beaches/sand accumlation?

I can't find any info on testing of beaches and sand. Since in the L.A. Basin all of our kelp has been proven to be accumulating radioactive matter for the last year, it seems reasonable to at least check to see if it also accumulates in the sand on the beach, right?

The ocean currents will bring what was initially released and also anything that drops into the ocean from the ongoing burning of materials and eventually it hits land, so Hawaii and the West Coast would be getting some depostion if that's how it works... But I'm not a scientist, just a parent wondering if there's a problem with taking my kids to the beach.

Can anyone help with this question?
Thanks.

Guessing game without actual spectrometry testing of sand

The question you raise is a good one .our government is saying its possible . note the depth of kuroshio current in fact is not that deep or wide ! maximum depth of *1km and a width of 100km
...tdm

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/161565.pdf

"The North Pacific Current is formed by the collision of the Kuroshio Current, running northward off the east coast of Japan in the eastern North Pacific, and the Oyashio Current, running southward from Russia (Figure 1). As it approaches the west coast of North America, the North Pacific Current splits into the southward California Current and the northward Alaska Current. Although these currents have the potential for bringing radiation from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident to U.S. waters, their flow is slow, and no radiation above background levels has yet been detected in marine waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Regardless of the slow flow, radioactive contaminants having long half-lives (e.g., cesium-137, with a half-life of about 30 years) could still pose concerns when transported over long distances by ocean currents."

*http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/CR/1973/7302.PDF

More data on your troubling question .

Some good news and bad bad news. if cesium behavior post chernoble provided by IAEA is correct ,the cesium isn't going to sink fast and Currents will distribute it ...tdm
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull381/38106081822.pdf

Following the Chernobyl accident, the differ- ent radionuclides which entered the surrounding seas were removed to different degrees depend- ing upon their chemical reactivities. For exam- ple, in the case of the particle-reactive radionu- clides, cerium-141, cerium-144, and plutonium- 239+240, from 50% to 75% of the total radionu- clide inventories deposited in this region of the Mediterranean had transited through 200 meter
depth by one month after the accident when the sediment trap stopped sampling. In sharp con- trast, only 0.2% of the corresponding caesium- 137 deposition had passed through 200 meters by that time, an observation which is consistent with the generally non-reactive behaviour of this long-lived nuclide in seawater. For this reason, Chernobyl-derived caesium-137 has proved to be very useful as a water mass movement tracer in the Mediterranean and other seas for several years after the accident.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull381/38106081822.pdf

There is one certain test for this...

If you lay on your back on the beach in full sunlight for an hour then look in a mirror and find that your back is redder than your front you know that radioactive materials have accumulated in the sand! Absolutely surest way to test that there is.

anything more scientific?

anything more scientific?

Yes there is but it will

Yes there is but it will entail expenses. The OP is concerned about radioactive materials accumulating in the beach sand and that is a valid concern. You need to realize that all elements have different weights. This difference means some elements will be lighter than water and others heavier. The radioactive elements are generally quite a bit heavier than water so it is reasonable to assume they will fall to the bottom of the ocean upon entry. But they do not because these particles are generally so small that the currents of the ocean keep them in suspension for long periods of time, sweeping them across large expanses as fast as the currents themselves move.
However, another factor comes into play. Bio acumulation, that is, the absorption of radioactive particles by living matter. In particular, in the oceans, those organisms that accumulate these materials first are the micro organisms, algaes, planktons, seaweeds, etc, These in turn are food for higher organisms that feed upon them so the radioactive materials are passed on and accumulated by them in turn.
As far as beach sands are concerned, radioactive particles, those whose weights are in the milligram and smaller, generally will just move along with the currents rather than settling anywhere BUT most beach sands have algaes living on them and this is where the radioactive matter accumulates; In the algaes clinging to the sand particles. (Eventually all particles will sink to the bottom and be trapped but that will take a very, very long time)
That is a cause for concern as a large amount can be accumulated in a short period of time. BUT the upside is that only so much can be retained by these algaes which is a limiting factor. In others words just so much and no more can accumulate. the rest will be swept along with the currents.
HOWEVER, there is a darker side to this. I think it is in Scotland that there was a nuclear incident. A reactor released large amounts of radiation into the North Sea along part of the coastline.
Yes, the beach sands were accumulating radioactivity BUT the real problem turns out to be from the winds.
What is happening is that the winds pick up water and blow it onshore. This has resulted in a line of radioactive deposition along the coastline that is very large and dangerous to the locals. The beaches (sands) themselves are not that bad (relatively speaking only!) but there is a distinct band about 50 yards from the beach where the spray tends to drop that is just dangerous. This band streches inland for a bit. This is a different form of accumulation by wind deposition and just as bad, probably far worse!!
The locals are warned not to go to the beach or to fish or swim there. It will be like that for a LOOOONG time.
So, if you are genuinely concerned about the radiation levels at your beach, I would suggest taking samples in certain places and having them checked carefully. The best spots would be the sand right at the waters edge at the time of low tide, the sands at the edge at high tide, and the sands or whatever at 10 yard intervals from 50 to 500 yards from the point of mean tide.
So that is a lot of work but the mapping that results will be extremely revealing.
Otherwise, just lay in the sun for a while and then check both sides :)

What about the sand that is

What about the sand that is farther away from the shore? My kids love to
dig in the sand and am wondering about the original exposure from last
March/April.
Concerned Mom

Interestingly, the day after

Interestingly, the day after I wrote the above about wind deposition an article appeared in a California newspaper. Here is a link to it. It focuses on buckyballs for the most part and how they are carried about.
http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/a_radioactive_nightmare/9886/
Personally I have some serious reservations as to the perceived durability of these types of buckeyballs and I think several independent studies need to be done.