Could this accident be used to research the cycle of particles through the natural world.
Since you can identify these radioactive particles, would it be possible to do some kind of long term study of how tiny particles of anything might travel around out plant, through the air, water, food chain, human body, etc. For example, would it be possible to look for any of these radioactive elements/particles 10-20 years from now in the Southern Hemisphere, say New Zealand or something. Do they "live" long enough and can you id them to a particular accident? It would be interesting to see at what point the reach an even saturation across the globe.
Oh they have already done
Oh they have already done those. Where have you been!?
Tracking Radio-Isotopes World Wide
Those studies are already completed? Really? Could you provide some links? That would be extremely helpful since the above poster's question is a good one.
There are two studies I would recommend
The Chernobyl study published by the NY Academy of Sciences which reviewed some 5000 studies of the effects of Chernobyl in Slavic countries, Russia, Europe and even the United States (it has stats on what the US recieved). They have estimated some 1 million deaths and 2 million cancers globally as the plume went around the world.
Also, I recommend the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) study from 2003. While the Nuclear industry has attacked this assessment, it has wide support in many quarters and is worth reading the summary which concludes the entire radiation load globally since the beginning of the nuclear age has caused a global epidemic of cancer and birth defects resulting in many millions of deaths from cancer (and which some say is the primary cause of high cancer rates globally and the number one public health threat).
If you want a link I will find one for you (I posted it elsewhere in this forum) and urge the students and staff at Berkeley to read the ECRR study as well as any others who read this forum. The ECRR's position is that current risks models are WAY to low by orders of tens or even hundreds as they fail to account for internally absorbed radiation and other key factors such as exposure to fetuses and pregnant women and nursing women.
The models of risk relied on by Berkeley have been challenged by experts from the European Committee on Radiation Risk.
I would be interested in
I would be interested in seeing these studies also.
This is an important study/declaration on risk models
basically its conclusion is that the risk model currently used at Berkeley is not scientifically sound and underestimates the risks of low level long term exposure and fails to properly assess the risks of internal exposure of our organs, bones, teeth, breasts, fetuses, etc.
http://www.euradcom.org/2009/lesvosdeclaration.htm
I urge all to read this as, whether you agree or not, it addresses issues where there is scientific disagreement and consensus on risks.
The exposure we are getting will cause more cancers, infant deaths, spontaneous abortions, hypothroid and metabolic disorders --- the real question is how can we assess these risks using the great info Berkeley is providing.
But they appear silent the last day or so. Did someone get them to "stand down"?
Here is the MOST important study on risk and risk models
It explains WHY the Berkeley risk model they have referred to is seriously flawed and underrates the risks by factors of ten or even hundreds or more.
http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm
Read through this summary and then do some more research.
This study accounts for the INTERNAL bioaccumulation of man made radionuclides in our fetuses, organs, bones, teeth, blood, etc which may cause birth defrects, cancer deaths or other dieases both deadly and life-threatening and just horrific (cleft palate, down's syndrome, harelip, etc.)
Since radioactive strontium and cesium are here to stay in the environment for some three hundred years (their half lifes are about 30 years so they will not fully decay and emit all their radiation for hundreds of years while they remain in our ecosystem, food chain, global atmosphere, trees, plants, soil rain etc. and accumulate in our blood, bones, fetuses and bodies if we ingest them. THUS the risks are MUCH higher than external exposures by MANY factors, perhaps thousands of times.
For example: if you do not drink/breath/absorb radioiodine it will not be absorbed by your thyroid or internally (if it simply rains on you and you wash it off with clean water quickly). If it does not get INSIDE you, you will generally be fine (like a cross country flight). But ONCE you drink the milk or water it MAY remain in your bodies for months, years or even the rest of your life damaging dna as it breaks down and decays shooting tiny dna-mutating particles at the cellular level.
THIS is what is not generally well understood by many socalled experts who say "oh its as safe as flying cross country".