Worse For The US West Coast Than Chernobyl
Just looking at I-131, the levels recorded by the EPA in the US were
higher for Fukushima than Chernobyl. The highest reported I-131 level
for Chernobyl across the US was 1.6 pCi/M3 in Phoenix, Azizona. That
sample had a "collection end date" of 5/12/1986. The highest for
Fukushima was 2.78 pCi/M3 in Dutch Harbor, Alaska on 3/20/2011. That's
74% higher. Given the difference in distance from Fukushima and Chernobyl
to the US, this doesn't tell us much about how much was released from
Fukushima. But, it does tell us the diffence in how much reached the
US.
Haven't checked cesium levels. But, I suspect it would paint the same
story. Will do that later.
Fukushima disaster
Dear Sirs,
it is absolutely not understandable, why the japanese Authorities as well the international press ignore our help since more than 6 weeks but present one horrible story after the other.
Since radioactive particles from Fukushima are spread even to the US and Canada Westcoast, the catastrophy is no longer local.
Due to the situation in Fukushima we tried to help solving the problem with our modest possibilities and constructed an exhausting and filter machine, which could prevent the radioactive particles from spreading around the country.
The separation rates of the filter elements for particles > 0,5 micro-meters are 99,99 %, so it can be granted, that all particles exhausted, will be stored inside the filter.
According to TEPCO`s "Code of Ethics of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan preamble", we want to inform , that this construction is able to prevent damage from the peoble and urgently is to be installed except there is a better alternative.
As You can see below, we are a small german company constructing and dealing since 15 years with industrial environmental protection products.
We truly believe, that there is a good chance to help the japanese authorities to prevent the area from radioactive contamination.
Radioactive particles are still ascending and wind directions will change.
Unfortunately the japanese authorities, the Japanese Embassy Berlin until now (since six weeks) didnt react but time runs short.
To do nothing would be omission.
In regard to the acute problem of the remaining necessity to cool the reactors with water and the problem of radioactive particles in the steam, the combination of concrete pump and filtersystem offers the possibility to solve several purposes,like Cooling, exhaust, filter and separation of radioactive particles.
By combination of a truck mounted concrete pump from Schwing , an exhaust arrangement and a filtersystem ECOVAC most of the radioactive particles can be exhausted, led to the filter and separated.
Due tot he fact, that radiaton comes from particles ascending from the power plant, these particles can be exhausted by special arrangement developed by ECOVAC.
By pipes which are fixed along the arms of the concrete pump the particles are led to the filtersystem where they are separated by nanofibre cartridges from the air. Separation rates for particles 0,5 micro-meters are 99,99 %.
The filtersystem is self cleaning by compressed air cleaning mechanism.
The exhaust arrangement covers an area of 25 m².Air volume ~ 15000 m³''/h
To our opinion, this ist he only possibility to prevent the ascending particles from dispersing over the country.
ECOVAC is a special company for industrial environment protection. Their main competence is efficient exhausting of different emission sources and propriate filtersystems since more than 15 years.We could deliver several units shortly. The first unit within 2-3 weeks.
Costs: One unit would be around 1.400.000.- € only, later the machne can be used as concrete pump for construction works.
We do not want to have more nuclear power plants, but want to help japanese people in this situation.
We also believe, that its better to go unconventional ways than to loose numerous lifes.
We know that this is not the absolute solution, but we believe, that there is a better chance for the people to survive because it can lower the radioactive exposure worldwide by tackling the problem at its source.
Yours sincerely
Dipl. Ing. Bernd Müller, http://www.ecovac.de /aktuelles
Wow, so technology exists to
Wow, so technology exists to protect human lives and safety, and the Japanese government is not acting upon it. Scandalous! This needs to hit the media. Engineers and professionals on this forum, would you care to spread this information?
No.
No.
Some specific state/area comparisons
Unfortunately, the EPA didn't stick with the same cities when
they took air samples during Chernobyl and Fukushima. So, I've
provided some results for both accidents based on areas below.
I've also provided whether the sample was from an air filter
or air charcoal. For many states, there was a lack of results
for one or the other accident. So, I've left those states out.
All result unites are pCi/M3
The fields are CITY, STATE, FILTER TYPE, COLLECTION END DATE, RESULT AMT
All I-131 results for S. Calif after Chernobyl:
LOS ANGELES CA AIR-FILTER 5/12/1986 0.28
LOS ANGELES CA AIR-FILTER 5/13/1986 0.18
LOS ANGELES CA AIR-FILTER 5/14/1986 0.18
LOS ANGELES CA AIR-FILTER 5/15/1986 0.16
LOS ANGELES CA AIR-FILTER 5/19/1986 0.0498
LOS ANGELES CA AIR-FILTER 5/21/1986 0.021
Highest I-131 results for S. Calif after Fukushima:
ANAHEIM CA AIR-CHARCOAL 3/21/2011 1.92
SAN BERNARDINO CTY. CA AIR-CHARCOAL 3/22/2011 1.07
ANAHEIM CA AIR-CHARCOAL 3/20/2011 0.865
SAN BERNARDINO CTY. CA AIR-CHARCOAL 3/20/2011 0.685
ANAHEIM CA AIR-CHARCOAL 3/22/2011 0.526
SAN BERNARDINO CTY. CA AIR-CHARCOAL 3/23/2011 0.448
ANAHEIM CA AIR-CHARCOAL 3/23/2011 0.304
ANAHEIM CA AIR-FILTER 3/25/2011 0.215
ANAHEIM CA AIR-FILTER 3/21/2011 0.168
SAN BERNARDINO CTY. CA AIR-FILTER 3/20/2011 0.165
All I-131 results for N. Calif after Chernobyl:
BERKELEY CA AIR-FILTER 5/11/1986 0.84
BERKELEY CA AIR-FILTER 5/13/1986 0.42
BERKELEY CA AIR-FILTER 5/18/1986 0.21
BERKELEY CA AIR-FILTER 5/19/1986 0.15
Only one result for N. Calif after Fukushima:
SAN FRANCISCO CA AIR-FILTER 3/18/2011 0.0682
Calif Dept. of Public Health highest I-131 results:
Richmond 3/24/2011 1.11
Livermore 3/21/2011 1.20
Avila Beach 3/20/2011 1.45
San Luis Obispo 3/20/2011 1.55
Los Angeles 3/21/2011 1.00
San Diego 3/21/2011 1.26
Las Vegas, NV after Chernobyl:
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-FILTER 5/13/1986 0.84
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-FILTER 5/19/1986 0.48
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-FILTER 5/16/1986 0.33
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-FILTER 5/15/1986 0.32
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-FILTER 5/27/1986 0.14
Las Vegas, NV after Fukushima:
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-CHARCOAL 3/21/2011 1.063
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-CHARCOAL 3/25/2011 0.802
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-CHARCOAL 3/22/2011 0.643
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-CHARCOAL 3/24/2011 0.614
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-CHARCOAL 3/23/2011 0.347
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-CHARCOAL 3/28/2011 0.303
Idaho after Chernobyl:
BOISE ID AIR-FILTER 5/11/1986 1.6
IDAHO FALLS ID AIR-FILTER 5/17/1986 0.854
BOISE ID AIR-FILTER 5/10/1986 0.79
IDAHO FALLS ID AIR-FILTER 5/12/1986 0.75
IDAHO FALLS ID AIR-FILTER 5/16/1986 0.7
IDAHO FALLS ID AIR-FILTER 5/18/1986 0.61
BOISE ID AIR-FILTER 5/17/1986 0.48
Idaho after Fukushima:
BOISE ID AIR-FILTER 3/23/2011 0.84
BOISE ID AIR-CHARCOAL 3/24/2011 0.766
BOISE ID AIR-CHARCOAL 3/25/2011 0.745
BOISE ID AIR-CHARCOAL 3/22/2011 0.66
BOISE ID AIR-CHARCOAL 3/21/2011 0.501
BOISE ID AIR-CHARCOAL 3/23/2011 0.491
Utah after Chernobyl:
SALT LAKE CITY UT AIR-FILTER 5/12/1986 1.1
SALT LAKE CITY UT AIR-FILTER 5/11/1986 0.65
SALT LAKE CITY UT AIR-FILTER 5/18/1986 0.35
SALT LAKE CITY UT AIR-FILTER 5/18/1986 0.3293
SALT LAKE CITY UT AIR-FILTER 5/16/1986 0.31
Utah after Fukushima:
SALT LAKE CITY UT AIR-FILTER 3/21/2011 0.347
SALT LAKE CITY UT AIR-FILTER 3/24/2011 0.0794
All results over 1.0 pCi/M3 from either accident:
DUTCH HARBOR AK AIR-CHARCOAL 3/20/2011 2.78
DUTCH HARBOR AK AIR-CHARCOAL 3/19/2011 2.42
ANAHEIM CA AIR-CHARCOAL 3/21/2011 1.92
BOISE ID AIR-FILTER 5/11/1986 1.6
PHOENIX AZ AIR-FILTER 5/12/1986 1.6
NOME AK AIR-CHARCOAL 3/24/2011 1.46
PHOENIX AZ AIR-FILTER 5/13/1986 1.4
KAHUKU HI AIR-CHARCOAL 3/21/2011 1.349
SPOKANE WA AIR-FILTER 5/11/1986 1.2
SPOKANE WA AIR-FILTER 5/10/1986 1.101
SALT LAKE CITY UT AIR-FILTER 5/12/1986 1.1
KAUAI HI AIR-CHARCOAL 3/21/2011 1.07
SAN BERNARDINO CTY. CA AIR-CHARCOAL 3/22/2011 1.07
LAS VEGAS NV AIR-CHARCOAL 3/21/2011 1.063
Playing with my daughter and
Playing with my daughter and catching baby turtles. Time well spent...let her be a kid awhile longer. I have such fears and concerns as to what her life is gonna be like in a few years. I try arduously to think "Happy Thoughts" and be positive that somehow we'll get a grip on all of these environmental catastrophes and she'll grow up and have beautiful planet to inhabit also.
In my short 40 some years on the planet...there use to be conch and whelk shells in abundance...native brook trout...tree frogs...bull frogs...carp...butterflies...all sorts of critters...including honey bees...took it all for granted.
I've always traveled way off the beaten path. Harder and harder to find a place that is off the beaten path. Where I once traveled...there is a natural gas fracking facility...500 year old oak trees bull dozed down....a humongous shopping mall...a four lane superhighway...a housing development with homes that could accommodate 20 people...and on average only 1, 2, 3 or 4 live in them...
Anyhow..it was beautiful to see my daughter get a chance to explore the wonders of God and Nature....
Off-topic posting, but
Off-topic posting, but worthy of a timeless quote from Thoreau:
If a man walks in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in danger of being regarded as a loafer. But if he spends his days as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making the earth bald before her time, he is deemed an industrious and enterprising citizen.
It would be easier to scram
It would be easier to scram all the world's reactors faster if more and more people understood. We must slow or even stop technological progress, live simpler lives, avoid plane travel, ride bicycles not cars, save energy wherever possible. The list is endless. This would allow to get rid of nukes faster, causing less stress to to all our life systems during this difficult period of turning to existing or new wind, solar, geothermal sources.
Just when you have the
Just when you have the billions and billions in China and India turning to hyperconsumptive American lifestyles, but then..... I digress. It'd be good to keep these posts well focused on the pertinent science of the present dilemma.
Wait, are you comparing
Wait, are you comparing AIR-FILTER results in the case of Chernobyl and AIR-CHARCOAL in the case of Fukushima?
Does it make any difference?
It could
I've heard that the air-charcoal could return 10x the result of the
air-filter. But, I haven't gotten that confirmed. Even the BRAWM
team wasn't sure.
Charcoal-Fukushima and Filter Chernobyl
It looks like all the results for Fukushima were with air-charcoal
and Chernobyl were air-filter. I have no idea why their would be
a difference. Seems like the level of an isotope is what it is.
What's the purpose of reporting different results?
Whatever the reason, it
Whatever the reason, it seems that the different methodology gives different results. It would be better to compare AIR FILTER result to AIR FILTER results, otherwise the comparison is an invalid apple to oranges kind of thing. (And the OP should recognize it and include that variable in the comparison)
I'm the OP and I did recognize that in a later post
I acknowledged the differences in a later post and stated which used
filter and which used charcoal. However, it makes zero sense to me
that it's acceptable for the two different sample collection methods
to give significantly different results. *IF* that's actually the case.
If that's the case, there should be some correction made so the results
can be compared directly.
Taking BRAWM's highest I-131
Taking BRAWM's highest I-131 air filter reading of 4.3E-6 Bq/L, we can calculate 0.116 pCi/m^3 and compare that to the Phoenix sample from Chernobyl at 1.6 pCi/m^3. The Chernobyl sample is more than 10 times higher with that comparison.
BRAWM's highest is very low compared to EPA or CDPH highest
Even the highest from the Calif. Dept. of Public Health on 3/24/2011 in
Richmond (1.11 pCi/M3 or 4.11E-5 Bq/L) is 10 times higher than the 4.3E-6 Bq/L BRAWM highest result for I-131. And the CDPH reported results in 5
cities over 1.00 pCi/M3 (over 3.70E-5 Bq/L) in their March 25 report. The
EPA reported two results over 1.00 pCi/M3 (over 3.70E-5 Bq/L) in Calif.
So, for some reason, the highest BRAWM results are considerably lower than
the CDPH or EPA highest results around 3/20 and 3/25. I've seen some that
were close on other dates. But, those days had large differences in what
was measured. I asked the BRAWM team why there were such differences. That
post can be seen in the link below. I believe the CDPH and BRAWM team are
both using air filters. So, it's not a filter vs. charcoal issue.
Earlier BRAWM vs. CDPH post:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4115
Highest In Richmond, Ca:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Documents/CDPH-RHB-RadReport-2011-03-28.pdf
5 Calif. Cities over 1.00 pCi/M3 (over 3.70E-5 Bq/L):
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Documents/CDPH-RHB-RadReport-2011-03-25.pdf
Um, yeah. Unless you can
Um, yeah. Unless you can compare the same city between the two events, this is specious reasoning and most likely an invalid assumption.
Just talking in general
Not looking at specific cities. Just comparing worst levels.
That was for air
Forgot to note that those are air measurements.
Cesium-137 was worse from Chernobyl
0.91 pCi/M3 from Chernobyl and 0.00698 pCi/M3 from Fukushima.
So, some better news there.
Wait, 130 times less for
Wait, 130 times less for Fukushima than Chernobyl when it comes to Cesium-137? That's good.
And how is it possible that Iodine-131 from Chernobyl was detected in a sample from December of 1986? That's around seven months after the fires, how is it possible that there was any Iodine-131 still on the air?
May 12th, disregard my
May 12th, disregard my comment about December.
lol
are we also comparing
are we also comparing duration and accumulation of fuke vs chernobyl?
i dont think this is a contest that has any winners :(
From a reporting standpoint, Chernobyl was longer
Just looking at the EPA I-131 results, Chernobyl reports went for just over
a month and Fukushima reports went for around 3 weeks. Chernobyl results
were reported from 5/6/1986 to 6/10/1986. The Fukushima results were
reported 3/18/2011 to 4/5/2011. We can't compare the BRAWM duration with
the EPA duration back in 1986. The BRAWM team is constantly adjusting their
collection process to chase the detections as far down as possible (taking
longer samples and lowering MDA). The EPA doesn't do that. They apparently
just stop when levels get to a certain point. So, while this seems to be
dragging on for months, it really hasn't as far as the duration of EPA
reporting. And the Calif. Dept. of Public Health hasn't detected anything
since 4/7/2011. Their last 7 reports (4/14-5/20) have had no detections.
So, it was over in 3 weeks as far as they are concerned. At least in the
air samples. Milk is a different story. It's just the BRAWM team dragging
out the air detections :-) Which I seriously appreciate their continued
testing.
This is good to know. I
This is good to know. I would like to see more government money directed to such useful causes, like BRAWM.
Be careful what you wish 4!!
BRAWMM does an excellent job and I'd prefer ALL of their funding came from sources NOT associated with either the Govt. or the nuclear power industry. It's become painfully obvious how much "humanitarian" contribution to the public quest for knowledge & real "reassurances" we can count on from other universities & organizations we've seen from those getting "more money" from the Govt.!!-The grants probably come with a little warning attached telling them to STFU unless they're telling us "Nukes are safer Than Peanut Butter" like the DOE website,etc. What's needed is a lot more private donations & volunteer work on their behalf-including better responses to their offer to allow people to send their test data,findings & samples from varying locations in the US so they can confirm & perhaps expand their analysis & findings. I'd like to see them succeed on professional & personal levels as well as rewarded for their work aimed at helping the public. I wish the EPA was staffed by people presently with BRAWMM-we'd be a LOT better off than we are now!!! THANX!!
Couldn't agree mpre...
"I wish the EPA was staffed by people presently with [BRAWM]…we'e be a LOT better off than we are now!!!"
Heard and seconded.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Yes--BRAWM is the real EPA.
Yes--BRAWM is the real EPA. We thank you for it, BRAWM.