Two questions: Can you extrapolate from your data and info ...?
First
Can you tell from the data you have where the plumes reaching your testing equipment is going from there?
I am on the East Coast and have watched the plume sites and projections but cannot really tell if what is reaching you guys will continue to here at a relatively constant rate or is it heading south or north etc.
Is there any model you can use to extrapolate how much of the radiation you are finding will reach other areas (such as NYC or New England or Washington DC) or tell us where the radionculides you have found there are going to be found and when?
The plume models I see are confusing and seem to show the radiation heading south to Mexico or simply cross country.
Second Question:
I noticed in your results page that radioiodine seemed to have peaked on about March 23-4 and the Cesium seemed to have a high peak on March 28th while the radioidine is almost undetectable (below threshold for detection) on that date.
Is there a reason for this? Is radioiodine lighter and therefore peaked earlier while the cesium is taking longer to blow across the Pacific because it is heavier? Did the radioidine peak earlier due to other factors (half life, weather)?
Thanks.
Mainly I am waiting for new figures (march 30-Aprril 1) and want to know if I can figure out what amounts of what you are testing there will reach here on the East coast IF the plumes are going from there to here (and I want to know WHERE the plumes are going) and know if there are any useful links for these answers.
I too would be very
I too would be very interested if anyone has any information on how the fallout is affecting the rest of the country.
honestly, if you have not
honestly, if you have not received any yet, you probably won't, because the fallout already reached germany via the atlantic. (but the fallout there is so tiny, that I wish I would live there right now.)
We have recieved some but the gov does not have numbers
not the numbers and sample info that Berkeley has provided (Kudos to you folks!)
The question really is whether they know where the air mass that they tested and rain went next and whether the doses are likley to be comparable (i.e., did it go south to Mexico and LA or did it cross to NYC, New England).
I have it in my area but there is no one really providing the kind of detailed analysis of the samples that permit me to assess the risk based on the sources I trust regarding the exposure internally.
an answer or a simple "we have no idea" would be appreciated.
Assessing the value of the Berkeley results relative to where I live is what I am looking for if possible and want to know if they are likley to be somewhat comparable IF the wind and rain blew here from there (near NYC)
A professor
from Columbia provided me with the following link:
http://transport.nilu.no/products/fukushima/index?searchterm=fukushima
Here's the University of Maryland trajectory forecast:
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~tcanty/hysplit/
And fallout estimates from a German professor (link from this thread: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2098)
http://db.eurad.uni-koeln.de/prognose/radio.html
Seems like LA/California is getting brunt of fallout but hopefully someone from the team can provide an answer to your question.
Wow, thanks
it took me a while to absorb the info at the eurad link which links to the actual global measures of radiodine at the test ban treaty monitoring sites reporting. Seems that there are peaks and valleys and that there is a delay from east to west as it peaks on the west coast then peaks on the east coast about three days later. But the overal measurements seem to be levelling out so that there seems to be (at least with respect to the east and west coast and actuallly most sites reporting) a dispersion of some degree of uniformity (in other words as of yesterday the amounts on the west coast and east coast were pretty much equal altho each had peaks a few days ago then came down after inital waves/plumes came in.
The reports come in becquerels per cubic meter in the air and are pretty small .1 Becq/cubic meter but I imagine as the radioiodine collects in water, milk and plants etc it will concentrate (as it does biologically in cows milk and also in human thyroids)
I read somewhere that even when monitors could not detect radioiodine after nuke tests the thyroids of deer and elk had concentrated it in measurable amounts (maybe their monitors were not sensitive enough then to pick up the trace amounts which were then accumulated in animal thyroids - and presumably humans too)
Much appreciate these links though and it makes it clear to me at least that with dispersion globally in the northern hemisphere what hits Berkeley is likley to rain down or be in my air on the east coast in pretty equivalent levels.
Anyone who looks at their plume models and monitor results will see how far and wide this radiation is spreading and as long as the plants emit more the worse our exposure is.
Happy to help Bill
Wish I could interpret the data to figure out actual cummulative exposure in different places but I'm just a layperson...hopefully a health physicist will show up here at some point. Everything I've looked at seems like levels really aren't an issue for adults (consistent with the mainstream news reports and statements by the team here) although the data is less clear for pregnant women/infants/children versus what's been reported (at least in my opinion but again I don't have any background in this stuff).
WH