700 pCi/kg of Cesium-137 found in soil from base of Sierra Nevada mountains according to preliminary data

http://enenews.com/700-pcikg-found-soil-base-sierra-nevada-mountains-acc...

700 pCi/kg of Cesium-137 found in soil from base of Sierra Nevada mountains according to preliminary data
April 20th, 2011 at 06:54 PM

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident Monitoring, Taylor Wilson at University of Nevada, Reno, April 17, 2011:

To test different types of Soil, a sample was collected from the base of the Sierra Nevadas. This soil is less sandy, and more organic, which would suggest a higher coefficient for sorption for Radionuclides. It also has more moisture content. The data is still preliminary however, there appears to be ~700 pCi/kg or ~26 Bq/kg of Cs137. Which is ~30 times the amount present in Valley soil.

Read more:
“The government doesn’t care if you’re going to have a few extra cases of cancer” says worker for monitoring program funded by US Dept. of Energy
Cesium-137 in soil 40 km NW of Fukushima Daiichi more than highest levels found at Chernobyl
More plutonium found in Fukushima Daiichi soil – Detected in four samples
Cesium-137 levels in Vermont milk at 66% of maximum contaminant level allowed by EPA
“Deplorable”: Plutonium detected at 5 locations — “Unknown which reactor plutonium came from”

April 20th, 2011 | Tags: Japan, Nuclear, radiation | Category: Fukushima
« Fukushima Forecast: Radiation cloud to approach US West Coast starting April 24 (VIDEO) San Francisco Bay Area milk shows highest Iodine-131 found in U.S. since the Fukushima crisis began »
69 comments to 700 pCi/kg of Cesium-137 found in soil from base of Sierra Nevada mountains according to preliminary data
Monitor X
April 20, 2011 at 7:04 pm · Reply
700 pCi/Kg is a tremendous amount of radionuclide relative to the FDA’s derived interdiction limit of 370 Bq/Kg (http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Chemical...), and 26 Bq/Kg is less than 1/10th of the limit. Should I be hyper-worried or just worried?

dan
April 20, 2011 at 7:50 pm · Reply
From what I can figure, 700 pCi/Kg = 26 Bq/Kg. So if I understand correctly, you should just be worried. And you can worry about being hyper-worried later. I’m somewhere in-between.
Monitor X
April 20, 2011 at 7:17 pm · Reply
I’m on this site all day, that’s why I care to see the numbers are right.

1 pCi = 37 Bq, divide by 37 on each side and
.027 pCi = 1 Bq,

but maybe by this point people don’t really care what the numbers are, just that things are horrible, which I agree with, but I’d still like to see good numbers so I know I’m freaking out appropriately.

admin
April 20, 2011 at 7:30 pm · Reply
I think you are confusing becquerel with millibecquerel… as 1 picocurie (pCi) = 37 MILLIbecquerel (mBq)

It is established that 1 becquerel = 27.03 picocuries.

Here are several links to confirm that 1 becquerel = 27.03 picocuries:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=becquerels
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/occup-travail/radiation/dosim/res-centre...
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/ionizing.html
http://www.uniteasy.com/en/unitsCon/radioactivity.htm
http://www.iem-inc.com/toolconv.html
http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad1.html

To make it easier, please use the radiation calculator here:
http://www.radprocalculator.com/Conversion.aspx
Choose becquerels to picocuries.

For example 2.9 Bq/l = 78.378 pCi/l

If you or anyone has a link that says otherwise, please provide it. However, my calculations are correct.

Even the article cited in this post says “~700 pCi/kg or ~26 Bq/kg”

Monitor X
April 20, 2011 at 8:15 pm · Reply
You’re absolutely right. Sorry, I thought pico=nano but pico=trillionth. So, yes 1 Bq = 27 pCi. Thank you for providing the links. I will be careful in the future to double check my sources.
ZombiePlanet
April 20, 2011 at 9:39 pm · Reply
Although I appreciate the input provided by the participants of this forum, I am concerned that , overwhelming, it represents a movie theater on fire with everyone screaming, without a single voice pointing out the best path to safety.

I realize that sound and accurate data, “real-time,” is elusive at best (TPTB) but, a more balanced discussion including methods of preparation, prevention, and feet-on-the-ground action maneuvers to assist our effort and lesson our chance of demise, is worth hours of screaming.

Without such effort on our part, we will end up being viewed as a mass of conflicting impulses sinking into the muck and mire of life.

I wish everyone the best but the best medicine is prevention.

(P.S. On a personal note, the only time, throughout history, that anyone spells the word g-o-d with a little “g” is making reference to, or swearing allegiance to, Satan.)

xdrfox
April 20, 2011 at 10:20 pm · Reply
Everything you may wish to know in all the areas that you have inquired have been discussed on these stories in and through comments over the past month since the site opened and at other site dealing with the Gulf disaster. It may take some time, but if you aren’t finding inf. for your needs, go back through passed stories and have your fill of knowledge !
Bluetek 25
April 20, 2011 at 11:07 pm · Reply
I don’t think anyone here is panicked. By now, many of us have done the research. We are not panicked but we are realistic. To me, if there is any silver lining to this horrible tragedy, it is that it has exposed the nuclear industry, the history of nuclear testing in states like Nevada in the 50?s and 60?s, and hopefully has provoked the discussion of what role nuclear should have in the future. Moody’s Investor Services has stated that the private nuclear industry is going to face new and strong opposition. Really? Only if we all do SOMETHING!!! That means YOU and ME. What happened to King Coal??? There is so much coal under the ground in this country it’s not funny!! Why did the laws and regulations destroy coal but promote nuclear? We can’t take on the entire industry, but we sure as hell can start by doing some research on the nuclear plants in our respective states. Find out where your state’s nuclear plants are (sure you already know), find out who owns them, research their history, who licenses them, what documents are available under a Freedom of Information Act request, are they in compliance, be an advocate for yourself and the people in your state!! Sounds like alot of work right? No time right? Me either. But I know I have to do what I can. The answer is to make the laws hard, enforce compliance of safety measures and don’t make it so damn easy to build a new nuclear plant in your back yard!!!!! Vote in representatives who support your point of view. And if you already have a reactor or two in your back yard like I do, get involved and make damn sure that they are in compliance, do your research, hold meetings, use FOIA requests, do what we can, which can be really powerful. Maybe the industry is huge, but EPA regulations sure brought down coal. Somebody was behind those regs. The cost of regulation compliance was too high and nuclear is edging coal out. What are the safety regulations for the nuclear plants in your state? I’m sure these private companies are very happy we know nothing. Does anyone know? I sure as hell don’t, but I intend to find out. Took my kids snowboarding all winter, drove right past two nuclear power plants with their plumes of “steam” spewing 24/7, gave them a nervous glance and then forgot about it. NOT ANYMORE!!! I want to be an informed citizen at the very least. Nuclear science is only one piece of the picture. Don’t let it intimidate you. Being in the legal profession, I can tell you that the legal/regulations piece of the puzzle is just as big and that is where advocates like you and me could have a huge impact. We can be the opposition if we choose to be.

gopala
April 21, 2011 at 12:12 am
Here’s the realtime truth about radiation exposure, including internal emitters. Sadly, now that we are over 100 years into this deadly science, there are many parts of the world that have become living experiments in radiation poisoning. Effects of Chernobyl, depleted uranium (DU), and the cancer zones around nuclear power plants were all assessed. Now that we are seeing the results, the formulas match the reality. Its not guesswork anymore.
The first link gives some figures on what can be expected from Fukushima, which is based on the second link, the full scientific document originally convened in 2003, (updated 2010). The world’s leading scientists contributed. It absolutely puts the current model used by governments and media in the trash. The last link is where I found the first two.
http://www.euradcom.org/publications/fukushima19032011.pdf
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/04/04/radiation-experts-radiation-...
terraohio
April 21, 2011 at 1:00 am · Reply
I used the small g “god-forsaken planet” as a reference to the evil-doers, that evil entities; greedy, money-hungry, power hungry, dishonest and corrupt, are destroying this planet.
SteveMT
April 20, 2011 at 10:30 pm · Reply
Thanks for all of these sites and information.
We are all on a radiation learning curve.

xdrfox
April 20, 2011 at 10:37 pm · Reply
Many of us have been put on this learning curve, and some good people with many helpful answers ! We have people from all walks of life that are aware and willing to aid !

You are not alone, we are all concerned !
xdrfox
April 20, 2011 at 7:36 pm · Reply
You know if the Gov. would place a tax on this sh*t, They would know to the millionth what was in your yard and how much to tax everything else that is laced with it !
dan
April 20, 2011 at 8:29 pm · Reply
And I just got over my germophobia.
Rica E
April 20, 2011 at 8:40 pm · Reply
wonder if obam had a nice fresh local salad while he visited the area today? doubt it!

xdrfox
April 20, 2011 at 11:23 pm · Reply
Bet there will be no more stories on Mrs. Obama about her garden on the WhiteHouse lawn in the news !

terraohio
April 21, 2011 at 1:02 am · Reply
Should one plant a garden this year?
terraohio
April 21, 2011 at 1:02 am · Reply
He enjoys arugula.
~need more mapping~
April 20, 2011 at 10:03 pm · Reply
Is anyone mapping out how N. American topography is affecting the spread of these nasty radionuclides????!
Obviously, California has nothing to protect itself really–it comes straight off the coast. But, it seems like some states on the other side of the Rockies and collection valleys catch a discernable break? Some regions have distinct counter-currents or other phenomena???
I also heard today that the Jet Stream actually forms not just a meteorological current wave, but also an undulating corkscrew? So….. can any of these scientists start making precise models of where to expect the real “hot” or cold spots in the nation???
300 Million could use the info and fast!

dan
April 20, 2011 at 10:38 pm · Reply
That would be nice. But I’d expect it to be about as accurate as a weather forecast.

xdrfox
April 20, 2011 at 11:36 pm · Reply
Good morning, This is your Weatherman, 2nd Generation Half blob, with your morning Fallout report for Wedsday, April 2074 and the Japan fallout is with us today Falling at 26 Bq/kg the last 24 hours but much better then yesterday, Census report show there are one hundred and four of us left ! and tomorrow weather wi….
Esrin
April 20, 2011 at 10:43 pm · Reply
This is a very, very good question.
I’m sure there are pockets of the country that are less affected than others. From what I know the rainiest areas are getting the most contaminated. Though now that the contamination has reached the food chain I’m not quite sure that even the driest areas are much more protected.
Anyone else have any information or statistics on what climates would be least affected by radioactive fallout?
xdrfox
April 20, 2011 at 10:44 pm · Reply
EPA is posting test results !
There are links posted a number of times with Stories headlines to !
xdrfox
April 20, 2011 at 10:46 pm · Reply
It is the accumulation that is problematic now, very much so !
Required
April 21, 2011 at 5:10 pm · Reply
**Florida, a Hot Spot?**

(1) A 1960?s gov’t report was trying to determine why the milk in Tampa, Florida had a higher ratio of cesium-137 and strontium-90 from the Nevada testing fallout of the 50?s and 60?s:

http://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/cesium-137-and-strontium-...

(2) From enenews and the CTBTO: It looks like Florida received comparatively high levels of the Japan fallout.

http://enenews.com/florida-highest-iodine-131-reading-ctbto-monitoring-s...

http://enenews.com/epa-florida-rain-has-third-most-cs-134-and-fifth-most...

(3) The ZAMG map projection below shows Florida getting pooled with the radioactive release from Japan.

http://www.zamg.ac.at/pict/aktuell/20110325_Reanalyse-I131-Period2.gif

The map has been shown to be pretty accurate. For example, it shows the plume sitting over Idaho a lot, which we also know got an elevated dose.

(4) Also, Florida is one of the worst states for hazardous air pollution and there isn’t much industry there:

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/hap/state.tcl?fips_state_cod...

There has to be a geographical/meteorological reason for all of this.
Mothra
April 20, 2011 at 10:58 pm · Reply
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/soil/ssg496.pdf

Soil is pesky for beta radionuclide contamination because it affects ingested water, agriculture and inhalation risks. With grazing animals you can shelter, some water sources can be filtered, but run-off From high elevations to agricultural valleys, precipitation deposits and disturbing winds this season are not in our favor. The dissipation half-life of radioactive cesium is very long – at least 150+ years.

terraohio
April 21, 2011 at 1:05 am · Reply
Mothra, you seem very well informed. Would you plant a garden this summer?

Mothra
April 21, 2011 at 12:19 pm · Reply
Absolutely, in fact, if you are a spinach or cruciferous veggie or berry fan you have a much longer season from now through winter. Your own garden in your control and care is safer than other sources. I’d just do it differently this year than in the past: either greenhouse, shelterable, lightweight movable containers or protective sheeting from rain outs. You want to reduce dust and rain from your soil and plants – plus use fresh water. I’m keeping mine a bit smaller this year and bought a shower filter for the hose to reduce the flouride that binds to radionuclides and cuts the chlorine which can evaporate like gas after watering. Mine is a mix of movable containers, indoor and simple, low cost “greenhouse.” Inedible ornamentals and cilantro are the same old deal. Not all foods accumulate radionuclides either. Some absorb more, some won’t effectively uptake. I addded additional “rainforest” hybrid houseplants for indoor air quality (so pretty). I’m growing other herbs and mushrooms indoor with ion exchange carbon filtered water – some mushrooms are hyper-accumulators and don’t need a lot of light. So mushrooms are great for your diet right now, but not if they’ve been contaminated. What’s your climate or zone?

Mothra
April 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm · Reply
I know one gardener who adds bentonite clay to garden water right now… And chose a sandier draining soil this year. I have no idea if that works… I’ve heard the bentonite and French green clay good for human baths and as a supplement though .
terraohio
April 21, 2011 at 8:57 pm · Reply
I think I’m in zone 5, but I feel it’s more like zone 4 due to the very cold winters and tons of snow. The last years’ winters have been brutal.

Our backyard garden replaced an above ground swimming pool that I now refer to as the Japanese “sunken” garden. Isn’t that ironic! Quite picturesque, some stepped stones take you down into the garden area which is also surrounded by stones from our property and the creek. I also have a smaller garden that is dry and gets lots of sun on the side of the house.

Your ideas sound great, but I don’t know if my back can take all the moving around of pots and containers.

Do you know if yellow wax beans take up any radiation? These are my very favorite beans as my grandma from Canada used to grow them in her garden. I alos like to plant tomatoes, peppers, and cucumbers.

Mothra
April 22, 2011 at 12:22 am
That sounds really spectacular. And easier to arrange a sheeting option, adjacent “hothouse,” central pole tent or lean to. it’ll also extend your season. One great bonus is skinned veggies off the ground can be washed. I’ve not heard of wax beans being trouble, but here’s a list of known accumulators:
http://www.healwithfood.org/articles/foods-radioactive-contamination-ris...
Esrin
April 21, 2011 at 1:07 am · Reply
Thanks for your input. Just one correction in the hopes of maintaining accurate information on this site.
Cesium-137 has a half life of about 30 years.

Mothra
April 21, 2011 at 11:56 am · Reply
Cesium is only reduced by half every thirty years. It takes over 150 to dissipate fully.

xdrfox
April 21, 2011 at 9:17 pm · Reply
They did this to gain an understanding of what the cranes meant to a little girl dying of radiation sickness (leukemia)
http://www.thesubtimes.com/2011/04/21/a-thousand-cranes%E2%80%A6/
xdrfox
April 21, 2011 at 9:22 pm · Reply
Children of Hiroshima (1952)
Japanese Survivors Shaded by Puzzlement and Sorrow
http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/movies/children-of-hiroshima-kaneto...
~the more hard DATA, the better!~
April 20, 2011 at 11:05 pm · Reply
It seems like flat areas with natural winds fare MUCH better in Radnet tests than the contained valleys do. For example, Phoenix; the Valley areas of S.California; Cincinnati deep in the Ohio River Valle;, and many parts of the sunken TN river valley have noticeably higher readings…
Then the very flat, windy plains like IL have no deposits yet, per EPA tests?
Also, places that had poor air quality and contaminant levels to begin with often have more problems, it seems… I don’t know how to explain the plight of Boise, ID, Boston, or Montpelier, VT, except for the possibility of unique topographical conditions?
Someone needs to get cracking on this!! Some clever topographical geologists and meteorologists could lay out valuable groundwork for all!! Let’s go!

Arizonan
April 21, 2011 at 1:25 am · Reply
Rain is also an extremely important factor in deposition. The work of the scientists at http://www.llrc.org showed increased cancers in Wales correlated with rainfall figures.

Schmales
April 21, 2011 at 8:18 am · Reply
Wales is incredibly radiation polluted, you can read about it in the official reports by the British gov.
lyonesse
April 20, 2011 at 11:09 pm · Reply
It’s all so scary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o0jgM-wfNw&feature=related
~the more hard DATA, the better!~
April 20, 2011 at 11:22 pm · Reply
I’m trying to make sense of it, but the more you think about it, the more it seems like a potential bad prequel to a Mad Max movie… ugh.

But, you HAVE to keep trying to crack the code on this!!!! There is a way out, but it takes doing.

The Russians were so ingenious & serious about Chernobyl decades ago. They essentially ‘cracked the code’ and pulled out the stops. Now it’s time to go into uber-overdrive with new ideas in 2011!! (and force it on them, if necessary!)

xdrfox
April 20, 2011 at 11:28 pm · Reply
May come down to like in the movie,

The Road

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road
Esrin
April 21, 2011 at 12:28 am · Reply
~the more hard DATA, the better!~

I agree. I’m sure a lot can be learned from Boeing-Rocketdyne, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
Even though the facts about these accidents were suppressed for many years. By devoting some research I’m sure some historical precedents could be found revealing which topographical regions of the country will fare better.

I will be researching this matter over the weekend. This must be the most important information one could provide for those who are pregnant, have small children, etc.
regulus
April 20, 2011 at 11:33 pm · Reply
Wait for it, sheeple
http://www.northcom.mil/News/2011/033111.html
regulus
April 20, 2011 at 11:34 pm · Reply
Please lie down in rows to die
I hate sorting bodies
Thomas Wells
April 21, 2011 at 12:50 am · Reply
Government data. What more do you need to know?
regulus
April 21, 2011 at 1:07 am · Reply
The unleashed power of the atom has changed
everything save our modes of thinking, and
thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.
Albert Einstein
HardLeft
April 21, 2011 at 1:38 am · Reply
I feel that the general tone of both the website and the comments is improving– becoming more informative, less panicky, more fact-driven. This is sounding less like a crackpot website and more like activism that bridges conventional political polarities that are largely created by the media. The links posted in the comments section are getting more useful, too… now if we could just develop a more comprehensible table of limits in multiple units of measure, like Milk = X pi/Cl = X Bq/Cl = 4% increased cancer risk, etc.

Lgan
April 21, 2011 at 8:36 am · Reply
The problem here is that risk of low level radiation is difficult to assess because of the noise of other factors involved. If you’re looking for “rule of thumb” guidance, milk is generally safe if no more than about 1 Bq/l of C-137 and 0.1 Bq/l of Sr-90. You can’t talk about percentage risks at such low levels, the margin of error is bigger than the percentage. Which of course serves the purposes of TPTB very well, they have plausible deniability on their side until you reach levels hundreds and thousands times higher.
Arizonan
April 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm · Reply
There is a way to calculate this by using dose-effect relationships that have already been observed in Europe by reputable but independent scientists. The following calculation for figuring out cancer risk from various levels of ingestion of I-131 is from http://www.llrc.com:

“Calculating doses from Iodine.
Take the figure for Becquerels per litre (Bq/l). (There is information on the internet. LLRC has no resources for monitoring it all). If, as in USA, the radioactivity levels are expressed in picoCuries (pCi), convert pCi to Becquerels (Bq) by multiplying by 0.037.
To convert a dietary intake into a dose multiply the Becquerels by 0.11 and the answer will be the dose in microSieverts. For example, if a litre of water is contaminated with 0.5 Bq, drinking it will give 0.5 x 0.11 = 0.055microSv. (This uses the ECRR adult dose coefficient for Iodine 131 which is slightly different to the ICRP dose coefficient – see ECRR 2010 p. 244).
The cancer risk associated with this dose is small. It can be calculated by dividing the dose in microSv by 1 billion. For the above example this means that if a billion people each drank a litre of water contaminated with 0.5 Bq then 5.5 of them would develop cancer over a period of 50 years. The individual person would increase his or her chances of getting cancer by 1 in 182 million. (This uses the ECRR cancer risk coefficient of 0.1 per Sievert which is different to the ICRP risk coefficient 0.05 per Sievert – see ECRR 2010 p. 180).
Note that this calculation is for a single intake. Iodine 131 loses half of its radioactivity in 8.04 days. This means that if your water supply comes from rainfall and if the rain becomes contaminated in a single episode the radioactivity will decay to 1/16th of its original concentration during a month and so on. That’s assuming no further releases from the reactor affect your region.”

Mothra
April 21, 2011 at 4:01 pm · Reply
Chronic low dose ingested beta and alpha particulates are higher risk than that – especially when you consider decreases in live births and all the debilitating non-fatal cancers and illnesses: from cardiovascular, erectile dysfunction, early menopause, thyroid disorders to diabetes, gastrointestinal and neurological imbalances and a host of immune response ailments.

5% of the population receiving 1Sv cumulative over their lifespan will die of fatal cancer. Other expensive, quality of life affecting illnesses, will be much higher.

There is also a supra-linear threshold. That means a difficult to define subset of the population is in more danger from lower doses than higher. Low dose phenomena is found usually and more identifiably in children.

xdrfox
April 21, 2011 at 9:38 pm · Reply
Researchers Review Risks Tied to Nuclear Accidents
April 21, 2011

In a new article, researchers review the short- and long-term health risks associated with nuclear power plant accidents in light of the recent earthquake in Japan that caused substantial damage to a nuclear plant. The article has been published online April 20 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Radiation-induced sickness can be categorized into three phases: prodrome, latency, and illness, with treatment based on the estimated dose of radiation exposure.

http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/pb/19524
HardLeft
April 21, 2011 at 1:39 am · Reply
Sorry, that would be pCi and mBq… it’s been a long day!
mikael
April 21, 2011 at 4:57 am · Reply
Its not about scearing or hyping anything, if its "normality" what people want to hear. So far, this site has in my knowledge and expirience from radioactiv fallout and problems acordingly been correct.
The fallout is comperble relativly small. consider the magnitute of damage, its the fallout from the melting cores that posess the Threat.
Thats the major problem. and dont gett me wrong, frankly its up to you self to do what ever messure to protect and/or educate oneselfs.
The arguments about Size is not relevante, its what comes thats relevant, the woursth shitt is still hidden from public and media. Thats my biggest problem.
In Ukraina it kills even today, almoust 3 decades after.

Arizonan
April 21, 2011 at 12:40 pm · Reply
Thank you for this post. People really need to understand that each radioactive cloud that rolls across japan, the Pacific, the US, the Atlantic, and Europe deposits (relatively) small amounts,slightly increasing cancer risk each time. The problem with the melting and now not fully contained reactor, is that it will continue to emit high levels of radiation for the foreseeable future. Each cloud of radiation that passes over the earth will deposit a bit more, and a bit more, and some of these radionuclides don’t fully dissipate for hundreds or even thousands of years. That means humans and animals will be ingesting and breathing in contaminated materials for the foreseeable future. Even breathing in one particle can increase a risk for cancer, even if it doesn’t manifest for 10-20 years. Yes, people in the Ukraine are still dying from Chernobyl fallout. Humans never evolved to appropriately deal with the ongoing threat of this kind of ongoing mortality. We are still at the tiger stage of evolution: we can deal with immediate threats. People are still dying from the Hiroshima fallout! I don’t know how we can change people’s consciousness and get a mass movement against nuclear power (and weapons and testing etc.) Individuals can’t do it; honest scientists are discredited by a billion dollar industry; we humans go on, dying so slowly no one can apparently make the connections. Other effects besides death aren’t even taken into consideration: low birth weight babies, increased miscarriages, asthma, diabetes, and possibly some effect on the development of mental illnesses if radionuclides have damaged the brain tissues via blood circulation. Only a sustained mass movement of people across the globe would, I think, have any hope of actually stopping this nuclear nightmare. And I don’t know how that happens. I know we do need to go on resisting the lies that constantly emanate from the nuclear industry. We each have a duty to inform ourselves accurately so that we can do this.
live and die in Los Angeles
April 21, 2011 at 6:47 am · Reply
Every year I’ve planted a vegetable garden with tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, green beans, but I’m wondering what’s safest?

~the more hard DATA, the better!~
April 21, 2011 at 10:52 am · Reply
I only would proceed with some kind of greenhouse or enclosure and maintain your own safe, filtered water and soil sources. As you may know, Uranium clearly has been detected in the L.A. fallout, among several other isotopes.
I’m curious how very well-to-do CA citizens (i.e. multi-millionaires) are responding to the fallout there, since money would not be much of an object?? What are the wealthy types in So.Cal doing these days? Thanks for any feedback! And good luck!
gopala
April 21, 2011 at 9:08 am · Reply
The first link has two examples tailored for the isotope nix from Fukushima. One can be used for milk or water or food. The other uses an external dose as an example, which in reality will affect people internally.
The second link is the full scientific report, an amazing document!
http://www.euradcom.org/publications/fukushima19032011.pdf
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf
JonahW
April 21, 2011 at 11:46 am · Reply
Should we plant a garden? I’ve been thinking about that for a while, and have come to this conclusion: yes, but I’ll cover the leafy veggies with greenhouse plastic.

Here’s my reasoning, and steps I’m taking:

1) Almost all produce we buy in the spring-summer-fall months (I live in Ontario) is going to come from North America, and except for hot-house tomatoes or cucumbers it’s all grown outside anyway. As we’ve seen from reports here, contamination is spreading equally from Alaska to Florida. Therefore, wherever produce is grown in North America it’ll be exposed to the same amount of fallout.

2) Therefore, if I can grow my own food in my backyard and take modest steps to minimize contamination, it’ll be cleaner than food purchased from California, Florida, or Ontario.

3) Not consuming produce, or eating only canned food, is not an option, as that’s far less healthy. I saw a study many years ago that compared the relative health affects of eating produce with heavy pesticides (e.g. from Mexico) vs not eating it at all, and the obvious answer was confirmed: better to take your veggies with a dose of poison, than not eat your veggies at all.

4) To make my produce as healthy as possible, I’m: growing leafy vegetables under greenhouse plastic; watering with municipal water rather than rainwater as that will be slightly less contaminated; favoring root veggies over leafy where possible, as soil will also filter out many particles; and growing lots of anti-oxidant veggies like broccoli, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts (my kids hate me!).

5) For drinking and cooking water, use only reverse osmosis (RO). It’s quite cheap — most water stores have their own RO equipment on site, treating already-cleaned municipal water, and here the cost is only about $2.50 to refill an 18-liter bottle. If you keep these bottles in the cool and dark, the water will remain potable for at least two years, so it’s a cheap investment to put a dozen of these big bottles down in your basement, write the date on them, and rotate your stash once a year. I’ve done my research, and RO removes most iodine and cesium. If you have $500 or so, you can get your own equipment that will *also* clean the water with activated charcoal, giving you quite pure water.

6) Whether you have your own RO system or are using municipal water, spend another $100 or so to lay a network of drip-irrigation tubes to each plant, which will allow you to give them only clean water, and will use far less water than a sprinkler or hose. It’s fun to set up drip irrigation, like building adult Lego, plus it can make the watering a breeze — plug the hose into the main inlet pipe, turn it on, come back in an hour and it’s done.

7) Keep rainwater off the garden as much as possible to minimize long-term accumulation: cover the soil with tarps when it’s not growing season, and add a couple inches of fresh compost and garden soil each new year.

And finally, compost everything you can, including biodegradables like paper napkins, in a covered compost bin and reuse that compost in next year’s garden.

Any other suggestions?

Mothra
April 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm · Reply
A few suggestions:

S. Hemisphere produce is less affected – check the code sticker on it, the country of import origin is usually on it.

A charcoal filter for garden watering is inexpensive too.

RO is great but has a tough time with iodine. The pristine drinking system is a combined one: ion exchange with coconut carbon followed by RO with pre and post carbon. Showering is good to filter too because the heated chlorine steam aerosolizes inhalation contaminates.

Skinned, thick skinned and waxy vegetables are less accumulative than cruciferous.

Berries are accumulators: raspberries, strawberries, blackberries and cranberries – blueberries not as much. Pomegranates are an excellent substitute for phytonutrients and vitamin C.

Wash everything well in clean/ filtered water. You can use baking soda or a grapefruit enzyme wash too.

You can peel root vegetables if you’re worried.

Grazing animal and free range proteins accumulate cesium in muscle tissue. Cows have less than sheep and goats in the past. Cesium leeches out of lean protein by brining marinade soaks. So, it can be reduced some. If cesium is in the milk, it’s in the systemic animal tissue too. Again, S. Hemisphere less, liver and fatty organs more.

Mothra
April 21, 2011 at 4:29 pm · Reply
* the plants really like the activated carbon filter water .
Mothra
April 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm · Reply
I say these thing living right on the Pacific West Coast and knowing across the Bay we have confirmed iodine and cesium in our dairy and produce as well as uranium detected in our air. Not all places have that type of data or my proximty and geography.
JonahW
April 21, 2011 at 8:09 pm · Reply
Thank you, Mothra. I too am curious about your background, as you seem to have reliable experience in this area. (But somehow I don’t think your avatar is really you. )

I’ll take your suggestions, especially the activated carbon hose filters which I see can be purchased many places.

terraohio
April 21, 2011 at 9:10 pm · Reply
Can you place a carbon filter or some type of hepa filter over the end of a downspout that is directed to your garden?

Mothra
April 22, 2011 at 12:45 am
I think you can with an inline carbon filter and compression plumbing adapter from plumbing supply, or the hardware store. I installed my filters here at home week 1 of Fuku. What you’re talking about is about to go on my washing machine’s cold line. Same spigot situation I think. I couldn’t afford or self- install a “whole house” filter at the main. If you know your pipe fitting circumference, they’re really nice and knowledgable at the hardware stores. I asked them.
Mothra
April 22, 2011 at 12:35 am · Reply
My background is BA journalism and media and my MA is graphic design. My specialty is pie and nerdiness. I read a lot – it’s shocking. I like math and science, the arts and Martha Stewartness ( without the attitude). My squeeze was a survivalist from Montana. My nature cuts through BS like hot knife goes through butter. My grandparents ( children of The First Depression) raised me and were self-sufficient civic folks. I was born to survive this. That’s me from late February trying a backcombing updo for a Mad Men party. Despite all this, I think I could still be cool someday .
JonahW
April 21, 2011 at 11:49 am · Reply
I see that #8 was turned into . I guess composting is the happy option!

Please do share any other ideas you have about safe gardening.
Thomas Wells
April 21, 2011 at 1:11 pm · Reply
There are lots more radioactive poisons spewing from the ruptured reactors than just Ce-137,and I-131.But that would be telling,…

Tell Ling Hanford List
April 22, 2011 at 4:12 am · Reply
http://hanford-downwinders.tribe.net/thread/27ac20d9-46ee-4fd7-9fae-15a0...
xdrfox
April 22, 2011 at 1:23 am · Reply
*PIC* Japanese risk radiation to rescue dogs When Etsumi Ogino saw a news photo of a pack of shelties wandering through an abandoned town near Japan’s tsunami-damaged nuclear plant, she thought of her own 13-year-old canine Kein and jumped into action.
She and others around Japan called Asahi.com, the website of the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, which had run the photo. An Associated Press photographer had snapped that photo and others of the dogs on an empty street in Minami Soma city. On Saturday, the AP gave her details of where the dogs were spotted.

Ogino relayed the information to a team of animal rescuers called Sheltie Rescue. By then, the…
http://www.tweentribune.com/content/japanese-risk-radiation-rescue-dogs?...