Seawater Testing

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2011-04-21 12:51

Thank you for your excellent work.
I appreciate your public forum.
Dr. Chivers, you responded to one of my posts in March regarding seawater testing. At that time you indicated you might begin testing water from San Francisco Bay. I see that you will be doing tests on algae and possibly seaweed. With all the radioactive contamination of the Pacific from the Fukashima plant I would expect that this will show up in the water off the West Coast and in other locations. Can you begin to test Seawater now?
Thank you.

‹ UC Berkeley professor Kai Vetter - Two different stories told on safety of local radioactivity ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT ›

Someone linked this article

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 02:57.

Someone linked this article from their blog. I would surmise, based on this article, that if sea water were tested all sorts if nasty radionuclides would be found including plutonium. Not from Fukushima but the good ol' US of A!

Roughly 540 sq miles known as the Farallon Island Radioactive Waste Dump located 30 miles from the San Francisco Bay.

http://www.defyingdisaster.com/2011/04/farallon-islands-and-other-oceani...

This is interesting, I did

Submitted by dchivers on Sat, 2011-04-23 07:17.

This is interesting, I did not know this! Crazy.

Here is the USGS link: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/farallon/radwaste.html

However, they mention "low-level" radioactive waste. In today's terms this would not include plutonium or americium, but who knows what was considered low-level during the height of the weapons testing. Remember, also during this time the population was subjected to global fallout from above ground nuclear tests from both the US and USSR. Low-level waste during that time must be put in that context, so it is altogether reasonable to think that what they disposed of there could have materials that today would be considered "high-level" waste.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2001-

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 16:32.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2001-05-09/news/fallout/

This article covers in more detail what has been found at the waste site- plutonium and americium both found. The government is very tight-lipped about the nature of the waste there and refuses to monitor the site despite numerous requests since the 1970's.

Eye opener, thanks for the

Submitted by dchivers on Sat, 2011-04-23 17:00.

Eye opener, thanks for the info. I guess I will not be going deep sea fishing out by the Faralons anytime in the future.

Yes it's a shame :( By the

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 17:08.

Yes it's a shame :(

By the way thank you sincerely for all you hard work, not just the monitoring but for your presence on the forums. Thank you thank you thank you. It's been an invaluable resource for me.

P.S.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 03:06.

When fish were tested at the waste site in the 1980's here's what they found.

"The researchers found plutonium, cesium, and americium -- an isotope that emits about three times as much radioactivity as radium -- in the fish. In particular, americium and one kind of plutonium were found at levels HIGHER THAN HAS BEEN REPORTED AT ANY OTHER SITE THE WORLD."

I'll say it again, that's 30 measly miles from the San Francisco Bay. Fukushima is bad no doubt, unfortunately it's just a drop in the bucket. Governments and the nuclear industry have been contaminating the planet for decades.

We currently do not have

Submitted by dchivers on Fri, 2011-04-22 07:33.

We currently do not have plans to test seawater as we believe, from our dilution estimates based on data from rainwater, runoff creek water, and tap water, that we would not see any results above our MDA limits for seawater. With limited capacity for testing in our facility, we are opting to test samples that we believe will give us quantitative results over our detection limits.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/27

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 12:39.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/27510887/detail.html

If it's in the seaweed it's probably in the water and fish, huh? Why not test the water and set everyone's mind at ease?

I don't object to the

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 14:42.

I don't object to the testing of anything including sea water, but lets remember that the testing of water from a body of water (be it the sea, river, or a lake) will at best reveal only that which remains in the specific volume of water that was collected. Put another way, a mere test of sea water which revealed no radionuclides above detection limits shouldn't put anyone's mind at ease. People should also want to know what if any concentrations can be detected in sea plants and sea life (in which various radionuclides will concentrate) and in the soils/sands across the bottom of the ocean and along the shore.

The sheer volume of things that ideally would be tested is far beyond what can and will be tested. The Pacific Ocean is incredibly vast. Look at a globe and compare its surface area to the size of the Europe continent (and Chernobyl fallout). Now add to that the depth of the Pacific Ocean. That's just the one ocean of immediate interest!

Don't you think it would be best to focus all extremely limited and woefully inadequate resources on things like desalination plant output, harvested sea plants and animals, those sorts of things?

I agree that with limited

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-04-23 16:36.

I agree that with limited resources for testing it's better to test things which concentrate radiation like fish.

Yes, I live in southern CA

Submitted by KC (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-21 20:55.

Yes, I live in southern CA on the coast, and would very much like to see testing done on sea water. It is beach weather, and it would be great to know whether or not it is safe to let our children in the water. Thank you for all you do.