Plutonium found in North America in March by EPA
i found the data posted here from EPA site
excel
http://www.idealist.ws/pu238.xls
taken from
http://www.idealist.ws/
I see they have negative data for some places but positive in others.
Plutonium in WA, AK and parts of CA etc.
I see SF has a negative value, maybe that spot didt hit Berkeley either?
danger radioactive materials in fish
I'm no scientist, but I've spent the last year and a half not eating fish. Once I ate seaweed (carefully avoiding fish) at a Japanese restaurant. I later learned there's more contamination in seaweed than just about anything. (And may I add that seaweed was oddly delicious) (scary) Anyway, then I heard that forget fish, things like milk and bread were dangerous in Japan. (?) How did that happen? It seems to be that being downwind from Japan here in California, every fish would be dangerous. After all, we are all one planet and a nuclear bomb sort of went off in the coast of Japan. I would ask for only Atlantic fish, and since no one could assure me that it wasn't nuclear and just called "atlantic salmon" as a kind of name only (and also it was full of mercury!), I didn't eat that either. Meanwhile, my doctors are telling me its imperative to eat fish as opposed to chicken or gosh forbid beef for my high cholesterol. I tell them I'm afraid to. Anyway, one day last month I just couldn't stand it. It's like a science fiction movie already! So I went a little crazy. I chomped on shrimp. I devored salmon. I made Chicken of the Sea tuna salad. I was really naughty. Now I'm not overly scared or anything. It was sort of worth it and I felt even a little healthy. But I know for a fact what I ate is very dangerous. I will probably not eat fish for another year and a half. Is anyone else in my mental dilemma?
Good Explanation
Here is an excellent explanation by a Japanese prof of University of Tokyo.
http://plixi.com/p/96385296
It is in Japanese, but it is easy to understand. The green columns are the thresholds that a measurement has to surpass in order to be considered detected. The blue columns are the measured values, the vertical black intervals are the error estimates. The left graph is California with the dates, the right is Guam. The professor has two conclusions:
1. Measurements of U235 and Pu239 did not surpass the green threshold, so they are not considered detected.
2. Even if we consider Pu 239 detected, the mass ratio that we get for Pu239 and U238, namely, 0.00003%, is way below what we would expect from Fukushima. He does not say what we would expect from Fukushima, but it seems from Wikipedia, that even for used fuel, we would expect some 1%.
Anyone able to check his calculations?
In the latest update from
In the latest update from Fairewinds, Mr. Gundersen talks about how he believes that the explosion at unit 3 was nuclear. Putting that aside for a moment, one of his supporting pieces of evidence for this hypothesis is that Americium was found in samples in New England.
Now, this is the first time that I've heard that claim, so I did some searching and didn't find any news story about it. I also used the custom query search at the EPA site and they aren't trackig Americium as a metric. My question is where is Mr. Gundersen find this data?
Does anyone else have any links to this data?
I highly recommend the Fairewinds update BUT had to laugh..
I had to laugh when he put in his video a screenshot and highlighted the BRAWM forum and a post subject title saying radioactive uranium was found in the US (which I believe was more or less debinked in the thread by the BRAWM team). Gundersen is convincing and when you watch the explosion you see why it is possible BUT I was astounded when he said pieces of fuel rod was found a mile or so away from the explosion.
He DID say there was Americium found here too but did not source that info (but he is usually pretty careful which is why I laughed when he highlighted an anonymous BRAWM forum post to support his theory: flaky and unnecessary carelessness).
Anyway, the way he put it, it is likely that such things WERE in the explosion of the fuel rods and were vaporized and sent into the atmosphere to blow over here. But the data to support his claim on plutonium, uranium and amercium I have not really seen yet as demonstrably being from Fukushima (altho I am getting a little bleary eyed reading all the technical and other stuff)
Like Rick I am so fed up with this whole nightmare and all the shills all over what little media there is (god- what an orchestrated media propaganda clusterbump).
At least BRAWM has the decency to give us hard facts and argue the opinions (scientific and otherwise)
Somewhere I read, don't
Somewhere I read, don't remember, that Americium ratios in spent fuel are like 100g per ton of fuel. If so, that's a really tiny amount. Even if several tons vaporized, you would have such a small amount to detect 5-8000 miles away.
Well, Uranium was found here
Well, Uranium was found here in air samples. That's no lie.
What wasn't found was Fissile U-235.
Press Release put out by Tepco ( 4/27/11) re Americium
Press Releases of Tepco:
"Press Release (Apr 27,2011)
Detection of radioactive materials in the soil in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (5th release)
As part of monitoring activity of the surrounding environment, we
conducted an analysis of plutonium contained in the soil collected on
March 21st and 22nd at the 5 spots in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station. As a result, plutonium 238, 239 and 240 were detected.
(previously announced)
As the result of the plutonium analysis in the soil from the sample from
the 3 periodic sampling spots on April 14th, plutonium 238, 239 and 240
were detected as shown in Attachment 1. In addition, as the result of
gamma ray nuclide analysis from the same sample, radioactive materials
were detected as shown in Attachment 2.
Besides, as the result of the americium and curium analysis in the soil
from 2 samples among the 3 periodic sampling spots in which plutonium was
detected on March 28th amerium 241, curium 242, 243, and 244 were detected.
We have reported the results of analyses to the Nuclear and Industrial
Safety Agency and the government of Fukushima Prefecture.
We will continue to conduct the similar analysis.
Attachment1:Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: Plutonium analysis
result in the soil (PDF 9.3KB)
Attachment2:Result of gamma ray nuclide analysis of soil (PDF 33.7KB)
Attachment3:Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: Am and Cm analysis
result in the s (PDF 54.7KB)"
I'm looking for supporting
I'm looking for supporting evidence of Mr. Gundersen's claim of Am detected in New England, but thanks anyway.
Plutonium/Uranium (+other long lived radionuclides) now in U.S.
The US EPA monitoring systems in late March and early April of 2011 have detected plutonium, uranium, tritium among other long lived radioactive particles in different places across the United States, including in Riverside and Anaheim, California!
Link to EPA research findings on plutinium, strontium + in U.S.
Alex Higgins has compiled EPA data (March 11-April 4, 2011) on plutonium and strontium fallout in the U.S. into easy to follow charts. Under the chart on Cesium Rain, you will find a link directly to the section of the ESP study from which you can directly view the raw EPA Radnet data search findings. Enter only what Alex Higgins instructs you to do, or the results will come up empty:
http://theintelhub.com/2011/04/22/radioactive-fukushima-plutonium-and-st...
You also can directly view
You also can directly view the US EPA Rad Net Customized Search findings of Fukushima radioactive fallout across the United States by:
1. Click on this link
2. Scroll down to "Date Range Search":
Enter the beginning date: 03/11/2011 (=Japan quake date)
Enter the current date for the end date (or whatever date you want to end the search at).
3. Scroll scroll up and click on "radionuclides/radiation search" (for various types of radiation such as plutonium, uranium, cesium, strontium, tritium, beryllium, thallium...)
4. Lastly, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and click on the tab: "search database".
You can now view the results of the EPA's monitoring of the Fukushima radiation fallout across various cities in the United States to date.
The three posters above
The three posters above missed the part that said the EPA isn't tracking Americium.
At least read the post before replying.
If this is the same data set
If this is the same data set used from mid-March, then the BRAWM team has already said the numbers don't show detection.
Is there new data?
Above Higgins plutonium/strontium charting EPA data range:
Ah, yes, appears to be same data BRAWM team earlier reviewed. New to this site. Just now read Mark's earlier blog stating that there were insufficient amounts of particles to consider EPA plutonium and strontium findings as indicative of 'detectable' findings.
EPA tendency to low ball reported findings via negative posts?
Just read another article that reports that the EPA has a reputation for low balling its monitoring findings (i.e., an overabundance of false negative numbers), which in turn may artificially bring down 'true' values of positive concentration reported. In light of this, maybe some of the EPA reported plutonium and strontium concentrations may actually have been higher than actually reported.
Hmm-m-m
The numbers they report seem
The numbers they report seem fine to me, with regard to them being "too negative". There are some negatives, some positives, all more or less distributed around zero. This is consistent with a finding of zero.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
Reliability of EPA radnet numbers
Re: "The numbers [the EPA radnet] report seem fine to me, with regard to them being "too negative". [BRAWM team]
Thanks so much for your reply, Tim. I very much appreciate your information, and concern. I really do! In my own field, because of the lack of full disclosure by the News to the public, people can take the information provided to them by maybe one research article, and completely take that information out of context. But, let me tell you, it is extremely disturbing, when quite a few seasoned researchers say one thing, and then another group of seasoned researchers take exactly the same information... and conclude exactly the opposite. We are left endlessly wondering. What is the truth? And, all of this occurs, of course, just as the EPA radnet monitors post +150 CPMs for Los Angeles, California (for 04/29/2011). Yes, I know, half of the experts tell us not to worry; there is no health concern with such low levels of radionuclides. Yet, the other nuclear experts say, yes, with an going low level radiation exposure, your health may well be in trouble over the extended time...
Tim, again Thank You, your ongoing diligence and efforts have been noticed.
EPA radmet findings not uncommonly show negative numbers
Yes, am aware of BRAWM team's explanation of why negative numbers occur-- re the need for correcting out background radiation levels. That said, the EPA is reported to have a history of showing an overabundance of negative postings for radnet findings. Because of this history to report high numbers of negative results, other researchers have concluded that EPA radnet numbers, therefore, may inadvertently be pulling down all results, and may actually be under reporting radionuclide levels present. In light of this, is it not possible that plutonium, uranium, strontium and other radioactive particle levels may actually be higher than reported by the EPA.
already answered...
already answered...
Above Higgins plutonium/strontium charting EPA data range:
Alex Higgins compiled and charted EPA data on plutonium and strontium findings (plus other nuclear particle detections) in the U.S. re EPA monitoring dates: 03/11/2011-04/21/2011
If you go directly to above EPA direct links, you can monitor from the Japan quake through pretty much the present. The EPA lags behind approximately five days to a week before they post current findings.
Speculation of origins in addition to Fukushima
You can also speculate that in addition to Fukushima's emissions there may also be secret military and industrial activity. For example: U-238 and U-239 are part of Plutonium production. Do a search: WWII Nuclear.
Also, there IS a history of military dumping of nuclear material in our oceans too and according to a few sources in conversations past (not just the Farallons off San Francisco) Other massive quantities of canisters of nuclear waste in other parts of the deepest parts of vast oceans have been dumped in and it is speculated that they may leak out completely in about 200 years(possibly less since it occurred almost mid 19th century!) Is this surprising? No, because mankind is still in its infancy when it comes to the volatile genie of nuclear energy and future generations will pay the price.
It is truly a horrific thing to have an old timer relate watching canisters of some sort in a military operation of aquatic disposal recount men in suits with geiger counters dump these things in the wee hours of dawn and watch the eerie greenish glow emitted for hours from such a dumping of what was obviously classified 'hot' material in Pacific Waters and then have the same guy tell you that now you know why he won't eat any Asian fish canned or otherwise.
-Off my menu: All Seafoods because the oceans really are a military and industrial sewer! Yes, I will miss Anchovies on my pizza, fishsticks, red snapper, tuna (even 'chicken of the sea' is no longer 'worthy,'crab, fake crab (made with Pollock, an ocean fish), clam chowder, Nori Seaweed,Caviar etc... See: http://pstuph.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/can-ocean-currents-transport-radi...
I would like to reiterate
I would like to reiterate what Mark originally posted here: These values are all under the minimum detectable activity (this is column Q if you're looking at that .xls file), which means they did not detect any plutonium. The negative numbers confirm that these data are only statistical fluctuations, not real findings.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
As pointed out in that
As pointed out in that thread, there is a description for the Result Amount field:
"Column Name: RESULT_AMOUNT
Description: The amount, activity, or concentration measured. Amounts can be zero, non-detect (ND), positive or negative. A negative result occurs when random effects and limitations in the measurement process cause the measured value for the sample to be less than that of the laboratory blank or background, which is subtracted from the sample measurement. Although negative radioactivity is physically impossible, the inclusion of negative results allows better statistical analysis of the data."
IOW, instead of publishing the actual activity level they detected, they are taking that real finding and subtracting a "laboratory blank or background" activity level to arrive at a *net* value that they are publishing. I don't see how that net value can be described as a statistical fluctuation, at least not unless it can be established that the "laboratory blank or background" value is statistically arrived at.
Two obvious questions would be:
1) what is the exact "laboratory blank or background" value subtracted out for each reported result amount? The Result Amount reported for every test is basically worthless... in and of itself invalid... until the associated subtracted value is fully understood. What if the laboratory blank or background level is not zero but instead it is something significant? It could be skewing all of the Result Amounts downward by a significant amount and thus giving everyone a false impression!
2) What, exactly, is the Minimum Detection Concentration? I have yet to find a description of that field. Is it, too, a manipulated number? Is it a net number? Hypothetically speaking, the reason the published Result Amount is smaller than the Minimum Detection Concentration could be because the Minimum Detection Concentration is an absolute number while the Result Amount is a net number.
The statistical nature of
The statistical nature of these measurements is a fundamental feature of radiation. This is why we refer to half-lives; we don't know exactly how many atom will decay at a given time, but we know over long periods of time for large amounts of radiation that half of it will be gone after each half-life. As we look for smaller and smaller amounts of radiation, this uncertainty grows -- we have to look for longer periods of time to see how much is decaying. I hope this background will make my answers to your questions more coherent:
1.) The laboratory background is there because, like it or not, there is a lot of radiation everywhere. If we want to find out only the amount of, say, I-131, we need to subtract all the natural background radiation. Unfortunately, the exact amount of background that we see is subject to the uncertainty mentioned above. Let's say you now want to measure a sample that has 0 atoms of I-131. You're still going to see the background, but it will be slightly different than before -- sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower.
2.) This leads into the next question. If the background is always changing a little bit, how do I know if my sample has 0 atoms of I-131 or a lot of I-131? I can't know for certain if the slightly higher number I see is a result of uncertainty in the background, or the presence of an actual source. For this we have to set a threshold that we call the minimum detectable activity (or concentration). This is the level above which we can say confidently that there is more than just background fluctuations.
Hope that helps!
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
Furthermore, I feel
Furthermore, I feel compelled to state that Pu-238 (the isotope of interest in this query) is an uncommon isotope of plutonium. In the extremely unlikely event that we were to see plutonium, we would first see Pu-239.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
the chart does show Pu-239
the chart does show Pu-239
238 rare?
This news in one of the major Japanese newspapers says that they found Plutonium 238 outside the plant, 0.13Bq/kg in the soil. But it is not clear in how large area.
238 rare?
Forgot to link the news:
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/science/news/20110422-OYT1T00947.htm
The article says they found
The article says they found the plutonium 500 meters away from reactor number 1.
I'm by no means trying to
I'm by no means trying to downplay the danger to those in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Certainly they have found some plutonium outside the reactor. However, allow me to clarify my points:
1. There has not been any plutonium from Fukushima found in the U.S.
2. Around the reactor, TEPCO found not only Pu-238, but also Pu-239 and Pu-240. If we were to see it in the U.S., we would see Pu-239 first, not Pu-238.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
238 rare?
Yes, 500 meters from reactor 1. But it does not say how large area is contaminated. But my point was to indicate to Tim that maybe 238 is not so rare when it comes to Fukushima.
Some experts have suggested
Some experts have suggested that the amount of Pu-238 detected indicates that the plutonium they found around the reactor was a result of weapons testing, not the reactor leaking.
Tim [BRAWM Team Member]
238 rare?
0.3 Bq/Kg Plutonium from weapons testing??? Maybe if the testing was nearby. But I don't think there was any testing nearby there.
In any case, it would be very easy to find it out: The Japanese government should conduct measurements and publish data about plutonium and uranium in the air. But there are no such data available at all. Why? Probably because they look scary.
Actually there are
Actually there are background level readings for Plutonium all over the world. After a satellite accident in 1964, and atmospheric nucelar tests, Plutonium was found to average from 1 to 4 pCi/m2 over the northern hemisphere.
As well the Idealist.ws site has a plot of surface level Plutonium in air measured in Femtocuries per cubic meter (1/1,000 of a Picocurie). If safe to assume that this is the current background readings for comparison to Fukushima.
Plutonium in us and our environment...
In reply to the below:
With punctuational nature based radiation from cosmic events ie: Deep space events (ie: Quasars, Solar events ie: CME's/Coronal Mass Ejections aka:Solar Flares, Cosmic rays) added to non-human source atmospheric/oceanic action resulting in ionization of air and water, Geologic ie: Radon, naturally occurring radioactive dusts of Uranium, Beryllium, Polonium, Plutonium (did I miss any?) and now during the history of man, humanly manipulated, concentrated and released nuclear materials add to the sum total of the burden of exposure for all life on earth!
It all makes me really wonder after watching an old movie documentary such as 'Bikini Radio,' knowing of the history of nuclear testing and events since 1945 along with the ongoing studies including Plutonium Urinalysis and a 'whole body counter' at:
https://marshallislands.llnl.gov/plutonium.php
Just how much can we all take internally and externally? I know we all have variable tolerances/genetics too. Will there ever be a way to test individual tolerances on a periodic to constant basis (ie:something like a pin on dosimeter or a stick on patch with biological litmus type sensing capacity) to take preventive or interventional action? Since health is variable over time, ie: for the sake of crude example, an individual might have a mild illness following nutritional deficit of several months duration or even work related emotional stress such as a cold, recover, engage in ideal nutritional and exercise practices with little to no stresses in life while somebody else may experience the opposite and be weakened so detection and adjustment may be possible to more quickly prevent a major health problem from the 'low level' radiation exposures occurring.
Also, I've been reading www.asiaone.com and one of the news stories I read there discussed the Fukushima radiation release into the oceans and the fact that diseases in the Malaysian population that over 30 years ago were more common to those over the age of 50 are now occurring in those from age 20 to 30's. I can't help but think that with the increase in industrial pollution in Asia plus the human source radiation from past to present that time is revealing the deleterious effects in a more pronounced way since their diets are more largely Seafood based than those in the Western and European Hemispheres. I really wonder HOW educated populations can't help but voluntarily avoid seafoods and consider others once they learn of the history of nuclear testing, war and waste dumping!
------
Actually there are background level readings for Plutonium all over the world. After a satellite accident in 1964, and atmospheric nucelar tests, Plutonium was found to average from 1 to 4 pCi/m2 over the northern hemisphere.
As well the Idealist.ws site has a plot of surface level Plutonium in air measured in Femtocuries per cubic meter (1/1,000 of a Picocurie). If safe to assume that this is the current background readings for comparison to Fukushima.
-Off my menu: All Seafoods because the oceans really are a military and industrial sewer! Yes, I will miss Anchovies on my pizza, fishsticks, red snapper, tuna (even 'chicken of the sea' is no longer 'worthy,'crab, fake crab (made with Pollock, an ocean fish), clam chowder, Nori Seaweed,Caviar etc... See: http://pstuph.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/can-ocean-currents-transport-radi...
Extremely disturbing... but no longer suprising.
This is extremely disturbing information, and backed up by easily obtainable data (and should be read by everyone here including those at BRAWM, although I suspect they already know all this), and the COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY historic incidences of plutonium distribution caused by satellite play toys just reinforces what I have been saying about (1) the demonstrated lack of ethics and humanity of nuclear engineers and scientists; and (2) the lack of any attempts to stop these experiments and/or inform the public - at least until it is far too late, as in the case of the satellites - by scientists is simply sad and disgusting. It seems like any time the immoral wealthy ask a scientist to figure out a way to make a quick buck and damn the health hazards to the public, the scientist hop in line. Simply disgusting.
These men are a part of society -- it is time that they act like it.
Broad Brush
Like every other facet of society, not all scientists lack ethics
and humanity. In almost every science, there's good uses and bad
uses. Nuclear science is no different. On this forum, many have
used a broad brush to paint *all* nuclear scientists and engineers
as in bed with nuclear power and weapons. However, one needs
to keep in mind all the research that's been outside of those areas.
Except for those who are living TOTALLY "off the grid" in the hills
and refuse to see a doctor, we have all benefitted from the various
medical procedures using this technology. It's healed many bones and
saved many lives. Aside from the medical procedures, nuclear technology
is also used regularly in verifying the integrity of metal structures.
Please remember that the next time you hop in a plane. So, while some
uses of the technology could be to the detriment of mankind, some
are advancing mankind. Some in the field, like the BRAWM team, provide
a valuable service by monitoring/measuring and providing that info to
the public. And, given that it doesn't look like nuclear power is going
to go away anytime soon (Russia is planning 11 new plants), maybe someone
in the field will invent a way to decontaminate the environment. Including
decontaminating people.
Decontamination? Would the BRAWM team care to discuss?
Anonymous posted the following: "maybe someone
in the field will invent a way to decontaminate the environment. Including
decontaminating people."
Would the BRAWM team care to discuss current methods and any research in this area?
There are ways to assist elimination of toxic materials (ie: chelation) and the body continuously DOES eliminate both radioactive and non-radioactive wastes (yes Virginia, we ALL have Plutonium in our pee!) But let's hope that sooner than later something can be done to expedite decontamination in our land, air and seas before it is too late! Hmmm, would it be possible to combine neutralizing chemicals,nanotech and perhaps mechanical and biological sources ie:single celled bred plants or animals to carry neutralizing materials to do the job most effectively?
-Off my menu: All Seafoods because the oceans really are a military and industrial sewer! Yes, I will miss Anchovies on my pizza, fishsticks, red snapper, tuna (even 'chicken of the sea' is no longer 'worthy,'crab, fake crab (made with Pollock, an ocean fish), clam chowder, Nori Seaweed,Caviar etc... See: http://pstuph.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/can-ocean-currents-transport-radi...
Bravo sir, I quite agree
Bravo sir, I quite agree
Human insanity...
I love stepping back to see the larger picture, because I wonder if you realize how insane it is to offer an extreme man-made scientific remedy to try to offset a deadly and destructive effect caused by a barely-controllable (UNcontrollable, many can now legitimately claim) man-made scientifically-engineered product. It's like developing these right-wing extremist solutions to the relentless destruction of the ozone and atmosphere that are the result of destructive policies by international corporations, when THE PLANET WAS DESIGNED TO FUNCTION IN A NATURALLY BALANCED AND HEALTHY WAY -NOT BE MANIPULATED BY EGOTISTS AND THE POWER-AND-MONEY-HUNGRY.
Any scientist who attempts to create such "solutions", the kind that always seem to create even-more-deadly side-effects, -- instead of simply helping to stop the insanity --- deserves to be the first one to offer up HIS family as test subjects.