Why is nobody else getting concerned about the tap water???
I just sat back and contemplated the current state of the knowledge we have, from the respected Nuclear Engineering department at UCB, which is that the rain water that has been falling down on the bay area for the past 7 days has contained 50 times more radioactivity than the EPA recommends for drinking water. At the same time the amount of rain has been enormous, a historical record with flooding in many areas. So one would think that even a simple mind would add 1+1 and realize that "Hey, chances are that our drinking water has received a large admixture from this rainwater. That admixture might well be 2% (in which case our tap water would already be more radioactive than the EPA recommends), but it could be significantly higher as well. Who can tell that it's not 20%, given the torrential rainfalls we had over the last couple of days? What surprises me is that very few people are asking the same question, and hardly anybody seems to take precautions. What is going on? Do I live in a separate reality?
finally, the truth is starting to seep out.
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/04/84721.html
I just looked at the EPA
I just looked at the EPA results. Why aren't they testing drinking water and milk in CA?
LA drinking Iodine-131 is
LA drinking Iodine-131 is pretty high
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2743
Sorry just realized I posted
Sorry just realized I posted the wrong link:
LA drinking water 0.39. Getting close to the epa standard
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html
There's also...
several credible, published studies I've found showing signficant adverse health effects on those in utero at the time of Chernobyl whose mothers were exposed to "safe" levels of radiation.
Unfortunately since there aren't many studies on low dose rates of internal radiation we're getting, it's going to be the experience of my child and others born in the next year that determine whether the assurances of BRAWM and others are in fact true or if in fact there's a larger than expected increase in the incidence rate of childhood (or other) cancers in the population.
Even if we eventually see an increase in the IR of these cancers, scientists can always dismiss it by arguing that (1) correlation isn't causation and that (2) any increase would likely be low compared to overall cancer rates (i.e. the same arguments that we're hearing now about why these aren't "levels of concern").
As someone that lost my 12 year old sister to cancer last year, I think society, including BRAWM, should be interested in doing everthing possibel to prevent increases in this risk--even if it's just an additional 1 in 10,000 risk at the levels we're seeing (the official/current levels of public concern set much higher thresholds for loss of life before regulatory action kicks in).
In reality though, it seems like there's very few practical steps that a concerned parent can right now to minimize exposure as this stuff slowly creeps into our food chain. No one knows when the releases from Fukushima will actually stop, so who can say how long the milk in LA that my wife is drinking will be at 2.9 Bq/L?
Sure your risk of death or injury increases every time you get into a car, but you can take precautions like driving slower, purchasing a vehicle with airbags, etc. Would be great if the team could find a health physicist to address ways to minimize exposure as the radionuclides are ending up in more pathways.
Thanks,
WH
I'm really concerned about
I'm really concerned about the tap water. The last EPA tap water results from April 4 show the highest to date levels. The radiation is increasing.
What about snow in the
What about snow in the Sierras? Will there be a cesium-137 rich layer that all melts at around the same time later in the spring?
there is no doubt, and there
there is no doubt, and there can be no doubt, that this is going to be a big problem, the results of this are going to be disasterous. there will probably be radioiodine, radiocesium, telluruim-132 and a lot of hosts of other radionuclides and toxic substances present in the environment.
what makes you think anyone would care to see the real you
Dear kazuu, you've made your point. Multiple times. Thank you for your contribution!
maybe you haven't quite
maybe you haven't quite figured out the obvious yet, but let me clarify some points here that are not being properly addressed.
1) there are three reactors in full and/or partial meltdown in fukushima, in addition to the spent fuel rod pools that are overheating. there are massive, obscene amount of radiation being spewed fromt the damaged reactors at the fukushima dai-ichi site.
2) they are measuring radiation levels much higner that at chernoby, outside the exclusion zone at fukushima and beyond.
3) the pacific northwest, california, mexico, canada, the midwest and believe it or not new york, is right now getting the lionshare of the radiation coming from the damaged fukushima reactors. as it makes its way around the globe.
4) there is no information available on this, but it is likely that we have at least as much fallout here in the westcoast as tokyo, in fact it is probable we have more, due to wind, weather patterns and the jet stream.
5) the reactors are stilling spewing radiation and may continue to do so for many months, periods ranging from one or two years to several, even twenty or more years are routinely cited in the mass media.
all things considered, this problem is going to be on a gigantic scale. it isn't just going to disappear with the next rainfall, in a few months or with the next piece of irrelevant gargage or relentless and exceedingly dull piece of misinformation from the big box mass media outlets.
Ok, Kazuu, you've decided to
Ok, Kazuu, you've decided to reiterate your points, all over again. Except for this one:
4) there is no information available on this, but it is likely that we have at least as much fallout here in the westcoast as tokyo, in fact it is probable we have more, due to wind, weather patterns and the jet stream.
Well, information is available HERE, and pretty much in real time. And I'm so proud of what UCB is doing, because as the tragedy was unfolding in the first few days, I kept thinking - as bad as this is, here, in California, unlike ANYWHERE ELSE we have scientists who will jump on this and test and keep the public informed. Because it IS CA!
And they have, and they are testing, and they are keeping us informed. Aren't they the best?
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay
yes of course i am glad someone somewhere is doing something, anything, some testing for the radioactive fallout from the fukushima reactor disaster. this disaster is real, the response should be real. i know i am still in complete shock like i suppose alot of you are..
anyway...
of course there are going to be radionuclides and other contamination in the snowpack, directly related to the fallout from fukushima, that is just commonsense. man. the obama is monitoring it mantra is getting a wee bit old, it does however point to the ineffectiveness of our government, the tomfoolery of corporate america and their pseudo-science breakthroughs, the ideological misalignments now in sharp focus, and the willfull self-induced apathy and greed of the average social misfit, here in america.
this is a page out of a really bad science fiction novel, but unfortunatley it is the truth.
Amazing as it sounds...
...I'm pretty much inclined to agree with your entire statement, there, Kazoo: Every single point, every single indictment, and even your comparison to "bad science fiction".
Not that you needed or, I imagine, will appreciate the "Props", but... Well, there ya go. I don't need to like you to agree with you, especially when you're right.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
So...
at what point do you think we'll start seeing a shift in mainstream reporting about increased risks? I guess it would take more scientists becoming uncomfortable with the exposure levels but it doesn't seem like that's going to happen without revisions to risk models which would be a substantial undertaking (probably over the course of years) wouldn't you agree?
Excellent point
What systems does the CA Dept of Public Health have in place to address these longer term issues?
I'm with you man.
I'm with you man. I am running a reverse osmosis filter here in LA. But does this really surprise you? The government has a long long history of lying to the pubic about exposure to radiation. Just look what they did to the people of the Marshal Islands. They were exposed to large amounts of radiation from atomic testing for 10 years before they were evacuated. They will just lie, deny and minimize and dismiss everything until they cannot do it anymore.
Its up to you to take precautions and tell all your friends and family to use reverse osmosis or distillation to purify their water for the next 6 months.
The EPA doesn't want people looking into whats actually in the water because you would find out that it is not safe to drink even without this radioactive rain.
As for the staff at UC Berkeley... these guy are actually going out on a limb just releasing this information to the public. I applaud them. There are other facilities that have been testing, but they do not release this to the public.
the epa doesn't want people
The EPA doesn't want people looking into whats actually in the water because you would find out that it is not safe to drink even without this radioactive rain.
i agree totally.
water filtration
Do you know for sure that Reverse Osmosis takes out KI, Cesium etc? Someone else mentioned using a Brita filter and I'm sure that doesn't remove any of the most toxic chemicals, let alone radiation - it doesn't even take out flouride! Does anyone know if there's any water filtration that takes out radioactive chemicals?
a cermaic filter is better
a cermaic filter is better than nothing. the best solution is to drink distilled water with a pinch of baking soda per gallon to reduced the acidity.
We have had torrential rain
We have had torrential rain fall here and our creeks are running at maximum. We will be quantifying the run off pathway dilution soon as we just collected our first set of creek water. We expect somewhat of a delay but we can compare the signatures we see in the rain water with anything we see in the run off. There is some chemistry that may occur between the rain water and the soils. This means we expect somewhat less of a signature in the run-off. We shall see.
Thanks (from the original
Thanks (from the original poster)!
I'd naively expect the creek water to be comparable to the rain water you collected, apart from those chemical reactions. What I'm most curious about is the tap water, which AFAIK comes mainly from the reservoirs behind the hills, and has therefore been fully exposed to those torrential rainfalls...
I don't know about other
I don't know about other places, but I think our reservoirs are completely full. I think the gates are open at this point and the rain water the enters will dilute with the already hefty volume and then spill over. I guess every reservoir is different, but I think the amount of rain in the past week has to be <5% of the total water in these bodies of water. I'm not sure. We will try and quantify things as best we can. The only thing I can say is this is a short term exposure and not long term in which the EPA standards are based on.
I'd imagine the
I'd imagine the concentration to be much larger than 5%. The added rainwater mixes with the water in the reservoirs so that if half of it is added what spills (and what remains) is half new rain water half old precipitation.
Now that you measured significant concentrations of Cesium, one should also ask the question how many years or decades it will take until the radioactivity is significantly reduced, since the cesium will radiate for many decades and is probably also going to feed supplies for several years through trickle effects and melting of contaminated snow/ice that has been deposited in the Sierra Nevada.
Finally the question is, how long will Cesium increase as it currently does? Will Japan decide to never bury the reactors and radiate Californians for years to come? Will we force them to bury them eventually with military means? That's perhaps looking too far in the future, but I find the current stagnation of the situation in Fukushima at the cost of US residents completely unacceptable. Chances are if the winds were blowing toward Tokyo they would haev long buried the reactors instead of insisting that they can be resurrected.
lakes and reservoirs and Cs-137 concentration
What effect does evaporation of water from reservoirs and lakes have on the concentration of Cs-137 that has been deposited? I can think of the obvious effect, but I suspect it is not so simple as I might think.
Thanks, BRAWM Team.
agree
I agree with you totally. I did read somewhere though, that the reason for not burying them is that at present this is considered too dangerous and that they need to be cooler in order for that to happen.
As far as the cesium in concerned, expect the cesium to be in the soil for MANY years to come as the case is now in southern Germany where heavy rain during Chernobyl enriched the soil and mushrooms there cannot be eaten (I am German.)
Oh hey fellow southern
Oh hey fellow southern German! I remember those rainfalls after Chernobyl even though I was a child. Yeah, it would suck to have the same crap happen to California. Let's just hope there will be no more rain and somebody smart will prevent full meltdown and stop further volatile elements from leaking out of the reactors.
Does anybody know...
....How the current (and persisting) levels of, well, everything -- air, water, food chain, etc. -- compare to what was measured and endured in various parts of Europe in Chernobyl's wake? (Just to have some sort of idea about whether large populations have endured these sorts of exposures and somewhat long-term, say, six months to one-year dosages, before, and have "survived"...)
My inclination is very much to say, "This has NEVER happened before!", but I may not know what the heck I'm talking about. Also, the various methodologies, standards, and even units of measurement from one country / continent to another, one decade to another, one level of environmental / human health "protection" to another, etc., are outside my easy grasp.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
two simple facts
two simple facts
1) the radiation measured around and outside the exclusion zone in fukushima is much higher than chernobyl.
2) alaska, california, the pacificnorthwest, parts of mexico and the midwest initially get hit the hardest, this is due to the effects of the jetstream.
this is not going to be good.
Kazuu, the jet stream flows
Kazuu, the jet stream flows over 7km above sea level. It's not a wind that blows over the Fukushima power plant and onto CA (which seems to be the picture in your mind's eye).
pick a bale of cotton, pick a bale of hay.
wrong. no that's exactly what it is. it's a weather pattern composed of air currents, called wind that goes almost directly from the japan region to the pacificnorthwest and beyond.
stop being silly, it serves no real purpose here.
and how do you think the fukushima radioactive fallout gets here, by a magic bus. geeze. think, man, think.
Well, at least the rainy
Well, at least the rainy season is over for us. Come next year, the airborn radiation shouldn't be even remotely as big a problem for us as it is now