current Epa readings vs past radiological events
AIR SAMPLES
From March 18-24, the EPA took 73 air samples at 17 sites, and detected I-131 in 66 of them. A comparison with historical EPA data showed:
The current U.S. median of 0.198 picocuries of I-131 per cubic meter of air was at least 20 times above “normal” levels (0.010) recorded by EPA in early June 1986 when Chernobyl fallout had largely disappeared from the U.S. environment.
Current levels were 46% of peak Chernobyl fallout (0.430, May 11-13, 1986).
Boise ID had a reading 84 times above the normal level in the U.S. on March 23 (0.840, vs. 0.010).
PRECIPITATION SAMPLES
From March 15-21, the EPA took 13 precipitation samples, but did not detect I-131 in any. But from March 22-25, each of 12 samples at 10 sites had detectable levels:
The current U.S. median of 39.6 picocuries of I-131 per liter of precipitation was 20 times above normal levels (2.0) recorded in early May 1986, before Chernobyl fallout arrived.
Current levels were 40% of peak Chernobyl fallout (99.5, May 14-16, 1986).
Boise ID had a reading 121 times above the normal level in the U.S. on March 22 (242, vs.2.0)
Riverside CA, near San Francisco, had a reading 69 times above the normal level in the U.S. (138 on March 22)
Current levels were 52% of the levels in October 1976, after fallout from a large-scale Chinese above-ground atom bomb test reached the U.S. (75.5)
I-131 is a fast-decaying radioactive chemical (half life of 8 days) found only in nuclear weapons explosions and reactor operations. When ingested, it seeks out the thyroid gland, where it kills and injures healthy cells, leading to thyroid cancer and other disorders affecting the organ. I-131 is one of hundreds of radioactive chemicals in reactors, including Strontium-90, Cesium-137, and Plutonium-239. The EPA is tracking several of these chemicals.
To access EPA air and precipitation data, the following web sites can be consulted:
Air: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/docs/rert/radnet-air-final.pdf
Precipitation: http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/docs/rert/radnet-precipitation-final.pdf
RPHP is a New York-based group of scientists and health professionals who study health hazards of radiation exposure. Its members have published 27 medical journal articles and 7 books on the topic.
Rick: Reconvening per your request
Hi Rick et al,
Per your request, we are reconvening to review the current trend in
the BRAWM team's reports.
What are your feelings now?
Link to original post: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/3705
=========================================================================
Rick, It looks like the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 03:55.
Rick,
It looks like the levels are still dropping in air and rain samples. The plateu is in deposition at this time. If incoming levels continue to decrease then the accumulated values won't rise that much more.
»
reply
=========================================================================
Fair enough... I'm willing to be talked out of 3 - 5x Chernobyl!
Submitted by R. Cromack (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 04:05.
I guess we'll give it a couple more weeks and see if the levels drop appreciably over that timeframe... Say we reconvene May 15? [Grin]
Rick.
»
reply
=========================================================================
Once detection gets below
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 04:16.
Once detection gets below MDAs we won't know what is still incoming. All we can look at then is values from the food chain.
The Eurad maps are still a good way to get total deposition. Even if the numbers aren't spot on, you can get a feel for the rate of change and extend that out in time.
»
reply
=========================================================================
Again... Fair enough...
Submitted by R. Cromack (not verified) on Sun, 2011-05-01 04:20.
...Btw, are you a member of the BRAWM team?
...So, best guess, and I promise not to hold you to anything: Compared to U.S. / North American affects from Chernobyl, where do YOU think we'll end up? 60%? 70%? 100%? More?
...Let's presume you're correct, btw, and that air and rain concentrations finally dip BELOW MDA, more or less permanently, at mid-month (May).
Rick.
»
reply
=========================================================================
So... Let me try and put this in perspective, here.
I'm going to make a few statements. Someone, please, tell me if I'm wrong.
[1] To date, based on RPHP's data and findings, at the WORST (so far) of the Fukushima nuclear event, the MAXIMUM levels of iodine-131 thought to have been present in both air AND precipitation, at several locations in the western United States, are roughly half of what the U.S. experienced due to Chernobyl. Also about half of what we got dosed with in late '76.
[2] Since that time (going back to about April 12), based on BRAWM / UCBNE's testing, it appears that levels of both iodine-131 and cesium-137, present in both air AND precipitation, have CONSISTENTLY dropped to approx. 1% of their peak measured presence on or about March 25, and they've pretty much stayed there, indicating continuing Fukushima emissions at a rate of about 1/100th of the peak of the crisis (so far). This, at least, is, btw, consistent with what TEPCO (and other reporting authorities -- including Japan's NSC, JAIF, and NISA, as well as the IAEA and the U.S. NRC) has recently maintained.
[3] Assuming a full year of these continuing emissions, then -- and recognizing that although things may change from day to day, it appears, for the moment at least, that radioactive contamination in the atmosphere, having decreased for a period of several weeks, has now "plateaued" at something between 1 and 3 bequerels / liter each for BOTH iodine-131 AND cesium-137 -- it can be reasonably assumed that the ultimate, eventual U.S. exposure to these radionuclides will wind up somewhere north of 300% of what we received as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. Call it between 300% and 500%.
[4] Given that Chernobyl is an additional 5000 miles, more or less, FARTHER WEST of the West Coast of the United States than Fukushima, and assuming a fairly constant, linear rate of dispersion as a function of distance traveled, it is reasonable to conclude that the aerial radiological component of this disaster, once it is fully apprehended and understood, will AT LEAST eclipse the 1986 disaster.
[5] Assuming ALL this -- we're STILL probably getting off pretty light, compared to what Europe absorbed in the wake of Chernobyl.
...But then there's [6]: Despite TEPCO's ambitious -- some might say, overly optimistic; others, fanciful -- timeline for "concluding" this crisis, there is NO GUARANTEE that these constant, low-level emissions will, in fact, be resolved within one year.
Please contradict or correct me at your leisure.
Rick.
Great summary. well done. I
Great summary. well done. I also believe we will end up with more than we had in chernobyl Let us not forget that the BRAWN team measures need to be corrected due to the fact that they are not using activated charcoal. This correction in their data was never done.
Rick, It looks like the
Rick,
It looks like the levels are still dropping in air and rain samples. The plateu is in deposition at this time. If incoming levels continue to decrease then the accumulated values won't rise that much more.
Fair enough... I'm willing to be talked out of 3 - 5x Chernobyl!
I guess we'll give it a couple more weeks and see if the levels drop appreciably over that timeframe... Say we reconvene May 15? [Grin]
Rick.
Once detection gets below
Once detection gets below MDAs we won't know what is still incoming. All we can look at then is values from the food chain.
The Eurad maps are still a good way to get total deposition. Even if the numbers aren't spot on, you can get a feel for the rate of change and extend that out in time.
Again... Fair enough...
...Btw, are you a member of the BRAWM team?
...So, best guess, and I promise not to hold you to anything: Compared to U.S. / North American affects from Chernobyl, where do YOU think we'll end up? 60%? 70%? 100%? More?
...Let's presume you're correct, btw, and that air and rain concentrations finally dip BELOW MDA, more or less permanently, at mid-month (May).
Rick.
Gee, guys, I wonder when I
Gee, guys, I wonder when I am going to have to put on my radiation suit to go out and do my gardening? I wonder what the extra radiation will do for my plants and flowers...
It's time to bring in the
It's time to bring in the Tomato plants.
Glow-in-the-dark chrysanthemums are a nice touch... [nt]
Rick.
Well, on the positive side,
Well, on the positive side, I will shortly be able to do my gardening at night, when it is cooler, because your glow-in-the-dark chrysanthemums will nicely light everything up. You'll have to send me some, when they become available.
Maybe we can start a business on the side: "Great priced radioactive glow-in-the-dark-chrysanthemums for sale...."
(*Caution: Buy at your own risk. May be dangerous to your health.)
I would still say to watch
I would still say to watch the Eurad maps for deltas. They have access to CTBTO data which can measure output closer to Japan, and update the deposition maps over time. I have no clue how this will end up, as the situation in Japan is still unpredictable.
I'm not a BRAWM member, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
[Chuckle] Nice. [nt]
Rick.
Do you have a link to the
Do you have a link to the Eurad info?
http://db.eurad.uni-koeln.de/
http://db.eurad.uni-koeln.de/prognose/radio.html
Just for the record, I'm not
Just for the record, I'm not the poster you are sparing with, Rick :-)
We are already below the MDA of the Calif. State Monitoring for air and
milk. Even if one may question the quality of their equipment/testing.
And we are rapidly approaching the MDA of the BRAWM team for air. And
the BRAWM team detected nothing in their 4/21-4/24 rain sample. Even
with their highly sensitive equipment.
So, this appears to be a "If a tree falls in the forest, but nobody is
there to hear it, does it make any sound?" situation. Meaning, if there
is radiation still coming from Fukushima, but nobody can detect it, does
it make anybody sick?
I think the only thing we will be able to measure at a later date will
be cesium. I-131 is going to go off the radar screen if not replentished
(hopefully not).
Not Cumulative
I should also point out that the article is not talking about
cumulative contamination. It's only referring "peaks" and "median"
numbers. Which is not enough data to determine cumulative amounts.
Those are excellent points...
...Maybe I'm just grasping at straws, trying to get a handle on the potential magnitude of this event. The reality is, as I've opined before: For all the "good" data we ARE getting, from BRAWM and a handful of other (unforgivably non-U.S. Government, naturally) sources, nothing even remotely like a complete, clear picture is emerging yet. I fear we won't come within a mile of "full disclosure" until the illnesses begin... Assuming they do.
Rick.
Article is slanted
That article is slanted to make things sound worse than they actually are.
For example, they keep saying "xxx times above the normal level in the
U.S.". There is no "normal" level. I-131 doesn't exist in the air or
rain water unless something has happened. So, the article is basically
saying "I-131 was detected". Which we already know. The only actual data
it provides is that the current levels they are referencing were approx. 50% of the Chernobyl peak. I haven't verified that. So, I'll take their
word for it. Just as I'll have to take their word for it when they state
"U.S. median" figures.
And Riverside is near San Francisco only if you consider being approx 375
miles away as near.
It is all a matter of nuclear fallout perspective.
Dear @Anonymous: Actually, the above poster did give 3 historical comparison dates to compare current radionuclide fallout levels:
1. Early June 1986, when Chernobyl fallout had largely disappeared from the U.S. environment.
2. Re peak Chernobyl radioactivity readings of May 11-13, 1986.
3. October 1976, re fall out from large-scale Chinese above-ground nuclear bomb testing.
So, there you have it-- Three historical starting points to which we can compare current radionuclide readings. Classical research by comparing current findings to past events in history; fair game, and is considered a starting point upon which further research can be compared.
Re your implication that Riverside, California is not even close to San Francisco, California, because it is 375 miles away : It is very close, if you are looking at the entire North American Hemisphere. It is all a matter of perspective. In fact, you can also add Los Angeles to the mix in this light. World wide, Los Angeles is likewise relatively close to both San Fransisco and Riverside. And, Los Angele's gross beta EPA readings have just recently peaked to +150 CPMs (@04/29/2011).
Thanks, poster of "current Epa readings /vs. past radiological events". Interesting comparisons! Food for thought.
I stand by my "slanted" comment
My point was that stating a finding was x number of times greater than a
reference value that is essentially *zero* has little to no research value.
27 times nothing is still nothing. But, it *sounds* like a huge increase. The smaller the reference value, the larger the multiple. If you want a
huge multiple, just divide the current iodine-131 levels by the pre-
Fukushima levels measured in the US (0.0 pCi).
As for Riverside being near San Francisco, I agree. From a northern
hemispher perspective, it's "near". But, from a monitoring perspective,
it's still a large distance. We've seen considerable differences in
readings between San Francisco and Southern Calif. Just as they see a
considerable amount of difference between Fukushima and Tokyo, which
are only 150 miles apart.
well theres A effect
well theres A effect involved so zero means something in this case.its called stochastic effect your logic has me confused sir?
Sorry to confuse you :-)
I'm not saying that there is no effect. I'm simply saying that x times
the baseline doesn't give me any information to act on. For example,
saying that something is "a million times the normal level" could mean
I'll be dead in seconds. Or it could mean that it was still a level that
is no threat at all. The multiple doesn't matter. Does it mean that I'm
x times more likely to get sick? I think the answer is no. Is there an
increased risk of getting sick? Considering that some additional
substances have entered my body, I think the obvious answer is yes.
But, does it significantly increas my risk? There isn't enough data in
the in the article to make any determination on that.
If we were to place a lot of value in multiples, air travel would be
banned. As it exposes us to 40+ times (800 CPM) the average background
level of radiation in most areas (20 CPM) for the duration of the flight.
Really read this
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/pilot-health/29612-skin-cancer.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1194108.
Pilots risks are increased
The data from this study
The data from this study indicated that there was no significant increase in cancer incidences among these pilots compared to the general population, except for skin (melanoma and non-melanoma) and prostate cancer. The pilots had approximately three times the incidence of skin cancer than the general population, and this incidence was increased in pilots with longer careers. However, the lifestyle of these pilots, including sun exposure, could not be effectively measured to determine the exact cause of this higher rate of skin cancer. In addition, a slight increase in the incidence of prostate cancer was observed in these pilots compared to the general population. The increased incidence was more pronounced in pilots with increasing numbers of long flights. Researchers speculate that hormonal disturbances related to circadian rhythms may be a contributing factor to the increased risk of prostate cancer in these pilots.
http://www.prostate-cancer.org/pcricms/node/311?id=18130
And we still fly
The link actually supported my point. Knowing that we are exposing
ourselves to approx. 40 times the average background radiation levels,
we still look forward to hopping on a plane to go to our favorite
destinations. Why? For those of us who are actually aware of the
additional exposure, because we believe that the 40x increase is
not a significant risk. In fact, we are much more worried about the
plane crashing. Or at the very least, the flight being on time. So,
again, stating that the current (although not current anymore) levels
are 27x the "normal level" is of little value without some other
contextual information.
This is important information
Thank you for posting it. The plumes detected here and the tests really tell the story that Fukushima's impact on the United States in terms of cotamination is extremely substantial.
When one considers that once these radionuclides are absorbed into organs and tissues they will wreak havoc on dna, mutating cells, destroying cells and causing damage.
The Radiation and Public Health Project is, in my opinion, the most credible source for such analysis with dedicated committed professionals, epidemiologists, doctors and nuclear physicists (Robert Alvarez is on their board.
i urge you to support them and to go to their wensite to read their peer reviewed articles and publications as well as many other valuable resources.
www.radiation.org
"Thank you for posting it.
"Thank you for posting it. The plumes detected here and the tests really tell the story that Fukushima's impact on the United States in terms of cotamination is extremely substantial."
No, they tell nothing of the sort. I reviewed the data presented on the site linked above.
The claims are tenuous at best, and the majority of the results are statistically insignificant. There's probably a reason that they didn't publish the margin of error for their data. They know that there would be no case if it was shown the data didn't fall outside of one standard deviation.
Clarification: My comments
Clarification:
My comments were in relation to the health studies as a result of Chernobyl radiation deposited in the U.S.
No one is taking notice of
No one is taking notice of the fact that we have radiation being released into the environment on a daily basis from the nuclear plants around us. Surely this can add to the levels of iodine, cesium etc. that they are finding in the test samples. We don't know what the levels were before this whole Fukushima disaster. That is the problem.
Here are the annual reports containing the effluent release reports for all of the nuclear reactors in the US. These releases are measured in curies. If you choose a reactor site and then click on the annual report for 2009 or any other year and then type in iodine for example you can scroll through the document and see what levels were released into the air, water etc.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info....
Yep, I was blissfully
Yep, I was blissfully unaware of what was released and in what quantities up until recently. I wonder how many people realize what is released during regular old day to day operations.
Time to wake up and get some activism in gear.
Negligible
We actualy do know what the levels were before Fukushima. At least
up to 2006. And there's no reason to believe they were any different
between 2006 and 3/11/2011.
The EPA data available for 01/01/1991 to 03/11/2011 shows zero
iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium-137 detected. The last result
they have is actually for 06/05/2006. Then results started again
around 03/15/2011, for obvious reasons. I'm sure nuclear power
plants were releasing during that period too. But, apparently at
such low amounts that it's not detectable by the EPA monitors
across the nation. So, while the power plant releases may be
adding to the totals being seen now, it appears to be negligible.