Americium 241 in Tokyo - Fukushima Diary
Hi. I'm planning to take a 2 week trip to Tokyo and recently found this article on Fukushima Diary that there is Americium 241 in Tokyo.
Heres the link with a video form Iori Mochizuki
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/11/video-am-241-measured-in-edogawaku-to...
1. What is the likely exposure during a 2 week trip?
2. Does americium pose a long term health threat (ie cancer)?
3. Did this come from Fukushima?
4. Is Fukushima Diary a legitimate source? Who is Iori Mochizuki and is he credibile?
5. Should I cancel my 2 week trip as a result of this?
6. Is this video credible?
Here is another article claiming that Americium was found west of Tokyo. Is this legit?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64948256/Tokyo-Hotspot-soil-analysis
The moral hazard
Mark,
It HAS been clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that TEPCO and the Government of Japan have been utterly unreliable sources of timely and/or accurate information with respect to nuclear fallout readings on Honshu Island and the northwest Pacific Ocean.
The USA government and CTBTO have been, for the most part, silent, delayed to the point of immateriality; and/or demonstrated to be less than candid. The simple facts are that the Citizen Contamination Mapping efforts in Japan have been more accurate, useful and timely than the so-called, ‘official’ sources.
Willful, ‘official’ misrepresentations and appalling lack of candor; served to move me from a somewhat ‘tepid’ supporter of NPP operation and development. The actions and apparent motives of the government administrations of the USA, Japan and the CTBTO have converted me to an opponent of the Commercial Nuclear Power industry. The moral deficit of the commercial NPP industry convinces me that the appropriate public policy for the USA is to ratchet-down our commercial nuclear plant involvement to a research project level and entirely abandon the notion of nuclear as an economic and/or safe source of electrical grid power.
The NPP industry has shown itself to be ethically challenged and less than forthcoming. Their technical skill at what they do is clearly insufficient for the risks involved. Their long-term moral deficit was the deciding factor, in my assessment. The Fukushima Daiichi design basis was grossly inadequate. The GE Mark-I design is flawed. The A&E efforts in Japan and the USA have been lacking. The operational procedures and demonstrated emergency procedures are not sufficient to the task at hand. Concern for economic damage and public health hazard have proven to be hollow, lacking and false.
Bill Duff
Fukushima Diary is a BLOG
Mark,
Fukushima Diary is a BLOG not a peer-reviewed technical publication. Iori Mochizuki-sama is a blogger. He does not pretend to have an engineering background or medical training. Fukushima Diary source documentation is generally meticulous and verifiable.
The pictured meter readings are sufficiently documented to be negatable, and therefore ‘scientific data’, suitable for limited discussion, at face value. Your ERF discussion is well taken, and old hat among ‘us girls’. The presence or absence of Americium at the referenced time, place and quantity, remains to be reproduced and proven; or in the alternative, DEMONSTRATED to be inaccurate. Until then, our conclusions yea/nay are entirely premature.
Fukushima Diary translations appear to be accurate. It has been my personal observation that, within these inherent limitations, Mr. Mochizuki and the Fukushima Diary ARE accurate sources of general information. Further, the Fukushima Diary appears to be improving in technical content and context over time and generally responsive to specific criticisms.
I personally place much more confidence in the motives, efforts and even content, of The Fukushima Diary over many more technical industry publications which might include 1-sided compendiums such as, oh, say,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf05.html
Bill Duff
comedic relief
The audience may tire of Rude Dog,
Rude Dog is: Impertinent, Accusatory, Argumentative, Uninformed, Mendacious, Hopeless, Witless, Foolish, Defeated, Humiliated, Pretentious … in short a Troll. I find him comedic relief, the perfect representative of the NPP Industry and a laughable advocate/apologist.
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/henryiv/2kh4charactersfalstaff.html
Henry IV Character Introduction From Henry IV, First Part, by the University Society. New York: University Society Press. Sir John Falstaff
He [Falstaff] is a man at once young and old, enterprising and fat, a dupe and a wit, harmless and wicked, weak in principle and resolute by constitution, cowardly in appearance and brave in reality, a knave without malice, a liar without deceit, and a knight, a gentleman, and a soldier without either dignity, decency, or honour. This is a character which, though it may be decompounded, could not, I believe, have been formed, nor the ingredients of it duly mingled, upon any receipt whatever. It required the hand of Shakespeare himself to give to every particular part a relish of the whole, and of the whole to every particular part.
Bill Duff
Isotopic Trivia and Concerns
Isotopic Trivia, Material Properties & Public Health Concerns
Many Junior High physical science students should be aware that several isotopic combinations, of hydrogen and/or oxygen (could be) present in the Mason-Jar labeled ‘Heavy-Water’. Looking at species and ignoring duplications and percentages, the common hydrogen-oxygen permutations occur include HH, HD, DD, HT, DT and, TT. Naturally occurring oxygen is composed of three stable isotopes, 16O, 17O, and 18O. This is common baseline information that has some practical applications in CANTU reactors, Thermonuclear Weapons, Nuclear Medicine, Taggants and night vision equipment.
Luckily, ‘The System’ would generally screen out semi-functional cretins such as the (fraudulent-retired-fisiks-perfesser) Rude Dog. Rude Dog, laboring under the mistaken obsession that (ALL) ‘Heavy-Water’ is stabile, might approve ‘Heavy-Water’ for the school lunch program.
Sometimes, such as in the commercial nuclear power industry, we discover that the Lunatics are running the asylum. This was CLEARLY the case for the ‘Company known as TEPCO’ and the nation known as Japan, during 2011 Anno Domini.
Bill Duff
Let's just say I don't suffer FOOLS gladly
Let's just say I don't suffer FOOLS gladly.
Especially, when they offer their opinions on public forums as someone who should be listened to.
FOOLS espousing nonsense; should be ignored by intelligent people.
Spare us from the amateurs...
Bill Duff states
Fukushima Diary translations appear to be accurate. It has been my personal observation that, within these inherent limitations, Mr. Mochizuki and the Fukushima Diary ARE accurate sources of general information.
This just demonstrates the difference between how a non-scientist / non-technical person like Bill Duff evaluates an information source vis-a-vis a scientist like Mark of BRAWM.
I have to agree with Mark of BRAWM; a source doesn't attain credibility by using instruments like "black boxes" and reporting information without the requisite technical analysis.
Mark of BRAWM is correct that sources that operate without technical expertise, and don't quote their error measurements should be ignored as credible sources of information.
We don't need "amateurs" making "measurements" and posting them and having such info accepted as if it was the Pope speaking "ex cathedra".
We need to have information from good scientists that take the necessary time to needed to count these stochastic phenomenon and have the expertise to do a meaningful technical analysis.
"Instant" measurements by non-qualified "amateur" scientists should be discounted as unreliable.
Rude Dog
Rude Dog,
I am a degreed, peer-published engineer,
You are a liar, fool, idiot and an arse.
Bill Duff
Could have fooled me...
Really???? You are a degreed, peer-published engineer???
From all the misinformation, your misunderstandings, and your disagreement with what Mark stated about error bars on measurements and the accompanying technical analysis which is all "de rigeur" for science / engineering; I would not have taken you for someone that had any technical accumen, whatsoever.
I remember several months back, you attempted to tell us heavy water was radioactive because it contained tritium. A high schooler would have known better. Heavy water is NOT radioactive because it contains non-radioactive deuterium; and NOT tritium.
Oh, well; no filter is perfect, and every so often a substandard item slips through.
Further Evidence
Rude Dog continues to provide EVIDENCE to document his myriads of inadequacies.
Rude Dog has MUCH to be humble about.
Rude Dog plays the part of Falstaff in this scene. Shakespeare found Falstaff to be a useful idiot; and who am I to argue with the Bard?
Rude Dog ... Speak, Roll Over, Beg, Sit, Fetch ... quit humping the chair leg.
Bill Duff
I knew you were probably an English major...
I knew you were probably an English major and not an engineer...
I remembered correctly
Here is where "degreed, peer-published engineer" (doubtful) Bill Duff attempted to tell the readers of this forum that heavy water was "tritiated":
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/give-me-reason-doubt-leaked-tepco-...
I can't believe that ANY competent scientist or engineer would make such an EGREGIOUS ERROR as to say that heavy water was tritiated. Any high schooler that has taken high school physics / chemistry knows that heavy water is water made with deuterium, the 2nd, non-radioactive isotope of hydrogen.
Heavy water is NOT radioactive. In fact, we get heavy water by separating it out from natural water since natural water is 1 part in 140 parts heavy water.
It is the 3rd isotope of hydrogen, tritium; that is radioactive.
Bill Duff didn't know that, and now proclaims to be "degreed, and peer-published"
Degreed in what? Peer-published in what? I would doubt anything technical or anything that has to do with nuclear technology.
Tritium gun sights
The interested reader may wish to review the record.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/give-me-reason-doubt-leaked-tepco-...
Some public relations firms offer ‘Internet Reputation Management’ services and are, from time-to-time, engaged by companies, politicians, industries and governments. It is almost certain that NO ONE would EVER hire the Rude Dog for such purposes. Rude Dog is a TROLL and nothing more.
The Rude Dog remains unfamiliar with the distinctions and differences between 'words' and 'terms'. Of course, the Rude Dog remains unfamiliar with many basic concepts. Rude Dog attempts at morphing literacy into ‘Literature Major’ are particularly pitiful. Careful, someone may mention music, baseball or plants and be morphed into a rockstar, jock or farmer.
I see no particularly pressing pretext for amending, revising and/or extending any casual blog comments on the general subject of hydrogen isotopes. Oh perhaps one, Tritium gun sights are cool.
Bill Duff
Futile attempts at education from a retired Professor
Bill Duff states that I don't know the
difference between "words" and "terms".
If one consults the online version of
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary for the
work "term":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/term
the applicable definition is:
4/a/ *:* a word or expression that has a precise meaning
in some uses or is peculiar to a science, art, profession,
or subject
Merriam-Webster defines a "term" as a word with a
precise meaning. It appears "word" and "term" are
relatively synonymous. Bill Duff appears to be
pursuing a tact of distinctions without differences.
However, I agree that in science, terms are words
that have precise meanings.
Therefore, when we say "heavy water", the meaning
is precise, and in particular does NOT mean "tritium"
As one can see from the record that Bill Duff cites,
I've repeatedly attempted to explain to Bill Duff
that "heavy water" and "tritium" are two DIFFERENT
materials. Alas, such attempts at educating Bill Duff
were futile and to no avail.
It's a sad dog that won't wag it's own tail
Rude Dog,
Are you now, or have you ever been, 'A professor of Engineering'? Where? When?
State your name, school(s), degree(s), faculty position, dissertation title ...
And URL Links to same
Don't hide it under a bushel-basket, let it shine.
It is a sad dog that won't wag it's own tail
Curious
Wagging...
First, I've never claimed to be a Professor of Engineering.
I said I was a Professor of Physics.
My first faculty position was in the Physics Dept. of the University of Michigan.
Several years later, I moved to the Physics Dept. at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), from whence I retired several years ago.
My credentials are NOT important. If I said I was Professor John Physicist, and gave links to all the information you asked for; there is no way that you can ascertain that I'm really Professor John Physicist.
That's why I give references for everything I post here. I don't want you to believe what I say because I'm an expert in the field which I can't prove online; I want you to believe what I say by what references I give.
Ashamed
Ashamed of the name,
Apparently The Rude Dog is ashamed of the name his mother bestowed, upon whelping the litter.
And what was the title of that master's thesis and doctoral dissertation?
No tail-wag from that lying Rude Dog.
Hiding in shame is not the lowest form of life. At least the Rude Dog has sufficient grounding in rectitude TO BE ASHAMED of his behavior.
Unlike the brazen, dangerous, deadly PUBLIC radiation LIES of TEPCO and the Government of Japan. They routinely sign their name to acts that can fairly be characterized as 'Crimes Against Humanity'.
Hypocrites and anonymous liars exhibit the lowest form of morals ... shame, cowardice and personal loathing. Better than no ethics/morals at all ... I suppose.
Res iudicata
'Heavy water' is a commercial Tritium Source
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/give-me-reason-doubt-leaked-tepco-...
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/give-me-reason-doubt-leaked-tepco-...
"from the least expensive deuterium and tritium source, heavy water"
http://www.lbl.gov/tt/techs/lbnl1698.html
Berkeley Laboratories
Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Management
Available Technologies
Novel Catalyst Exchanges Deuterium or Tritium into Organic and Organometallic Compounds
Preparing deuterium- or tritium-labeled organic and organometallic compounds for: ...
ADVANTAGES:
•Catalyzes hydrogen/deuterium (H/D) exchange from the least expensive deuterium and tritium source, heavy water, into organic and organometallic compounds with activated or unactivated protons
Yeah, but ...
Hmmmm?
Yeah ... but WTF would THEY know?
They are only the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory Operated by the University of California,
Rude Dog presumes that LBL can't get the lingo straight, in their patent filings.
LOL!
WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
LBL gets it correct - YOU just don't know understand it!
I explained this before to you, nitwit!!!
You can MAKE tritium using heavy water as a feed material. However, just because you have heavy water doesn't mean you have tritium.
You can MAKE a cake using flour. But just because you have flour, it doesn't mean you have a cake.
You can MAKE water from hydrogen. ( You combust it ). However, just because you have hydrogen doesn't mean you have water.
If I have stable Cobalt-59, I can make radioactive Cobalt-60 out of it via neutron irradiation. However, just because I can make radioactive Cobalt-60 out of Cobalt-59 doesn't mean that Cobalt-59 is radioactive, or radiologically dangerous in any way.
REALLY - has anyone on this forum seen anybody as abjectly STUPID as the above poster.
This poster can't distinguish the difference between two material BEING the same, and the ability to make one out of the other.
For the UMPTEENTH TIME; heavy water is NOT RADIOACTIVE because it contains deuterium and NOT tritium.
This is more evidence that this poster was LYING in claiming to be an engineer.
Words, Terms & Semantics
A direct quote from experts in the field, in context, referencing a CAREFULLY prepared, public, legal document, sworn under seal, under penalty of perjury, is a poor pretext for a charge of lying. But such is the nature of the Rude Dog, howling @ the moon and pissing himself.
"the least expensive deuterium and tritium source, heavy water, "
"Catalyzes hydrogen/deuterium (H/D) exchange from the least expensive deuterium and tritium source, heavy water,"
But WTF would they know? They are only the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory Operated by the University of California,
Rude Dog presumes that LBL can't get the lingo straight, in their patent filings.
Reading comprehension problem again
It's all a reading comprehension problem on your part.
I told you in the previous post; LBL got the lingo correct.
The problem is that YOU don't understand the lingo.
LBL is fine. You are the one in error.
As usual, whenever there's a
As usual, whenever there's a technical point about radiation, Rude Dog is right and CLUELESS ENGINEER is wrong.
Diemos
Obstacles..
CLUELESS ENGINEER has a number of obstacles to overcome:
"CLUELESS" has never studied nuclear and radiation physics.
"CLUELESS" doesn't have the intelligence required to understand the above physics principles, even when they are laboriously explained.
"CLUELESS" is self-righteous in the extreme; absolutely convinced he is correct in every situation.
The above makes for a powerful LOSING combination.
"deuterium and tritium source, heavy water"
“Catalyzes hydrogen/deuterium (H/D) exchange from the least expensive deuterium and tritium source, heavy water, into organic and organometallic compounds”
US Patent Number 6,794,522 Inventor(s): Robert Bergman and Steven Klei, September 21, 2004
Abstract: A process for labeling organic compounds with deuterium and tritium is described using specific catalysts.
Inventors: Bergman; Robert C. (Kensington, CA), Klei; Steven R. (Berkeley, CA)
Assignee: The Regents of the University of California (Oakland, CA)
Appl. No.: 10/103,481 Filed: March 21, 2002
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT
This invention was made with U.S. Government support under Grant (Contract) No. DE-AC03-76F00098 awarded by The U.S. Department of Energy for the operation of Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The U.S. Government has certain rights to this invention.
Novel Catalyst Exchanges Deuterium or Tritium into Organic and Organometallic Compounds
APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY:
Preparing deuterium- or tritium-labeled organic and organometallic compounds for: - Manufacturing pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and agricultural products - Spectroscopic experiments - Research on chemical structure and reaction mechanisms - Analytical tracers ADVANTAGES:
- Catalyzes hydrogen/deuterium (H/D) exchange from the least expensive deuterium and tritium source, heavy water, into organic and organometallic compounds with activated or unactivated protons Enables the profitable production of new commercial deuterium- and tritium-labeled compounds and will make others less expensive to prepare - Employs a catalyst that is easy to remove from products, is stable in air, and is moderately stable in water - Unlike processes using platinum-based catalysts, strongly acidic conditions are not necessary, allowing exchange into organic compounds that would destabilize in the presence of an acid - Catalytic activity is higher than that of previously reported rhodium and iridium complexes - The H/D exchange occurs under conditions that are inexpensive and easy to achieve: heating temperatures of between 70 and 150 degrees C and atmospheric pressure
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm
http://www.ideaconnection.com/patents/300-Novel-Catalyst-Exchanges-Deute...
It's all there at Wikipedia
You know you might just try Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water
It's right there at the start of the second paragraph:
Heavy water is not radioactive...
Rude Dog is correct on this.
Oh WOW
Rude Dog AKA Rude Dog
Oh Wow, ... I mean Bow Wow
WIKIPEDIA says ...
RRRiiiigghhhtt Hugely authoritative source ... NOT!
LOL
Words, Terms & Semantics
LOL ROF
Is Princeton University an authoritative source?
From Princeton University:
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Heavy_water.html
Pure heavy water is not radioactive. It is about 11% denser than water, but otherwise, is physically very similar to water.
A WIKI by any other name
Wiki
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... wiki ... 100k/docs/Heavy_water.html
Says at the bottom of the page
"The article content of this page came from Wikipedia and is governed by CC-BY-SA."
LOL
Let's just close the national labs and use WIKI instead
OK - Let's use the national labs...
The definitive information on whether a nuclide is radioactive or
not would be the Chart of the Nuclides maintained by
Brookhaven National Lab:
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/
The heavy water molecule is a non-radioactive Oxygen-16 atom bound to two
"heavy hydrogen" or Deuterium atoms. Since the Oxygen-16 is not radioactive,
the question boils down to is Deuterium radioactive. Deuterium, D-2 or H-2 is
NOT radioactive. The Chart at the above link will show you
that if you enter "H2" in the box at right.
See at the bottom where it gives the half-life [ T subscript 1/2 ] in the middle
of the line. The entry says STABLE
That means it is NOT Radioactive
That should be DEFINITIVE
OH BROTHER!!! More WORTHLESS postings from the anti-nuke
Evidently the poster below doesn't realize that the properties of the isotopes are what determine whether a substance is radioactive or not.
This dimbulb accuses me of "changing the subject". The subject is whether heavy water is radioactive or not. Therefore, the properties of isotopes IS the topic at hand.
The chemical formula for heavy water is D2O; similar to the chemical formula for light water which is H20. The difference between light water and heavy water is the presence of deuterium instead of protium or light hydrogen.
So heavy water is composed of two types of nuclides, deuterium or Hydrogen-2 or H2, and Oxygen-16 or O16.
Evidently this dimbulb doesn't realize that in order for a substance to be radioactive; one or more of the constituent nuclides has to be radioactive. Additionally, radioactivity is a property of the nuclide. That's how something becomes radioactive is by changing the nuclides. ( Perhaps this fool "thinks" (term used loosely) that there is non-radioactive Oxygen-16 and radioactive O-16. NO - the nuclide determines the radioactive properties. That's why one can look up the properties on the Chart of the Nuclides:
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/
So for Oxygen-16 or O16 we enter "O16" in the box under "Nucleus" at right, and the database shows the half-life of O16 [ T subcript 1/2 ] as "STABLE" meaning that O16 in NOT radioactive
We do the same for Deuterium which is H2. We enter "H2" in the box under "Nucleus" and press "Go" and again we see that the half-life is given as "STABLE". This means Deuterium is NOT radioactive
Therefore, heavy water is composed of two nuclide, NEITHER of which is radioactive. Therefore, heavy water is NOT radioactive
It will be good to refer to this thread in the future to demonstrate to novices on this forum how abjectly STUPID our resident anti-nuke is; and that the opinions / missives of this fool are WORTHLESS and should be IGNORED.
Δ Changing the Subject Δ
Δ Rude Dog appears to be changing the subject. Δ
Δ FROM his comedic RANTS on Heavy Water Δ
Δ To the rather obvious isotope characteristics of 1H, 2H, 3H, 4H ... Δ
Δ The Rude Dog has his tail between his legs. Δ
The Rude Dog whimpers and pisses himself
Rude Dog will now Troll on over to some other line of insults, trivia, misinterpretation and rants.
That's why he is the Rude Dog
No change there
Repeating it doesn't show you UNDERSTAND it.
I've read it. I understand it. You DON'T.
They are saying they can MAKE tritium from heavy water.
They are NOT saying that tritium and heavy water are the same.
I can MAKE a cake from wheat flour.
Wheat flour and cake are NOT the same.
GADS!!
Not a credible source
That website is not a credible source of scientific information.
Regarding the video: devices that identify isotopes are great, but they cannot be treated like black boxes. Without expert knowledge, isotope misidentifications can easily happen. For instance, one can misidentify an isotope if the device is not properly calibrated or the isotope library is not complete enough.
The second link you asked about gives no uncertainties on the measurement of Am-241, so it is not clear if it is actually a detection. Measurements like this are meaningless unless uncertainties (a.k.a. error bars) are stated.
Does this help answer your questions?
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
The incredible vanishing comment
The moral hazard
Mark,
It HAS been clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that TEPCO and the Government of Japan have been utterly unreliable sources of timely and/or accurate information with respect to nuclear fallout readings on Honshu Island and the northwest Pacific Ocean.
The USA government and CTBTO have been, for the most part, silent, delayed to the point of immateriality; and/or demonstrated to be less than candid. The simple facts are that the Citizen Contamination Mapping efforts in Japan have been more accurate, useful and timely than the so-called, ‘official’ sources.
Willful, ‘official’ misrepresentations and appalling lack of candor; served to move me from a somewhat ‘tepid’ supporter of NPP operation and development. The actions and apparent motives of the government administrations of the USA, Japan and the CTBTO have converted me to an opponent of the Commercial Nuclear Power industry. The moral deficit of the commercial NPP industry convinces me that the appropriate public policy for the USA is to ratchet-down our commercial nuclear plant involvement to a research project level and entirely abandon the notion of nuclear as an economic and/or safe source of electrical grid power.
The NPP industry has shown itself to be ethically challenged and less than forthcoming. Their technical skill at what they do is clearly insufficient for the risks involved. Their long-term moral deficit was the deciding factor, in my assessment. The Fukushima Daiichi design basis was grossly inadequate. The GE Mark-I design is flawed. The A&E efforts in Japan and the USA have been lacking. The operational procedures and demonstrated emergency procedures are not sufficient to the task at hand. Concern for economic damage and public health hazard have proven to be hollow, lacking and false.
Bill Duff
Am-241 is in the house
Americium-241
Americium-241 is available to the general public, in smoke detectors. Radium/Radon can be purchased at the grocery store, in the mineral water section, labeled Nestle Perrier; or captured in the rainwater.
So, a suitable Am-241 reference sample is present in virtually every home in the USA and Japan. Just don't put it on your Post Toasties.
Whether the Tokyo Americium measurement is a significant radiological 'find', from Fukushima fallout, or not, remains to be seen.
Too easy to check, to worry about much.
MAAN