

Ocean Radiation and the Fukushima Disaster - KamiCrit
http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/

======
ChuckMcM
Really there are two things in this article: First that the folks trying to
scare people about radiation lie alot and use misleading graphics to create
fear, and two the ocean is a really big place and the _source_ of radiation
(primarily Cesium-137 and Cesium-134) are not harmful in the quantities
detected.

She missed pointing out the _hundreds_ of nuclear bombs that were detonated
_in the sea water_ around bikini Atoll in the 50's and 60's which didn't kill
the west coast.

But none of that really matters. It is an emotional fear not a rational fear
that the exploiters play on. No amount of reasoning will get through that.

~~~
throwaway_yy2Di
_" She missed pointing out the hundreds of nuclear bombs that were detonated
in the sea water around bikini Atoll in the 50's and 60's which didn't kill
the west coast."_

Specifically: nuclear testing released about 30 times more Cs-137 (in
particular) than Fukushima, also mostly into the Pacific. An estimated 25 MCi
[0] = 925 PBq, vs. 23-50 PBq [1].

[0]
[http://books.google.com/books?id=JLFX6EMPqBkC&pg=PA34](http://books.google.com/books?id=JLFX6EMPqBkC&pg=PA34)

[1]
[http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5984.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5984.full)

(copied from an older HN comment I wrote)

~~~
rhizome
I thought the bigger problem with Fukushima was not the Cs-137, but the Sr-90.

~~~
throwaway_yy2Di
I don't think Fukushima released much strontium (do you have a source
otherwise)? The atmospheric release concentrated elements with high vapor
pressures, in particular iodine and cesium.

edit: Here's a paper [0] which measured Sr-89 and Sr-90 in seawater near
Japan: they found a ratio of about 0.026 of Sr-90 : Cs-137 -- relatively
little strontium. Their estimate for total Sr-90 released is 90-900 TBq,
corresponding to Cs-137 release estimates of 3.5 - 35 PBq. The figures for
Chernobyl [1] are 10 PBq and 85 PBq respectively -- that is, Chernobyl
released 10-100 times more Sr-90 than Fukushima. The Sr-90 : Cs-137 ratio was
even higher (0.63) for atmospheric weapons tests: 600 PBq Sr-90, 900 PBq
Cs-137 [2].

edit2: Made a table:

    
    
                   Sr-90 [PBq]  Cs-137 [PBq]  ratio  ref
        Fukushima  0.09 - 0.9   3.5 - 34      0.026  [0]
        Chernobyl  10	    85            0.12   [1]
        Weapons    590          930           0.63   [2]
    

[0] (pdf)
[http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/3649/2013/bg-10-3649-2013.p...](http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/3649/2013/bg-10-3649-2013.pdf)

[1] (large pdf)
[http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_200...](http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf)
(table 1, page 9)

[2]
[http://books.google.com/books?id=JLFX6EMPqBkC&pg=PA34](http://books.google.com/books?id=JLFX6EMPqBkC&pg=PA34)

------
smokinjoe
There seemed to be a recent influx of these articles all over my Facebook feed
for whatever reason. While just having a discussion I was pointed to this
paper:

"Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to
California"
[http://www.pnas.org/content/109/24/9483.full.pdf+html?sid=2c...](http://www.pnas.org/content/109/24/9483.full.pdf+html?sid=2c2c55ab-08dc-4d6c-a665-23d5eacf1b8c)

I'm no scientist, but I found particular interest in:

 _" Inferences about the safety of consuming radioactivity-contaminated
seafood can be complicated due to complexities in translating food
concentration in actual dose to humans, but it is important to put the
anthropogenic radioactivity levels in the context of naturally occurring
radioactivity. Total radiocesium concentrations of post-Fukushima PBFT were
approximately thirty times less than concentrations of naturally occurring 40K
in post-Fukushima PBFT and YFT and pre-Fukushima PBFT. Furthermore, before the
Fukushima release the dose to human consumers of fish from 137Cs was estimated
to be 0.5% of the -emitting 210Po (derived from the decay of 238U, naturally
occurring, ubiquitous and relatively nonvarying in the oceans and its biota;
not measured here) in those same fish. Thus even though 2011 PBFT showed a
10-fold increase in radiocesium concentrations, 134Cs and 137Cs would still
likely provide low doses of radioactivity relative to naturally occurring
radionuclides, particularly 210Po and 40K._"

From my understanding: yes, radioactivity is being transported and yes, the
levels are higher. However, the levels are not significant compared to
naturally occurring radioactivity that ends up being consumed.

This was a nice read, I look forward to referencing it and some of these
comments.

------
ghshephard
Keep in mind, the author is an Oceanographer, not an export in nuclear
reactors and radiation exposure (as is abundantly clear when reading the
article - at one point she suggests that control rods in the BWR class reactor
are cooled with seawater - a quick read through
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor)
would have caught that)

She should have probably co-written this otherwise excellent article with a
subject matter expert instead of guessing.

~~~
brianbarker
"The radioactive rods in the Fukushima power plant are usually cooled by
seawater [CORRECTION: they are usually cooled by freshwater. As a last ditch
emergency effort at Fukushima seawater was used as a coolant.]."

She corrects herself just fine, but nice job on reading the article.

~~~
kelnos
I think the parent's point is that she made the mistake in the first place at
all, which lessens her credibility reporting on nuclear-power-related
material.

Which I agree with, but I still feel better about the accuracy of this article
over pretty much anything else I've read about seawater contamination due to
the Fukushima disaster.

~~~
Zancarius
As do I.

Being as she is a physical geographer and given that the majority of scare
articles have related to the spread of radionuclides and the so-called
imminent danger to the west coast of the US (and countless doomsday-style
scenarios that have been appearing since the events at Fukushima et al),
having someone whose research has focused more or less on precisely the
subject at hand is certainly relieving as well as enlightening

I think that's the point of this entire article, though. The scaremongering is
being perpetrated by people who generally have no background in either
oceanography or nuclear physics [1]. So in my mind, whether she's qualified to
talk about the materials released is largely moot. The concern among
conspiracists is how this material is going to spread (and purportedly kill us
all), and she's _more_ than qualified to explain how such theories are an
expression of Chicken Littlisms.

[1] Granted, neither myself nor many of us here have such backgrounds, but I
choose to lend greater credence to the arguments of someone who _does_ have
such a background.

------
nabla9
This article has no mention of bioaccumulation. Pacific Ocean is so large that
it can dilute huge amount of radioactivity, but bioaccumulation changes the
story. Without estimates how well these leaks bioaccumulate, the whole article
is useless. Humans are at the top of the food chain in the sea and overfishing
and exploiting sea life close to it's maximum capacity.

In Chernobyl, most of the radioactivity fell into the forests, mostly away
from human food chain (there are still recommendations to not eat too much
berries, mushrooms etc. in many areas). The Pacific is 100% in human food
chain.

~~~
dredmorbius
Precisely my thought. It's a notable lapse in an otherwise well-constructed
article.

And to be clear: calling out specifically how the alarmists have
misrepresented radiation hazards (I've seen the wave-height map circulated
misleadingly numerous times) is absolutely the right call.

------
pmorici
Isn't this article guilty of the same sins it is lambasting others for ie:
speculation based on guessing? It's just taking the other side of the
argument. I don't see any actual measure of radiation here it's just another
model. Can't they just go out in the ocean and monitor the actual levels?
Seems like that would settle things.

------
ratsbane
The amount of radiation released so far is perhaps not a big problem. It's the
lack of control and credibility from Tepco and soforth that concerns me. The
power plant was designed to ensure something like this couldn't happen and
then it did; then various reports about what was under control and then it
wasn't... Realistically, when is the flow of highly-radioactive water into the
ocean going to stop?

------
beloch
The funny thing about radioactive materials is that there's a big tradeoff in
terms of short-term vs long-term danger.

Say we have two samples of radioactive isotopes, both of equal mass and which
produce the same particles when they decay. Sample A has a very short half-
life (let's say minutes). Sample B has a very long half-life (let's say
centuries). Sample A is much more dangerous right now but, in a few weeks it
will be mostly gone. Sample B, having hardly decayed at all, will be the
bigger threat then. In a single catastrophic release, as in the case of
Fukushima, you'd probably prefer to have a lot of B sent out. It'll be around
for a while, but it's not too deadly and will disperse, effectively raising
the ocean's background radiation by an imperceptible amount. A huge release of
A might do a lot of localized damage. If you have a slow, continuous leak, B
might actually be worse though, since it could build up while A will not.

Cesium 137 and 134 have moderate half-lives of 30 and 2 years respectively.
Iodine 131 has a shortish half-life of 8 days. It's been 666 days (Gee, I
wonder why this is popping up today!) since the Fukushima incident, so the
Iodine 131 had now decayed to 0.5^(666/8) or roughly 1e-25 of it's original
strength. It's basically gone. The Cesium will be around for a while, but it's
a lot less dangerous than the Iodine was.

Funny Aside: Cs-137 is very commonly used in undergraduate student
laboratories. Samples of it are relatively safe to handle without safety
equipment and it doesn't need to be replaced very often. I once TA'd a lab
course where students were asked to do some experiments with CS-137 and, in
their write-up's, calculate the effective dose they received. Most got the
right answer, but a few messed up their units and wound up with ginormous
doses that would have killed a zombified rhinoceros! Some of these students
noticed this and reasoned they must have made a mistake, since we probably
wouldn't try to kill our students. A couple did get very concerned though!
Most just didn't notice, which was a tad depressing for me.

------
lostlogin
>>although I admit the groundwater itself has extremely high radiation
levels<< Am I reading too closely or is this strange language to use when one
isn't a spokesperson for the failed plant?

~~~
cdash
Im not sure what you mean, of course any leaking fluid from the source is
going to have much higher levels of concentration before it becomes diluted.

~~~
lostlogin
I'm not disputing the statement, I'm pondering the authors choice of words,
it's almost like an apology. You don't usually admit to something you didn't
do/cause, you just state it.

------
jebblue
>> Cesium-137 is product of nuclear fission. Before us humans, there was no
Cesium-137 on earth.

There's places of natural fission occurrence on Earth, doesn't that mean that
they are potential sources of Cesium-137? I searched multiple sites and found
no relation between the topic of natural fission sites and either CS-137 or
Cesium-137.

Why should this be a product of man-made fission only?

~~~
InclinedPlane
It's only sort of true. One thing to note is that spontaneous fission occurs
all the time with naturally occurring U-235, but at extremely low rates such
that the buildup of fission byproducts happens only in trace quantities. But
if it didn't occur then fission reactors would be far more difficult to build
since there wouldn't be a small background of neutrons from fissile materials
to be amplified by reactor/bomb designs.

As to natural reactors, those did exist and they did produce Cs-137,
naturally. However, those reactors ran only billions of years ago, so the
radioactive byproducts, such as Cs-137, have long since decayed.

------
nakinkun
I can't take this article seriously, an oceanographer inciting people to eat
more fish makes no sense in times of over-overfishing.

Any article telling me "you don't have to worry about fukushima because
chernobyl was worse" is suspicious to me. It's the same as saying you
shouldn't be concerned about this war, world war 2 was worse.

