Kaltofen's soil measurement 100X UCB's? - 296 becquerel/kg?
Following is a quote from a blog comparing Marco Kaltofen's data with UCB data in soil testing on the west coast.
If his measurements are accurate, (and my conversion of picocuries to becqerels) 296 becquerel per kilogram seems a very significant finding. If this is accurate, I believe it is a strong case for further testing of soils for fallout from fukushima.
Any comment from UCB?
I am trying to find the raw data for Kaltofen's research, but mostly find the usual blogoshpere echo chamber. Anybody have any sources for the raw data?
All the best,
JB
http://livingmaxwell.com/radiation-japanese-earthquake-worse-than-though...
"After the earthquake in Japan, scientists at UC-Berkeley (UCB) measured the radiation levels of soil in various parts of California.
The highest cesium levels of any topsoil measurements found by UCB since the crisis began was 2.737 becquerels/kg in Sacramento. This is is equal to 73.9 picocuries/kg. (Conversion: 27 picocuries = 1 becquerel)
However, Marco Kaltofen, a professional engineer in the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, delivered his research findings at a lecture to the American Public Health Association in Washington D.C. the other day that painted a much, much worse picture of the situation.
Marco Kaltofen said his testing showed that the highest cesium levels detected in U.S. “surface soil” were up to 8 nanoCuries per Kg of radiocesium. This is equal to 8,000 picocuries/kg. (Conversion: 1 nanocurie = 1,000 picocuries).
In plain english, what does this all mean?
It means that Marco Kaltofen’s findings are showing that the radiation levels are 108 times higher than what was previously found by UCB."
I also would like to see MK's data
That particular measurement has concerned me quite a bit. I remember Gundersen commenting on the Cascades getting more fallout than other areas (it rains a lot there, go figure), but do not recall any specific mention of said measurement coming from that area.
Mr. Kaltofen had popped in here a couple of times, perhaps he will see this post and enlighten us.
BC 2/20/12
My group measured soil, air
My group measured soil, air filter and dust samples from Washington, Oregon, California, and British Columbia. This particular soil sample, with 8 pCi/g of radiocesium, was our highest North American result. It came from a site on the outskirts of Portland, OR. The next highest result came from a site near Boulder, CO. Except for followup samples near these two sites, no other US or Canadian samples came close to the levels of radiocesium in these "hot spots." Given the nature of radioactive fallout, this is an expected result. Both hot spots are likely due to rainouts that took place during March or April 2011. A recent study by the USGS, "Fission Products in National Atmospheric Deposition Program—Wet Deposition Samples Prior to and Following the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant Incident, March 8–April 5, 2011", found remarkably similar results. The USGS study was more detailed, (and more with a much bigger budget), and found evidence of rainouts at Portland and Boulder. When you collect a lot of samples, some are bound to be much higher than the average.
Marco Kaltofen
WPI
Update to our original post on the 8 PCi/g measurement
The 8 pCi/g soil sample from Oregon was split and sent to a certified commercial radiation testing laboratory. (PACE Analytical, formerly General Electric Walter Miltz lab.) Their result came back as total 134Cs + 137Cs = 11.0 pCi/g. The commercial lab's 137Cs result was higher than ours, and thus gave a higher overall figure.
A clarification
I should have added, that none of the followup samples exceeded 0.5 pCi/g of Cs134 + Cs137. I apologize for the oversight.
0.5pCi/g vs 8.0pCi/g
That is a quite a difference.
Mr. Kaltofen, if this is indeed you posting, would you please verify this? Because the difference between 8 pCi/g and 0.5 pCi/g is significant.
I have spent many, many hours thinking about the things that you have said about these measurements, as well as the still somewhat vague to me hot particles. I have read up on your background, and have no doubt that you are a very intelligent person. I ask only for as much clarity as you can provide...were the follow-up samples indicating much lower levels of contamination than the originals? If so, any idea why? Could your lab have gotten contaminated by another sample, perhaps from Japan, skewing the first sample? What else could account for such a large difference?
And back to those damned hot particles...Mr. Gundersen and yourself made the point that people in Seattle were inhaling about half as many as people in Tokyo...yet the auto-radiographs show much fewer spots in the Seattle area. Does this mean that the particles in Seattle were much smaller and thus had a much more lower activity, even though similar numbers of said particles were inhaled?
I very much respect and value your work and thank you kindly for your response (hopefully).
BC 5/7/12
where in California did you
where in California did you test? We had a ton of rain in Los Angeles during late March (more than northern california actually). Was testing done in Los Angeles of the soil?
Thank you, Mr. Kaltofen.
Thank you, Mr. Kaltofen. Please, if you will, a few more questions...
Is there a site where you have made your measurements from different soils available? I have read the USGS report, and many others. I am thinking that the isolated rainouts may be due to the way the air column is positioned when rain occurs at a given location.
I saw the USGS data for rainouts in Portland and Boulder...but the only ones that really showed higher levels that I can remember were Portland (for I-131) and LA Area (for cesium). Most other measurements looked similar to each other.
Also could you please clearly define what is you mean when you have used the term "hot particles" as far as the airbourne samples (or ones that have been rained-out) here in the USA? Can you please give these some definition in terms of particle size, or composition, or specific activity?
And if one lived in Sacramento CA or Reno NV, what could one do about these damned things, if anything?
Thanks for your work (and hopefully your response).
BC 4/5/12
What is a hot particle anyway?
I describe hot particles as solids less than 150 um in size that have significantly more radioactivity than surrounding particles, and which can or have become airborne at some point during their transport through the environment. While I have done several presentations and reports that were limited in scope, I am trying to put everything into one article for one of the environment journals. I'll give y'all a heads up when done. A recent poster done for a research presentation at WPI is at:
http://www.naticklabs.org/kaltofenJP.pdf
Dust can be a health hazard under normal conditions. Think of lead paint dust, asbestos, hanta virus, black lung, silicosis and so on. This was true before Fukushima Daiichi. One should generally work to reduce dust exposure. It's just common sense.
marco
Thank you.
The clarification is helpful. Many had speculated the the term hot particle referred specifically to trans-uranic alpha emitters which are of course very hazardous.
And yes, please do let us know when a comprehensive article is done. Many of us here would be very interested in reading it.
BC 4/6/12
Kaltofen presentation Data PDF
http://fairewinds.com/content/marco-kaltofen-presentation-apha
6.03mb PDF
data from presentation
Marcos kaltofens presentation ,video data pertaining to his US measurements/reading at 4:32. tdm
http://vimeo.com/33353060
Ariel survey of pierce and king counties, Washington
The report was expected to be final at the end of 2011, but the draft was returned with a request to clarify some information in the report. An extension was granted to the Department of Energy. The report is expected to be final and posted online by February 29, 2012.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/rep/aerial.htm
FYI
The Seattle metropolitan area in the US state of Washington includes the city of Seattle, King County, Snohomish County, and Pierce County within the Puget Sound region. The U.S. Census Bureau defines the metropolitan area as the Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area, with an estimated population of 3,344,813 (just under half of Washington's population),[1] making it the 15th largest United States Metropolitan Statistical Area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_metropolitan_area
JB - Where was your sample
JB - Where was your sample taken?
MM
Not my sample, Kaltofen's.
Not my sample, Kaltofen's. I'd like to know where it was taken and to see the other data that went along with it.
JB
"Marco Kaltofen’s samples
"Marco Kaltofen’s samples were taken from Seattle, Washington..."
...excerpted from linked article:
http://livingmaxwell.com/radiation-japanese-earthquake-worse-than-though...
MM
Kaltofen's Samples
I believe he took air samples from several locations, including Seattle, but as far as I can tell, he didn't reference any air samples taken from Portland. He only referenced a soil sample taken on the outskirts (assuming the above posts are from Mr. Kaltofen). In a video interview, Arnie Gunderson's wife referenced an organic farm outside of Portland that decided to not sell produce as a result of testing last year. I don't know if these reference the same or different tests.
In looking at the PDF of Mr. Kaltofen's poster paper, I have a couple of obserations:
1) I only see two super tiny "hot particles" on the seattle radiograph in the lower left corner (maybe there are more and I can't see them at this screen resolution). If Tokyo residents were inhaling ten hot particles a day and Seattle-ites were inhaling 5 on average per day (per an Arnie Gunderson Video in which I believe he was referencing Mr. Kaltofen's research), then I am rather surprised by the disproportionate appearance of the Seattle and Tokyo radiographs. I can think of several possible causes for the difference of the images, but it would be interesting if Mr. Kaltofen could speak to this if he is still monitoring this thread.
2) I am struck by how similar the Tokyo background levels are (15.3 uR/hr) to those in Seattle (11.2 uR/hr). I have a PRM 8000 and background at waist level varies between roughly 12-13 uR/hr (outdoors) and .13-14 uR/hr indoors (radon I am guessing, or maybe construction materials). The higher nd numbers occur during and after rains. Presumably washing out radon, and possibly lingering Fukushima remnants. Would anyone care to hazard an estimate of how similar the contamination levels are in Tokyo (with proximity to Fukushima), compared to Portland or Seattle (being in the direct path of the jet stream and having received constant rainouts during Spring 2011 - the worst possible time to be getting rained on?) If Tokyo residents did inhale 10 hot particles a day on average, and Seattle-ites inhaled 5 on average, does that mean Seattle got about half the total volume of hot particles and thus, about half of the level of surface contamination, that Tokyo did? Admittedly, not very scientific, but there is a lot more data out there for Japan than Seattle, and ballpark estimates of the proportional contamination (averaging out all the localized hot spots), are a starting point in the absence of more detailed data for the pacific northwest.
Does anyone know what the pre-Fukushima background levels were for Tokyo, Seattle or Portland?
The contamination (estimation) maps from NILU using Flexpart software look like the Portland Area got hit with about 200-500 Bq/m^2 of Cs137 (similar to Western Europe after Chernobyl). If CS134 was deposited in roughly the same quantities, then that would make for a total deposition of 400-1000 Bq/m^2 of all Cs (admittedly a wide margin for error), the high end of which seems to be on par with what could be expected based on Mr. Kaltofen's data point of 8000 pCi/Kg or 296 Bq/Kg. Anybody know what the depositional ratio of radio strontium relative to Cs137?
I live in Portland, so I am especially interested in data for this area.
BTW, You folks are a breath of fresh air in a swamp of hyperbole. Thank you.
Pre-Fukushima levels in Portland and Tokyo
I am Japanese living in Portland. Last May I asked the Reed College nuclear reactor lab what the pre-311 level was in Portland and if they detected anything abnormal then. The answer was Portland's normal level was 0.14 microsievert /hour with no increase after 311. The map below shows you the pre-311 natural radiation levels.
ttp://rika.s58.xrea.com/wiki.xcg?page=%B4%C4%B6%AD%C4%B4%BA%BA%A5%DE%A5%CB%A5%E5%A5%A2%A5%EB%A1%A1%A1%C1%A1%A1%BC%AB%C1%B3%CA%FC%BC%CD%C0%FE%CE%CC%A4%CE%C2%AC%C4%EA
This site has pre-311 radiation measurements of many things.
http://www.kankyo-hoshano.go.jp/en/index.html
Perspective?
I don't have time at the moment to delve into this analysis but I'm hoping someone does put it into perspective relative to Mr Kalfoten's pdf. Meaning, is there an order of magnitude difference between fall-out in Tokyo and Portland (mainly what's now in dust and the food chain) or a more modest difference? And comparisons to post Chernobyl Europe are always helpful since we have some correlations to cancer incidence country by country there.
Thanks!
Tokyo vs. Portland
I would say that Tokyo is hugely more contaminated than Portland. This is not a fact readily admitted by the authorities in Japan, but Tokyo received a very heavy fallout after the explosion of reactor #3, which contained MOX fuel. There have been an increase in sudden deaths and unexplained illnesses in Japan.
Comparison to Chernobyl data might not be always helpful, as Japan is more densely populated with an excellent transportation system which is an excellent and efficient way of spreading the contamination. People who evacuated have been allowed to whatever belongings they wanted to take with them. Read this case of twin boys who got ill from riding in cars their grandparents brought from Fukushima.
http://fukushimavoice-eng.blogspot.com/2012/01/from-hokkaido-twins-that-...
Also, the government is encouraging the incineration of contaminated debris all over the country. In addition, all the "contaminated" household garbage had been already incinerated as regular garbage, so to some extent there has been an excellent recycling of radioactive material from garbage to air and whatever else becomes of the incinerated ashes.
It is not just cancers that people get from internal radiation exposure. Fukushima will have to be its own case, not compared to Chernobyl page by page.
and the LIES just keep on coming...
Where do you think MOX comes from?? It comes from the spent fuel of reactors. A reactor that is near end of cycle and ready to discharge spent fuel has MORE plutonium in it than a reactor that has been recently refueled with MOX. Just because Unit 3 was refueled with MOX doesn't mean it had more plutonium in it.
It is just plain NOT TRUE that Tokyo was "hugely contaminated". For most of the releases, Tokyo was upwind from the reactors.
The claim of deaths due to Fukushima is a damn LIE by people who have no respect or honor for the truth. First, nobody including the workers at the reactors got enough radiation exposure for "acute radiation poisoning". Acute radiation poisoning is when a person gets truly massive amounts, as when exposed to the radiation from a nuclear weapon as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Acute radiation poisoning can kill in short order.
However, nobody got that from Fukushima. Even if people will ultimately be affected by Fukushima; it will be by cancers that take years to develop. So when someone tells you that people have died for certain due to Fukushima; then you know you are talking to a damn propagandist with no honor or respect for the truth. There hasn't been enough time for any Fukushima related cancers to develop.
Rather than listening to such ignoble charlatans, people should read what the scientists who are experts in the field have to say. Listen to BRAWM for honest results as to the amounts of radioactivity measured. For an honest assessment of the health effects, listen to radiation epidemiologists like Dr. John Boice, who testified to Congress:
http://hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf
The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor.
The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent.
You have no RESPECT or HONOR
You have no RESPECT or HONOR at all and don't deserve any.
Cited
Well Said!
You have been quoted.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/it%E2%80%99s-time-give-breeder-rea...
^ Agree
^ Agree
Concur
Concur