by using Lite-Salt or No-Salt to boost the level of potassium in your diet, and increase the excretion of both potassium and cesium in your urine.
Or you can just not worry about it.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Perhaps you should stop talking about stuff you have no freaking idea about?
Your body treats cesium like potassium. It does not bioaccumulate.
Your human body, perhaps. No idea. But how is that relevant when your food does?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re:So what (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps you should stop talking about stuff you have no freaking idea about?
Since when has that ever stopped you.
Your body treats cesium like potassium. It does not bioaccumulate. Your human body, perhaps. No idea. But how is that relevant when your food does?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Your link is paywalled and we can only read the abstract. And since fish, shrimp and things people eat don't use Cesium to build their body structure, they won't accumulate heavy metals over time. Cesium, like Strontium, is a heavy metal and won't combine with carbon or participate in other biological reactions. That's why most experts worry about Iodine and not Cesium or Strontium when evaluating the risk of bio-accumulation of medium lived fission products. But Iodine's isotopes are harder to detect than Cesium's which is why you see these articles about Cesium. The fact we can detect it at all says more about the sensitivity of our instruments than risk to the environment. They are measuring a difference of 0.4 atomic events per volume of seawater! Remember the conversion factor there is on the order of 10^22!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Iodine is a complete different story as it accumulates in your Thyroid.
Cesium, like Strontium, is a heavy metal and won't combine with carbon or participate in other biological reactions ...
It does. It replaces potassium and acts more or less like it
That's why most experts worry about Iodine and not Cesium or Strontium when evaluating the risk of bio-accumulation of medium lived fission products ... in your world. In my world they worry about mushrooms, wild boar eating mushrooms, deer eating mushrooms,
Sure
Re: (Score:2)
Sure ... in your world. In my world they worry about mushrooms, wild boar eating mushrooms, deer eating mushrooms, humans eating mushrooms, deer and wild boar ... oops, and that Caesium.
No. Only the mushrooms are a problem to eat. They are building their structure with Cs-137. The deer pisses out the Cs-137 just like the other isotopes of Cs they consume normally when eating mushrooms. This isn't DDT we are talking about. Heavy metals just don't work the same way as organic molecules. If they did they would be part of organic chemistry. You know, there are enough problems in the world without inventing new ones that don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, there are high levels of Cs-137 in wild boar from eating mushrooms in some regions of Germany:
http://www.spiegel.de/internat... [spiegel.de]
You know, theory is nice and all a that, but the underpinning of science is still to always look at the data.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The deer pisses out the Cs-137 just like the other isotopes of Cs they consume normally when eating mushrooms. ...
Only over a considerable amount of time, it is not like: oops I accidentally ate some Cs-137 and now need to go to pee quickly. As long as they eat the mushrooms they have a higher level
Heavy metals just don't work the same way as organic molecules. Of course not. They accumulate in the kidneys and leaver, or wander into the bone marrow ... or in this case, no idea why you neglect it: in he nerv
Re: (Score:2)
Your link is paywalled and we can only read the abstract.
Below is the conclusion of the paper. The paper is somewhat hidden from public. I don't want to give the link to the free version in public because it may hurt the site that hosts this free version.
4.Conclusion
Cesium concentration factors in the same range as those for macroalgae and fish have been determined previously for other similar species (Gutknecht, 1965; Hewett and Jefferies, 1976). On the other hand, the steady-state 137 Cs concentration factors in the isopod and brown shrimp were significantly higher than those which have been reported for some marine invertebrates (Harrison, 1973; Warnau et al., 1996). The concentra- tion factors of 137 Cs in the isopod and brown shrimp species were influenced strongly by moulting. For this reason, the results expressed are for non-moulting individuals.
In general, the effect of temperature on the accumulation of radionuclides in marine organisms varies according to the radionuclides concerned. For example, the accumulation of 95m Tc by macroalgae has been shown to be metabolically controlled (Topcuoglu and Fowler, 1984) and uptake rate of 137 Cs in clams is enhanced by increasing temperature (Wolfe and Coburn, 1970). On the other hand, uptake rates of some radio-nuclides such as 110 Ag (Topgcoglu et al., 1987) and 237 Np (Guary and Fowler, 1977) have been found to be independent of temperature. According to the present results of 137 Cs uptake by isopod species, it can be said that the accumulation process was not metabolically controlled. However, the bioaccumulation rate in fish species at the present study was increased in response to increasing temperature. Pentreath (1975) demonstrated that temperature does affect the rate of accumulation of 134Cs by plaice fish. This result is in agreement with the bioaccumulation data in the fish species of the present study. In contrast, the bioaccumulation rate of 137 Cs in macroalgae was negatively related to the temperature. It is not possible to discuss this situation. However, the inverse temperature effect observed for 134 Cs radionuclide in mussels at lower salinity (8%) (Dahlgaard, 1981). It is well known that macroalgae possess a narrow range of tolerance to temperature. The degree of tolerence depends on the time exposure and on the rate of temperature change (Zattera et al., 1975). The temperature was measured to be 6.6C at the lagoon water during the collection time of the organisms. If we could have examined after long adaptation period or temperature gradually increased from 6.6C to 16C, we would have observed more reliable values for the macroalgae species at 16C.
The influence of salinity on the rate of bioaccumulation and concentration factor of metals and radio-nuclides in marine organisms is also variable. Previous studies showed that 137 Cs (Bryan, 1963) and As (Uelue and Fowler, 1979) are accumulated in marine invertebrates in high levels from water of lower salinities. On the other hand, the concentration factor of 134 Cs in some fish species increased at high salinity (Pentreath, 1975). In the present study, the accumulation of 137 Cs in isopod species is similarly affected, with significant increases at brackish water than sea water. At the same time, the bioaccumulation rate in macroalgae species also showed slight increase at low salinity. However, the bioaccumulation rate of 137 Cs in the fish species at sea water was higher than brackish water.
The present study strongly suggests that the rapid rate of 137 Cs bioaccumulation and high concentration factors make isopods suitable candiates for their use in monitoring of cesium radionuclides on the shoreline of brackish or marine environments. At the same time, the use of the brown shrimp species for monitoring of the radionuclide in a brackish environment would be a valuable approach.
You're wrong (Score:1)
Perhaps you should stop talking about stuff you have no freaking idea about?
Since when has that ever stopped you.
Your body treats cesium like potassium. It does not bioaccumulate. Your human body, perhaps. No idea. But how is that relevant when your food does?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Your link is paywalled and we can only read the abstract.
Then pay the money, that's what I do.
That's why most experts worry about Iodine and not Cesium or Strontium when evaluating the risk of bio-accumulation of medium lived fission products.
Cs137 and Sr90 are treated like Iodine and Potassium by the body, IIRC. They don't worry about Iodine, they use Iodine in to try to block the uptake of Cs137 if you are exposed to that radio-isotope.
But Iodine's isotopes are harder to detect than Cesium's which is why you see these articles about Cesium.
They're all hard to detect in food because the water in the food acts as a moderator to the alpha, beta and gamma radiation radiation emitted by radio-isotope.
The fact we can detect it at all says more about the sensitivity of our instruments than risk to the environment. They are measuring a difference of 0.4 atomic events per volume of seawater! Remember the conversion factor there is on the order of 10^22!
No, what it says is the instruments aren't sensitive enough to protect the food supply when foodstuffs are moving in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In a human body it actually _replaces_ potassium with server side effects. So in that sense it indeed does bioaccumulate.
the longer you are exposed to it in your diet the higher the cesium fraction in your cells.
Exactly, but bio accumulating would be even server, e.g. as in mushroom that suck cesium up like a sponge.
Re: (Score:1)
Cells are not designed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cells are designed to hold on to their potassium... Cells are not designed.
Yes they are, just not intelligently. "Designed by repeated adaptation over several generations" is still "designed".
Re:determine sedimentation rates with this old tri (Score:5, Funny)
The only people that were happy with Fukushima were the geologists that use nuclear markers in sediment samples. With air testing of nukes long gone and Chernobyl fading there were plenty of labs that popped champagne that day.
New conspiracy theory: The geologists somehow triggered the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, in order to cause the meltdown and create new radioactive markers in the sediment.
Proof: Why else would they have champagne chilled and ready to go?
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, geologists have got rocks in their heads. :)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty good, you should write an ebook.
Great point (Score:2)
New conspiracy theory: The geologists somehow triggered the 2011 earthquake and tsunami,
I have to say that theory has some good traction, as who else would know best HOW to trigger an earthquake?
As the old saying goes, a little knowledge and a lot of dynamite is a dangerous thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima and Chernoblyl are tiny bumps on the chart of radiation from nuclear testing and combined they are a tiny bit of natural background radiation.
Kind of odd to define Alaska as "North" from Japan (Score:2)
I guess you could maybe define it as North-East, but any way you slice it (even considering projection madness) Alaska is a fair bit east of Alaska... really pretty much Russia is north of Japan.
By saying "as far north as" you are really saying something along the lines of about as far north as from the bottom of the U.S. to the top,
Correction, east of Japan... (Score:2)
I guess most people figured out what I meant from the context of the article (and my subject) but I have to admit the error there, thanks for pointing it out!
Totally Agree (Score:1)
Oh I agree, my post is pedantic AF to use the kids lingo. Just felt compelled to bring it up for the sake of discussing the nuances of English.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it might actually matter that the circulation patterns in the Pacific are pretty well known.
Washington State was given a warning to watch for radionuclides shortly after the Fukushima incident. It is absolutely no surprise to anybody that it gradually made its way further northward.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not equivalent. (Score:2)
Just like San Francisco is North of Los Angeles.
Sure but we are not talking about that kind of deviation, it's more like saying New York City is north of Los Angeles. Yes it is technically north, but there is a whole lot of east there as well you are ignoring... Have you ever heard anyone define NYC as being "North of LA"? No, even though technically it is correct - it's not a good descriptive statement.
I was not saying it's not technically correct, just that the phrasing is odd to me. It's also kind o
Not the first time and won't be the last. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Like the time a Russian spy satellite powered by a nuclear reactor burned up in the upper atmosphere [latimes.com] releasing roughly 90 lbs of uranium particles into the atmosphere?
The author of that article is clueless. U235 "highly radioactive"? No. If so, it would not have lasted for billions of years in the earth's crust, along with u238, thorium and potassium-40.
Perhaps the writer is confusing it with the Plutonium 238 used in space probe RTGs?
The concern with reactors crashing, weapon tests, and power reactor accidents is not the large amount of near-stable uranium, but the small amount of fission byproducts, such as the caesium-137 in the above article.
Everyone alive at the time probably has a few atoms of it in their bodies.
And countless atoms o
Re: (Score:2)
Or that time... There have literally been hundreds of man-made releases of material that includes radioactive particles. And natural radiation is all over the place.
I think articles like this undermine our understanding of the world by highlighting something that is of no importance to the public or even very limited use to the scientific community. Just to do a hit job on public trust of the nuclear power industry which is the safest least polluting and least expensive overall mass energy source on the
Re:How is 4/10 of normal an elevated level? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is 4/10 of normal an elevated level?
Obviously the journalist is an idiot.
Here is a more competently written source: Fukushima radiation found in Bering Sea [newsminer.com].
The concentration of cesium 137 went from 2.0 to 2.4 becquerels per cubic meter.
Damn whales! (Score:2)
Uh, what? (Score:2)
So, that's saying there was a reduction of 60% over previous natural levels.
I suspect they meant to say the levels increased by 40%, but innumeracy.
As someone who's had 4 beers... (Score:3)
You shouldn't have the same sentence twice in a summary.
Testimony to detection technology (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't news. This is expected.
fake news (Score:1)
This is obviously fake news. Everyone knows that a nuclear meltdown spreading radioactive waste far and wide is UNPOSSIBLE. Atomic power is TOTALLY SAFE. Just ask the three-headed talking fish off the Fukushima coast - they'll tell you.
Not even newsworthy (Score:2)
So let us get this in terms of reality. So there was .4 becquerels found in 1 tonne of seawater. That's the equivalent of 1/4 of a slice of a banana? This has zero effect on the environment. To be clear if you drank 40 million tonnes of this seawater and retained all the Fukushima radiation for one year you would have reached to lowest amount of exposure shown to be able to cause cancer.
U.S. Changed Standards to Suit Accident (Score:2)