
Fukushima Fallout Reaches San Francisco - _pius
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26593/
======
sambeau
These news stories say more about the incredible sensitivity of radiation
sensors than they do about nuclear safety (or personal danger). Here, in the
UK, radiation from Fukushima has been picked up in Glasgow and this 'fact' has
been reported widely in the media here.

Reporting this is interesting for scientists but unnecessary and possibly
disingenuous (to the point of misleading) for the wider public. It can only
lead to a heightened sense of panic.

Obligatory analogy that I've just thought of: Just because a telescope can see
an exploding supernova does not mean we are in any danger from its blast.

~~~
patio11
In related news: scientists have discovered that an uncontrolled nuclear
reaction over one hundred trillion times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb
is releasing radiation of all known varieties, including lethal gamma
radiation, and will result in the inevitable exposure of all of the earth's
surface within the next twenty-four hours. Fallout is expected to reach San
Francisco within eight minutes, and no known technology is capable of
outrunning it, to say nothing of evacuating the entire city in time.

Scientists claim we are safe - but can they be trusted? We go to you live in
Japan, historically believed to be the origin of this dangerous phenomenon.

~~~
mrcharles
It's a reaction so powerful you can see it with the naked eye.

~~~
rmc
However it's so dangerous, it can burn your eyes if you look at it too much.

------
nickolai
I disagree with the "no health risk" part. There are serious and proven health
consequences for chronic anxiety, which this kind of news is obviously
stirring up.

Outside Japan(in the SF area for example), the news coverage of this "fallout"
may cause more health issues than the "fallout" itself.

~~~
pacomerh
Absolutely, man, the only time I've been really sick, it was because I was
stressed with anxiety, that gave me all sorts of problems, mental and
physical.

------
aj700
"Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it's
time for our viewers to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo
inside?" Professor "Yes I would, Kent."

------
sipajahava2
If I am remembering correctly, the concern with ingestion of I-131 is that it
concentrates in the thyroid and the thyroid can receive significant damage by
primarily the beta radiation. The gamma radiation emitted in the decay will
likely cause minimal damage as much of it will pass through the body without
interacting with the soft body tissue. In the following quote the article
seems to be discounting the airborne/water contamination by comparing the
whole body dose (gamma radiation), which really shouldn't be the main concern.

" If a person were to drink a typical amount of water per day containing the
EPA limit of I-131, then in one year he or she would receive a whole body dose
of < 0.04 mSv (4 mrem). This dose should be compared to the US average annual
radiation dose of 6.2 mSv (620 mrem)."

Seems misleading or improperly reported.

------
panacea
It's difficult to combine the various units of measurement they use in the
article (combined with the difficulty in comparing point radiation readings
with doses over periods of time), but my understanding of the article is that
the radiation detected is a fraction of 1 percent above what we normally
receive as background radiation (anyone able to confirm or correct me)?

ie: Measurable but completely insignificant.

~~~
Symmetry
That actually overstates the danger. If the rainwater remains that radioactive
for an entire year it will give people 1 percent above normal background
radiation, but really I can't think of how the radioactive iodine levels could
possibly remain that high so long. So more realistically the citizens of San
Fransisco are looking at their yearly radiation dose going up by .1%.

~~~
panacea
"but really I can't think of how the radioactive iodine levels could possibly
remain that high so long"

Erm... the reactors and spent fuel ponds keep leaking radiation and the half-
life is way more than a year?

------
orenmazor
stop calling it fallout.

~~~
jamesbritt
Why, and what's the proper term?

(And if it's the wrong term, why are researchers at MIT and Cornell calling it
"fallout"?)

~~~
orenmazor
I've really only been following <http://mitnse.com> these days, because so far
they've been pure facts. I haven't seen any use of 'fallout' there. links?

~~~
gamache
That's likely because aerial fallout is as yet a non-issue, and will likely
(hopefully!) remain so.

------
gammarator
Here is a frequently updated page from the UC Berkeley Nuclear Engineering
department: they're reporting test results from air, rainwater, tap water, and
milk.

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

The detected amounts are tiny, and the site places them in context of other
kinds of exposure.

------
Symmetry
Why is the EPA limit so low if their aren't any negative health effects until
the doses get so many orders of magnitude higher?

~~~
pyre
Because humans aren't the only ones that might potentially be affected?
Amphibians are especially susceptible. You'll can find a lot of hubbub about
frogs being affect just by the change of UV radiation from the reduction in
the ozone layer.

~~~
Symmetry
In the case of frogs thats because of skin thickness and won't apply to
radioactive iodine in the water, but I take your general point that other
creatures might be more susceptible to it than humans are.

~~~
pyre
Well, I thought it was due to the permeability of their skin which allows them
to more easily absorb contaminants, but I'm not especially studied on the
issue.

------
z92
From the article...

> US Environmental Protection Agency places a limit for the amount of
> iodine-131 allowed in drinking water of 4 becquerels per litre

> By comparison, San Francisco's rainwater contains 16 Bq/litre.

It's four times the safety limit for drinking water! Am I missing anything?

~~~
drags
We don't drink rainwater directly -- it probably sits in treatment facilities
for a while before coming out of your faucet.

~~~
Tichy
Trust in the government?

------
stretchwithme
This article mentions four elements, iodine-131 and 132, tellurium-132 and
cesium-134 and 137, and then focuses on the one with the short half life.
Isn't cesium dangerous for a lot longer? Or is iodine the problem because it
collects easily in the human body?

~~~
brazzy
Intensity of radiation is the _inverse_ of half life. The shorter the half
life, the more dangerous a nuclide is while you're exposed to it.

~~~
iwwr
Biological half life is the time the body takes to eliminate half the
substance in question (or half the toxicity thereof). In this case, the
shorter the half life, the less dangerous the specific thing is.

------
acconrad
I seriously can't tell if this is a bad April Fools joke or not.

