Radioactive rainwater recorded on east coast and level is "comparable to findings in California"?

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2011-03-28 09:39

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42301458/ns/us_news-environment

The article statest that:
"The low level of radioiodine-131 detected in precipitation at a sample location in Massachusetts is comparable to findings in California, Washington state and Pennsylvania and poses no threat to drinking supplies, public health officials said."

How is is possible that the East coast levels would be comparable to our local levels? The East coast is about 2500 miles farther.

Thanks for your insights!

‹ How can we help? A few questions ›

FWIW, it is being reported

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-03-29 01:58.

FWIW, it is being reported that some PA rainwater samples were found to have 40 to 100 pCi/L. Supposedly, a sample taken in Harrisburg was 41 pCi/L and samples take at the TMI and Limerick nuclear power plants were 90-100 pCi/L. The way these reports are phrased, I think this is the activity level of *just* Iodine-131. Other radionuclides may be, and almost certainly are, present in the rain water and I've heard no mention of them. I can't seem to find a proper report on the analysis of PA or other East Coast samples. Has anyone?

It appears to me that East Coast rain water Iodine-131 levels have been lower than the levels I've seen reported on the West Coast. Remember, though, that fallout is complicated. Wind patterns, rain patterns, runoff patterns, etc *will* to some extent cause uneven depositions. Each sample location is exposed to not only the fallout from the event in question but also to various other location dependent sources of emissions. It is the absolute numbers that matter most, but if one were interested in relative comparisons I think they would need to consider baseline readings, any differences in equipment and methods, etc.

Let's do the math: Maryland

Submitted by Joe (not verified) on Mon, 2011-03-28 23:21.

Let's do the math:

Maryland saw 32 picoCuries per liter I131 in their rainwater. That equals 1.18 Bq/L.

We had on average 5 Bq/L in our rainwater.

So we had 4 times more I-131 drop for drop. But also remember that we had a LOT more drops than they did! Let's say the volume of rain we had is 10 times they had. Then the total dose we receive in rain water is 40 times higher than that for the east coast.

On a side note, I think the California's public health officials totally dropped the ball on this one. We had rain for 10 days, and the public was oblivious about the I-131 that's present in rainwater. And the east coast public health officials announced the presence of I-131 in their rainwater promptly.

It is one thing that the radiation is low and not problematic, but it is totally another thing to keep the public at dark.

rainwater

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2011-03-28 17:59.

I read in another article that the levels in Massachusetts are much lower than in California. Do not remember the website, but clearly there is a quantity difference.