I'm not relieved by recent rainwater data

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2011-04-19 15:24

It was indeed nice to see decreasing levels of contamination in recent rainwater test results, but this was to be expected because the plume was not over CA when this rain fell. According to Eurad, we now have a plume in CA again...and it was here during yesterday's rain. If I see decreasing levels in yesterday's rain, and in current air, then I will feel a bit relieved.

Thank you again and again, BRAWM! Words cannot express the depth of my gratitude for your work.

‹ IAEA "Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log" Site UC Berkeley professor Kai Vetter - Two different stories told on safety of local radioactivity ›

Still waiting for rainwater

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 17:57.

Still waiting for rainwater data from the 18th (five days ago).

Rainwater?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-04-22 21:38.

Rainwater coming soon? Hard to wait!

Still no rainwater data

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-04-22 16:32.

Hopefully it will be soon because the suspense is...suspending.

Translation

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 19:45.

How does Bq/m3 deposition compare to Bq/kg for topsoil?

Perspective?

Submitted by CF (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 19:28.

Is that .001 - .1 Bq/m3 cumulative or one measurement? Again trying to compare to Chernobyl fallout.. So in kBq the highest point would be .0001 which then compares to under 2 for the Iberian peninsula which is generally regarded as unaffected. I saw something about the Sierras being at 26 Bq/kg of Cs137 which then is 0.026 kBq. IF any of this is an accurate read on total deposition so far then I would be breathing a huge sigh of relief (if still avoiding giving my 2 year old daughter dairy and leafy greens for the time being).

Interpreting maps

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 08:21.

To the OP or anyone else who understands these maps in German -- or translated -- What am I missing? These plume trajectories could possibly help me decide whether to send my 2 year old to preschool (they send them outside rain or shine). Obviously the air and rainwater data from BRAWM are delayed so they don't help with my morning decision-making.

Hi, please read my post

Submitted by bandstra on Thu, 2011-04-21 00:16.

Hi, please read my post about interpreting the EURAD maps: A note on interpreting EURAD and NILU plume forecasts. The maps are not very accurate and are meant to demonstrate how the fallout is dispersed in general.

Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Thank you, Mark. I

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 06:56.

Thank you, Mark. I understand this. The plume trajectory itself seems to be correct, but we don't know the levels in the plume. This is why I will be relieved if the recent rain data shows low levels.

Nothing detected

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-20 22:40.

Must have been a weak "plume". The latest rain water sample
detected nothing.

?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 06:53.

Rainwater results have yet to be posted.

Sorry. Was looking at the tap water results.....

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 08:18.

Too many results to look at. I was looking at the tap water results.

But it's in German

Submitted by Burkey (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-20 18:17.

The maps are nifty but if you don't speak German it's pretty difficult to figure them out.

Google Translate

Submitted by JFP (not verified) on Wed, 2011-04-20 22:35.

Google Translate can be your friend!

http://translate.google.com/#

JFP

can you post a link?

Submitted by Bill (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-19 18:28.

for the eurad data?

http://www.eurad.uni-koeln.de

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-04-19 18:37.

http://www.eurad.uni-koeln.de/

If you scroll down, the maps are current.

I may be wrong Bandstra (Mark) but they say actual detection

Submitted by bill (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 08:50.

I believe they are measuring actual detection of Cs 137 in the bottom graphs. The results here are pretty scary to a layperson but I may be misinterpreting the info.

The translation is a little difficult so can anyone help interpret the final results. One part says its a simulation and another part indicates its actual results. I believe the graph at the bottom right shows actual results whereas the plume maps are simulated projectiosn but I am not clear on this.

anyone help. Mark's comment on these maps may be inaccurate iof they are posting actual measured amounts in their updated results (as opposed to simulations for predictive purposes).

BRAWM care to comment on what they are detecting apparently and how it matches up with your results? One thing I would say is that they seem to be showing a consistant drop in detected amounts but the total accumulations appear substantial in Bcq/Square Meter deposition (wet and dry) that they are reporting.

This is kind of important I would guess and seems consistent with what you are finding (little new stuff in air and rain but recent depositions accumulating in the biosystems of the planet)

Their website is a little

Submitted by bandstra on Thu, 2011-04-21 15:23.
Their website is a little confusing. All of the colored maps are based on simulations, and my earlier comments apply. It appears that they have begun comparing their results to actual measured data from Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization test stations around the world to reduce the uncertainties in their simulations. But their maps are still preliminary. In the bottom right of that webpage, there are two plots put together into one cell -- the upper plot has a white background, and the lower plot is an animated world map showing CTBTO monitoring stations. The upper plot is analogous to our air monitoring results. They are reporting in units of Becquerels per cubic meter, which is equal to 1,000 Becquerels per liter. It looks like our results are very similar to the CTBTO USA West Coast station (USA Westküste). What they say on their website about these plots is:
First measurements are now available from the CTBTO. The observed Cs-137 activity concentrations are in the order of 0.001 to 0.1 Bq/m3 (See graphics right, with permission of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Germany). Based on these observations a new estimation of the emission rate was done and the transport calculations were updated. A first comparison indicates identical arrival times of the radioactive cloud at the CTBTO stations. In the upper row right, an animation of the daily mean values in air together with the simulated detection at the CTBTO stations is displayed. A detailled verifikation of the calculations will follow.
So their colored maps are still simulations, but they have been updated to try to match the CTBTO station arrival times. This is shown in their plot on the upper right. They are starting to use the CTBTO data to get more accurate results. My comments about the preliminary nature of the maps still hold, but EURAD is hoping to get more and more accurate maps as time goes by and more measurements are made. Mark [BRAWM Team Member]

Mark (BRAWM) - two things Thanks first, but can you comment

Submitted by Bill (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 18:59.

on the last link you posted on the upper right?

are you qualified to comment whether these levels LOOK accurate in that simulation? It looks in that gif as if stations are picking up very low levels and then raising rather quickly as the different monitoring stations light up (before you actually see the plume hitting the monitors)

But based on what you know does it look like this particular animated graphic is credible and accurate?

I asked another question on the simulations down this thread with a comment re: looking at the simulations now that we have data do they look anywhere near accurate and reliable?

It sure would be interesting...

Submitted by R. Cromack (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 18:28.

...To see a map indicating TOTAL DEPOSITION of Cesium, analagous to this:

http://doctorapsley.com/images/chernobyl%20fall-out%20map-final%202.jpg

...for comparison, to see how the TOTAL effects of Fukushima in North America compare to the TOTAL effects of Chernobyl on Europe. Does anyone know where this sort of information is being modeled and made available to the public, even "only" as a simulation / guesstimate?

Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com

Thanks, Mark, for being so responsive and one more question

Submitted by Bill (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 18:27.

do the early simulations match at all what you are seeing (as opposed to the two plots with actual meaurements/arrival times)?

In other words VERY much is made on the internet about these simulations and how these plumes are moving based on estimates of releases etc.

So the question is

do tha actual measured numbers match up at all with the simulations as near as you can tell or are the simulations much higher than what is actually being measured?

I think this is a relatively important question due to the huge number of people who use the simulations to raise alarms about the plumes and their radionuclide contents and levels of contamination in upper, lower and ground level atmospheres (as well as the wet and dry deposit apparently actual measurements in that lower set of animated maps).

Thanks again for the response and the continued responsiveness and work of your team. This is an historic effort imho and we are all grateful for it as will be generations to come of those who care and/or who are exposed to these radionuclide contaminants.

bump for a response from brawm

Submitted by Bill (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 09:31.

to my last responses