Kaltofen/Gundersen - new vid re: hot particles 5/9/12
All should watch-
http://www.fairewinds.com/content/hot-particles-and-measurement-radioact...
IMO, this vid shows quite clearly that while folks in the PNW may have inhaled near as many particles as people in Tokyo, said particles were of much smaller size and thus less potency. In fact, Mr. Kaltofen goes so far as to call the Seattle filter his "quit whining filter".
Personally, I am a little bothered by the fact that these gentleman got us all riled up about this in the first place, and are now telling us that the Seattle filter is not so bad, that we shouldn't whine because we are mostly OK.
All the respect to both of them. Just wish I hadn't stressed so much.
There's my tombstone, no matter what gets me...."Wish I hadn't stressed so much." LOL
I guess I feel some better knowing that at least we may be less doomed than we feared.
BC 5/9/12
One might also be a little
One might also be a little irked with their definition of "hot particle".
Cesium contaminated dust might show up in a radiograph as a point source of radiation but cesium is water soluble and it's going to dissolve and disperse as soon as it hits the lungs.
"hot particle" is usually taken to mean a non-water soluble particle of fuel that will lodge in the lung and kill the surrounding tissue.
Why is he showing a blank
Why is he showing a blank image for Seattle and calling it his "stop whining graphic", even though:
- the measurement above it shows that the Seattle sample was not empty and more than half of what was found in the Tokyo sample?
- previously, he presented a powerpoint at a conference that showed a non-blank image for Seattle, and even discussed hot particle findings in Boston, and this is the same data he is talking about now? (I have this file backed up somewhere if it has disappeared from the internet, as so much information on this crisis seems to).
It seems he is now choosing to zoom in an an empty region of his Seattle filter for that poster, and to verbally understate his findings. Why?
What has happened to Kaltofen in the past few months? That's my real question.
Why has the evaluation of the radiation levels changed?
The hot particle data for Seattle was based on standard quantitative air sampling using 37 mm PFTE filters and high volume air samplers. This should not be confused with the qualitative results from autoradiographs from engine air filters, such as was shown in the video. These give different types of data.
The Seattle detections of hot particles came from short term quantitative analyses. After April 28, 2011, all of these quantitative filters gave negative results. I would be remiss if I failed to report the many nondetects collected after the initial plume passed over the US west coast, in the same way one would be remiss if one failed to report the detects.
Environmentally, radiation moved out of the air and into soils and the food chain. This cross media movement was predictable. This kind of data is always hard to present, but it was clear from my mail that many people still assumed that the air was filled with hot particles in the US. The video was one way to spell out how the data showed radiation moving from air to soils in the US. Japan still has very significant airborne radiation excesses from Fukushima. As far as air is concerned, Oregon and Washington do not.
Things do not remain static for very long in the environment. That means that we have to try to keep up with the changing data.
Marco Kaltofen, WPI
These are really good
These are really good questions, reflecting my own thoughts. Seems like the message is being "toned down". Also, the smaller the radioactive particles (whether you call them "hot" or not), the more easily they make it deeply into the lungs if inhaled (as Kaltofen confirms in this video). Which means that it is actually MORE dangerous to be exposed to smaller particle sizes (which are found FURTHER AWAY from the source, as confirmed by Kaltofen), e.g., on the west coast of North America. I am not fully consoled by this new video. And yes, I too have stressed over this extensively last spring and summer, and I think it was justified to be stressed over this, given the available (lack of) information.
Ha!
"Wish I hadn't stressed out so much."
I am laughing and sighing in sympathy. ;o)
- JMS 05/09/12