Something utterly confusing about your data - Cs-137
I realized that there is something utterly confusing about your most recent rain water measurement release on 04/08: Cs-137 activity is back to the highest activities measured 1-2 weeks earlier, although from all we were told by the media Fukushima should have stopped boiling off radionuclides around 03/20. It had been my understanding that the only reason there was substantial fallout over the US was because the jet-stream brought a concentrated load right to our coastline. However if there is still so much Cs-137 in the air to be delivered to the ground by precipitation, does that mean that either Fukushima is still emitting at the same rate as originally, or that the entire global atmosphere is now saturated with that high of a concentration?
I also wonder if there have been any changes to the tap water. Why did you stop taking measurements two weeks ago?
I have been searching for
I have been searching for data regarding radioisotopes in the environment prior to Fukushima and have come across data found on the U.S.NRC. website (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
This data shows that there are regular releases of multiple radioisotopes For example: Iodine-131, Cesium-137, Xenon, Strontium 90 etc. into the environment. The documents are really long but you can search for key words such as Iodine and Cesium etc.
Here are the results from 2009 for Diablo Canyon Reactors 1&2
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1012/ML101270126.pdf
Scroll down to page 24 and beyond to see what radioisotopes were being released into the environment and at what amounts.
Here are the results from 2009 for San Onofre Reactors 2&3
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1012/ML101240921.pdf
Here are the results for Oyster Creek Reactor
http://wba.nrc.gov:8080/ves/view_contents.jsp
This reactor had 3 accidental releases on top of the regular releases for 2009.
Here is the website listing all of the nuclear plants in the US. You can look at the annual report for each reactor. Mid-way down the page you can read the Radioactive Effluent Summary Report by Calendar Year: 2008 which gives us a report of all the releases by radioisotopes for all of the reactors in a comparitive graph. The data is for 2008 and they have not released the data for 2009 and 2010 yet but looking at the data for previous years you can tell this is a ongoing thing.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info....
If you do a search of the ADAMS system and type "radioactive" as a search term and then scroll to the end of the documents to get to the most current documents (2009 to present) you will see many effluent release reports for numerous nuclear reactors in the US for 2009.
http://wba.nrc.gov:8080/ves/
I can't believe that they have been releasing all this radiation for years and we haven't known about it because they haven't publicly given us the information. Or they have and we just didn't know where to look for it. Now they are saying that all of the radioisotopes that we are finding lately are solely due to Fukushima releases and have nothing to due with the nuclear reactors in the US, previous nuclear accidents and explosions in the US and releases into the water systems from hospitals and medical facilites. I am not so sure now!
In response to your original
In response to your original question, this is my layman's take on the situation.
In the beginning, the experts believed that none of the containment vessels were broken and that they could get back to the business of cooling them relatively fast. This would halt the nuclear process and they would cool down like a good reactor. Based on this wonderful news, other experts figured that after those giant explosions, radiation would pretty much keep dropping and since the reactors had stopped doing their thing, no more cs 131, 137, etc would be emitted. Having a half life of 8 days meant that after 8 days we could expect to see an enormous decrease in those particles. At least that's what I gathered last month.
Since then none of the great news panned out. The cooling systems couldn't be reached, didn't work and the salt water they were pumping on it basically ruined the built in systems. The salt water wasn't cooling the cores, because they are now using liquid nitrogen, which may or may not be working. It looks like at least one vessel is cracked, although they can't actually get to any of them yet so they still don't know. And as for the cores at least one is speculated to be partially melted down if not all three. Add to that a forth pool of nuclear full that has been on the brink of going critical the whole time due to cooling issues and possible chunks of plutonium that got scattered around the outside of the plant from the explosion.
So basically, the plants are not cooled down enough to stop the nuclear process and have been emitting radiation constantly creating new Cs 131-137, whereas in the beginning they optimistically thought that it would have stopped by now.
My thoughts are that the outer containment walls could have captured a lot of this radiation, but they happened to be blown sky high in the first few days, a major design flaw.
Correct me if any of this is wrong.
So basically they
This is not correct, entirely.
>>So basically, the plants are not cooled down enough to stop the nuclear process and have been emitting radiation constantly creating new Cs 131-137, whereas in the beginning they optimistically thought that it would have stopped by now.
This is not correct, entirely. The radiation comes from the fission products (think waste products) that are left over after a fission event. These atoms decay to other more stable atoms and in the process give off gamma, beta, and alpha radiation. This is why it is radioactive, not because the nuclear fission process is continuing. Cooling the core is only required to keep it from melting not for shutting down the fission process. However, there is a slight risk of re-criticality if a molten core reconfigures itself away from any neutron absorbing materials (e.g. control rods or borated sea water), so not cooling could cause criticality, but indirectly and with low probability.
Radiation is still being
Radiation is still being emitted, "According to the Cabinet Office's Nuclear Safety Commission, about one terabecquerel per hour of radiation is currently being discharged into the air."
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110413005584.htm
Emissions
Well, that is not good.
I just looked at EPA data
I just looked at EPA data and it's showing 4 pci/l of I-131 in a Memphis milk sample taken 4/11. Shouldn't I-131 be gone by now with such a short half life?
still wondering
one more bump
Another bump, now that Dr.
Another bump, now that Dr. Chivers is posting again...
Bumping this thread up since
Bumping this thread up since we're all waiting for an answer...
Yes, I do hope the BRAWM
Yes, I do hope the BRAWM team at least gives us some speculation as to how/why this can be the case.
I'd like to know an answer
I'd like to know an answer to this as well...
Good questions. The last
Good questions. The last batch of EPA drinking water samples (taken 4/4) have the highest I-131 levels so far - and they were on the East Coast. With an 8 day half life, how could they be that high on the East Coast unless the output of radiation from Japan is increasing?
FWIW, I came across some
FWIW, I came across some article which discussed the high Philadelphia levels. It was mentioned that previous samples in the same location(s) were high and there was speculation that someone was directly or indirectly dumping I-131 into the water supply. A medical or research facility for example.
Point is, how many of us knew/know the radionuclide concentration levels in our drinking water BEFORE the recent fallout? I'm still trying to dig up that info for my area. Keep this in mind when interpreting drinking water results, and by all means investigate things for yourself and if possible make sure there is a "watchdog" type reporter in your area who is digging and reporting on the situation. I don't think many reporters realize that there are very many radionuclides that should be tested for routinely, and when an agency only mentions one or a few that should raise suspicion rather than comfort.
Philadelphia Inquirer Story on This: Posted April 12
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/119674624.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive iodine in city water spurs enhanced testing
By WILLIAM BENDER
Philadelphia Daily News
benderw@phillynews.com 215-854-5255
The Philadelphia Water Department announced yesterday that it is enhancing its testing procedures and reviewing treatment technology after federal environmental officials found radioactive iodine in the city's drinking water.
The level of Iodine-131 found at the Queen Lane treatment plant is the highest of 23 sites in 13 states where the particles have appeared following the massive radiation leaks from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. Lower levels were found at the city's two other plants.
But the Iodine-131 in Philadelphia may have no connection to Japan, officials say.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency told the Daily News yesterday that Philadelphia water samples from last August contained nearly twice as much radioactive iodine as the recent samples collected after the Fukushima disaster.
"This is just unacceptable that this stuff is showing up," said Chris Crockett, the department's acting deputy commissioner of environmental services.
Perhaps more disturbing: Nobody knows exactly how the Iodine-131 - which can cause thyroid cancer if consumed in large quantities or over a prolonged period of time - is getting into Philly's drinking water.
"At this point, that is not really known," said EPA spokesman David Sternberg. "We're investigating."
Kathryn Higley, a health physicist at Oregon State University, said the most likely source is a nearby or upstream medical facility that treats cancer patients with Iodine-131, which can enter the water supply when patients go to the bathroom.
"That's the big wrinkle. If you saw it last year, it wasn't from Japan," she said.
"It's probably from a hospital."
Higley said the iodine levels found in Philadelphia and other U.S. cities did not pose a health threat.
"The water is safe. We were all drinking it today," said Debra McCarty, the Water Department's deputy commissioner of operations.
But environmental officials at the city, state and federal level are trying to identify the source, and carbon has been added at the Queen Lane plant as a "cautionary measure" to help purify the water.
"We want to have as clear a picture as we can of what the source is," said Katy Gresh, spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection.
She said that a hospital or other medical facility is "a possibility."
Crockett said the Water Department was informed this month that iodine was found in Philadelphia's water last summer.
"We're not happy about this," Crockett said. "To find that this stuff showed up in the river before [the Fukushima emissions] means that something is coming from somewhere that is not Japan and we need to track that down and stop it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really want to E-mail the author and ask: "You buying this?" However, I'm trying to track down that other IAEA press briefing at the moment. Anyone here from PA, want to take this on? I've had worse ideas.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
What... The Hell.
Now, THAT:
"It was mentioned that previous samples in the same location(s) were high and there was speculation that someone was directly or indirectly dumping I-131 into the water supply. A medical or research facility for example."
...Scares the Hell out of me. Because if that's true, either someone has BEEN concealing something really really nasty, or someone's trying to LIE about things now. (There is also the possibility that BOTH are true.)
Anyone ELSE buying what they're selling here? "Oh, don't worry about the elevated levels, 'cause they were elevated BEFORE, we just didn't tell anyone." Are you KIDDING me? Next, they'll be saying that elevated levels of I-131 are just "normal background" and that nothing of any magnitude has changed at all, ANYWHERE.
Would LOVE to see some actual data on pre-Fukushima levels, there. Something stinks.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
972-746-8575
Could be fracking related.
Could be fracking related. Or just a lie about it being from august. Or, none of this is fuku related and the whole country's been drinking this stuff for years and it took a japan crisis to test for it. If it's a hospital I hope they all rot in jail.
I couldn't find the levels
I couldn't find the levels but they said it was detected in August. I also would love to see a comparison to the August levels. The last data I could find online was for 2009 and there was no mention of I-131.
I guess when the next batch of samples come out, if any are high in different areas, we'll have our answer.
historical levels
This EPA RadNet site allows you to search for historical levels at the different monitoring sites. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query.simple_query It does indeed show multiple previous occurences of higher I-131 levels. Aug of 2010 levels in PHILADELPHIA/QUEEN, PA drinking water 4.02 Pci/liter and recent April 2011 2.21 Pci/l.
The argument that "we are
The argument that "we are just detecting it now because of better record keeping...." & "this poison is always around anyway", has been used by medical men for ages for everything from depression to cancer. It reminds me a bit about the banana/radiation analogy. [BS].
I asked Jeff McMahon, Forum's blogger who's been following...
...EPA's data, to look into this. We'll see what, if anything, he manages to run down here.
...And I'm in complete agreement with you, btw.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com
Philadelphia drinking water
I have been trying to press someone to launch an investigation into this as well, and I've forwarded some info to the Philly Inquirer investigative and science staff hoping someone will delve into this.
Not only were the levels at the Queen Lane facility elevated recently and in Aug 2010 (exceeding 4 picoCuries/L in Aug), but if you look at historical data there were also elevations exceeding 3 picoCuries/L in Jan 09 and October 2007, so this is a situation *someone* has been aware of for years, not just dating back to Aug 2010.
You can search the historical data here for drinking water at Queen Lane:
http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query.simple_query
You can also see that they stopped testing for cesium in 2007, and have not tested for any isotope of radium since 2007 either (and radium is a concern with hydrofracking).
Some of those other isotopes would make it possible to possibly identify the source. I don't think they use iodine 131 in hydrofracking but if anyone has info otherwise I'd be curious to read it. The statements made with respect to radioactivity in the water contributed by iodine 131 such as "you would need to drink X liters" before there is a problem are concerning to me, because if they aren't testing for other isotopes (cesium, radium, etc and haven't since 2007) it seems to me it is highly inaccurate and misleading to state that the levels are "safe" because you don't know what else is contributing to the levels in the water. And despite numerous peaks in iodine 131 levels dating back to 2007 (not just 2010 if you look at the historical data) no one bothered to initiate carbon filtering until now, 3.5 years later?
I would also love to have a professional opinion on whether it is plausible that patients excreting iodine 131 (as proposed by officials as a possible source) at such a level that RAINwater in PA at Limerick and TMI had some of the highest levels in the nation (90-100 picoCuries/L)? (as reported by reuters and many other sources) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-nuclear-japan-south-idUSTRE...
Can the concentration from medical facilities or patient excretion in the area be at such a level that RAINwater in PA is being impacted to that degree?
Sorry... "FORBES", not "Forum". Tired. [nt]
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com