Collective Sampling Effort - please help!
Posted by BC 7/20
First and foremost, I want to yet again thank the good people who have done the sampling work at UCBNE and provided this forum. In no way would I ever downplay their efforts, they have gone above and beyond what anyone else has done and for no pay. Full respect.
There has been a huge amount of concern about food sampling, and the team's testing has pointed to very small levels in the items tested. Still, BRAWM has tested a relatively small number of food products, and many have commented on items that they would like to see testing done on - peppers, tomatoes, grapes, meat, eggs, etc.
In my opinion, it is likely that these food products will show a declining trend, much as the levels in strawberries and grass which are now below MDA. However, like many here, I would like to see testing on a few more items, and I know full well that I have no right at all to jump up and down and demand that BRAWM do it. As I said before, they have done more than any of us could ask for already.
Now to my point - TDM posted a link a couple of days back for a lab that will test samples. I have contacted them for pricing and MDA inforamtion. The price is $250 per sample (1 kg), and the MDA is around 0.4bq/kg (not as good as BRAWMs, but a damned sight better than a geiger counter). Turnaround time is 2 weeks.
Here's my challenge to all of you - let's put this to bed, one way or another. Do you have something you want sampled? Pony up. I am going to have a couple done myself. Let's do this collectively, and we could address many of these concerns. $250 is a fair price, and if 10 or 20 of us here could do just one each and share the info, we could significantly expand the body of knowledge about what is really going on out there.
What first? Soil in your location? Cherries from Washington state? How about free-range eggs or meat? Chime in here guys.
C'mon, let's talk this thing over and see if we can get some good info. Here is the link to the place that does the testing -
http://www.environmental-expert.com/news/radiation-food-testing-at-emsl-...
Posted by BC 12/2/11 Two new
Posted by BC 12/2/11
Two new samples are currently being tested. Both are meat, free range local herbivore (some people call them deer). Results ~2 weeks.
Stay posted.
BTW, I would love to see someone do a "grocery basket test". Or a full vacuum cleaner bag. Or a burger and fries, taco bell meal, fresh bag of rice from Lundberg, or some fresh WA apples.
C'mon guys.
Posted by BC 12/21 Results
Posted by BC 12/21
Results are back on two free range meat samples. Both are from near my home in Northern NV, where we definitely got a small amount of fallout from Japan.
Mule deer (harvested in October)
K-40 - 215 bq/kg
Cs-134 - below MDA, but activity did print at 0.18bq/kg
Cs-137 - 0.54 bq/kg
Pronghorn Antelope (harvested in August)
K-40 - 162 bq/kg
Cs-134 - No activity detected
Cs-137 - 0.18 bq/kg
Guys, these samples are from animals out in the dirt, eating the grass/brush, and drinking the water from streams and puddles. The levels are very low, at least here and in these animals. When you figure that most governments set a legal level at around 200 bq/kg max,and these samples show combined levels of less than 1 bq/kg, I feel fine about eating some of this stuff. Plus, it is mighty tasty.
I am somewhat relieved, I thought that the meat samples could have come back much higher than they did...
Guys and gals, that's around $900 I have spent on this project for the samples that I have done. And I am glad to have done it. Please, help out if you can, have your local foods tested and post data here!
Well bc my hats off to you Ty
Well bc my hats off to you Ty .intresting deer harvested later contained more cs 137 .my thoughts on your test results at first glance was great news!!! your tests showed very very low levels that shouldn't harm the end consumer. very true. But this sample is far diffrent than say spinach or strawberrys being it's the flesh and cells of a mammal being exposed to cesium.so even though your test showed minute amounts I imagine if my bodys flesh contained these levels I would be concerned even if yountold me don't worry !well I don't want cesium in my muscles next to my cells no sir ,no thanks .but I assume at some point I may be as hot as your deer not really all that great news .
Also strontium 90 may be something we should be testing for In future tests.see baby teeth study .thanks again tdm
http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/091020stlouisreport.html
TDM - Hello again. Glad to
TDM - Hello again. Glad to see "a familiar face".
I do not think the harvest date is the issue - deer and antelope eat different things, and live at different elevations (typically). The antelope was younger, and therefore, I would have thought would have a higher level of recent Cs because a greater portion of it's growth had happened post FK....but it isn't so. Antelope eat grass, deer eat buds and twigs when they can. I would imagine that some of the older plants that deer eat have seen fallout a number of times, or perhaps the bushes are absorbing it in their roots.
Also, I could be wrong about the young vs old animal thing. I have exactly two data points. That makes me very frustrated. I wish that our gov't would man up and do some testing. But they won't. "So it goes".
Here's one thing I think about again and again, and believe to hold water...If we look at a food sample that has 150-250 bq/kg K-40 activity, and less than 1 bq/kg Cs activity, then by far the greater radiation hazard in that sample is the K-40. This can be hard to grasp because we have not lived in fear of K-40 in our milk or meat (or banana)....it's just there. But of course, we have not been taught to fear radon, and it kills like 22K people per year in this country.
One thing that anyone should realize about the LNT model is that it basically holds that each radioactive decay that a person is exposed to brings a minute risk. That holds regardless of the source of said radioactive decay, be it Cs-137 or K-40. I believe this to be true for water-soluble sources of radiation fairly evenly distributed in the body.
The other stuff (ie non-soluble)seems much more dangerous. Esp. lung exposure. But know this - a shard of fiberglass insulation, or a little chunk of a non-radioactive metal alloy, or that damned diet soda you drink, any of them could do ya.
I am going to have some of that meat.
Happy Holidays to all.
Thank you!
I'm very grateful for your time and money spent getting the food tested. I was freaking out less than a week ago, but I feel great now!
There seems to be a lot of anti-nuke propaganda out there! Distorting facts to make this incident look a lot worse than it really is (for the US.. it is obviously devastating for Japan). I realize now that a lot of the people who are afraid of radiation in the US blindly follow the fearmongers and spread false information without doing much research. They think they're helping people, but they're just unnecessarily spreading fear!!
The propagandists probably aren't doing much good for their cause... it's like telling kids that cannabis causes brain damage, lung cancer, etc.; When they find out they were lied to and fed propaganda, they won't listen to anything the liars say... toke up! :-P
___________________________
Anyways, I'd like to contribute and get some stuff tested, but I don't have a lot of money. I can afford maybe $100-$200, if that's enough. Who can I talk to about getting local (Seattle) foods tested?
And just out of curiosity, what type of machines/procedure do they use to test for radiation?
Thanks again.
roundeye
Hello Roundeye! I am not sure
Hello Roundeye!
I am not sure who would be down in Seattle, but if you have a particular sample of interest, I would split the cost with you. I like freshwater fish (prefer mountain waters) or local meat or eggs or pasture milk for the job. It is nice to have a result.
Gundersen is talking about how Portland saw 100bq/m2 of Cs134/Cs137 combined. I am having a hard time with this being a big deal. In the 1950-60's, 80% or more of the US saw 4000+ bq/m2 of Cs-137, plus all the other crap (Sr-90, Pu, U, Am, I-131). That's 4000bq/M2. Did it kill folks? Yes, some. End of world? No.
Again, is FK bad? Hell yes. For all. But you, and me, well, we will probably be OK. Unless it happens here. And this is why Arnie and Marco want to make the risk evident....there is risk. The biggest risk to those of us in the US is in the future, when some junk reactor makes your backyard into a wasteland.
Back to home - if you can pick a good and interesting sample, I will pay half (the total is $250 per sample BTW).
BC 12/23
Good work to the few
Just wanted to comment on my astonishment of how few people have stepped up to test .i honestly can't wrap my head around it out of the millions of residents on west coast, Canada, Alaska .only a handful stepped up brawm with govt funding included . I am shocked...tdm.
TDM - I agree. You'd have
TDM - I agree. You'd have thunk that more of the folks here would have pitched in. Then again, it's hard to know how many people actually post/lurk here, since so few have used a handle.
Thanks to the few that have, much appreciated. And as for the "general public", hell they don't even know it happened, so why would they expect to see testing or participate therein? Especially when the lack of science education has produced a nation of folks who don't know what radiation is, or why they might be a little concerned about having it in their air or food.
I do have some testing underway for local wildlife, which to my knowledge will be the ONLY meat tested during this whole debacle (other than the salmon tested in British Columbia by the Canadian gov-co). It should be interesting - my current estimation is that my area received about 30 bq/m2 of Cs-134 and Cs-137 combined. Will that junk show up in the meat, or has it all washed down into the soil and is thus no longer as available to the animals that eat it?
BC 12/13
@tdm & BC - I agree. So many
@tdm & BC -
I agree. So many people all over these sites understandably stressing about lack of information and the government not doing more. However, it apparently doesn't occur to most that they have the means to inform themselves and others, though a simple soils sample. $250 for critical information = no brainer for my family.
Anyway, still have not gotten the plutonium/strontium results. The lab I contracted subcontracted the samples out for the big boys' analysis.. huge delay.
I did have free range egg samples done as well. I was extremely surprised that given the soils levels, there was no cesium in the egg samples. I expected to see a bio-accumulating effect. The lab says they tested them wet (did not dry out or ash the eggs), maybe the fluid had an insulating effect and that's why? Other than the K-40, there was one isotope above MDA in the eggs, that was Bi-214 at 1.034 bq/l.
BC - what multiplier did you use to convert your bq/kg to bq/m2? Japan is currently using 65. I have been trying to determine what was used in the Tondel study, because I'm using their conclusions to understand the implications, but, since the x65 multiplier is not universal, I simply do not know. Therefore, I'm not able to form a meaningful parallel for my area.
I look forward to seeing your wild-forage herbivore results, BC. I typically chip my fall plant trimmings back onto my property as mulch, but have been considering sending them to the landfill with the trash this year. Thinking that perhaps the plants took up a good amount of the cesiums that fell in March & were washed into the soil throughout the spring rains, and that removing the plant trimming would reduce the cesium loads a bit, for this year. Your meat analysis will be helpful in understanding how the cesiums are moving.
Very much gratitude to both of you, tdm & BC, for your contributions to the public body of knowledge about how Fukushima has definitively affected us. Your data has been hugely useful to me. Thank you so much.
MadMama
on society.no one researches they rely on corp media no Ty .
Bc ,mad mama big thank you!
mad mama a question on egg test what was the labs mda allowance for cesium?
Bc what is the pci/g for cesium of your soil sample you tested ?I recal reading 1 pci/g was the real start where correlations of I'll effects can be seen .also on your testing of deer I have come across two articles/ studies which you may be interested in and it will be facinating to see if they hold true .according to this study in no single crop of plants has been reported to absorb from the soil 10% of the applied fission product dose ..See pg20 pharagraph 4.second note of intrest is observed levels and decline in a study of dated canned meat.link two ncib .tdm
http://books.google.com/books?id=WUMrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=cesium...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2800250/
My soil showed .014pCi/g
My soil showed .014pCi/g Cs-134 and .18pCi/g Cs-137.
BC 12/15
>I recal reading 1 pci/g was
>I recal reading 1 pci/g was the real start where correlations of I'll effects can be seen
Is that for eggs or are you talking about Bandazhevsky's research on concentration of cesium-137 per kilo of body weight and heart tissue damage?
http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/do
http://www.evs.anl.gov/pub/doc/Cesium.pdf
More of a general observation that risk coeficiency models seem to be using 1pci/g as the threshold.see pg 3 .or google
1pci/g in soil health effect.sorry I wasn't clear tdm
Free-range eggs: MDA for
Free-range eggs:
MDA for Cs137 = 7.227E+00
No MDA listed for Cs134
You know, I've also been thinking about the implications of the difference in the Cs134:C137 ratio released by Fukushima vs. Chernobyl. Since the Chernobyl dispersed cesium ratio was 1:2, while the Fukushima ratio was effectively 1:1, shouldn't we expect more severe and earlier detrimental health effects from Fukushima, than has been caused by Chernobyl? It stands to reason that Cs134's shorter half life would make for more severe exposures than from Cs137 in the first 20 years. Therefore, shouldn't we should expect more health and environmental damage from the more rapid radioactive disintegrations from the doubled Cs134 load, which means that we should apply some multiplier to the linear 11% increase in cancer risk per 100,000 bq/m2 of cesium deposition documented by Tondel in Sweden. It's getting better all the time!
MadMama
MadMama- I wouldn't trip on
MadMama-
I wouldn't trip on this. An easy way to even the playing field for looking the Tondel study and fallout we saw in the US is to combine that activities of the Cs-134 and the Cs-137 we have seen here and just use that as a "total Cs activity". The number is still exceedingly small when we look at the levels of fallout that they saw in Sweden (100kBq/M2 of Cs-137 in some areas). By combining the Cs-134 and Cs-137 for the US numbers and using just the Cs-137 for the European Chernobyl studies we are actually skewing the numbers towards the worst for the US as the Cs-134 is not accounted for in most of the post-Chernobyl numbers.
We crunched the numbers a while back and the projected rate of cancer increase in areas where we saw less than 100bq/M2 was quite a bit less 1%. Of course, this displays as noise in statistical health studies.
That 1% increase is very small unless you look at the number across a large population. And of course, if you're part of that increase, it is a very sad thing. Still, when you figure that roughly 40% of people will develop a cancer at some point, if we increase that a number full 1%, now it's 40.4%. The bottom line is that the amount of change is puny compared to the whole number...but still bad.
I have to admit that I have probably put my self at greater risk for a damned heart attack or a divorce by stressing over this thing for the last few months. That risk I would reckon is much higher than the risk I personally face from Fukushima.
BTW, NE Japan is a whole different thing. Many areas are just toast. The auto-radiographs in the Kaltofen presentation made that abundantly clear.
BC 12/15
Soils Testing Results - southern California
Hello:
I sent some samples off for Gamma Spectroscopy analysis recently. The samples were taken from the Santa Monica Mountains (30 miles NW of Los Angeles). Results are in:
Pine Needles: Cs134 = .33798 pCi/g = 12.50526 bq/kg; Cs137 = .46122 pCi/g = 17.06514 bq/kg (thinking we’ll go for the fake Christmas tree in the house this year)
Soil: Cs134 = .087249 pCi/g = 3.228213 bq/kg; Cs137 = .1363 pCi/g = 5.0431 bq/kg
Cesium contamination of soil in my area totals 8.27 bq/kg, of which 6.46 bq/kg, or 78% is attributable to Fukushima! This is assuming the 1:1 ratio we’ve seen throughout for 134:137. Folks, these samples were taken 8596.10 km, or 5341.37 miles from Fukushima, Japan, proof that NPP melt-downs know no boundaries and that the entire world will live with the repercussions of this disaster.
What was it that our president said, something like, “no measurable or significant levels of radiation will reach our shores?” It’s almost 9 months later and I had to take the samples and pay for the tests in order to have any idea of what kind of fall-out we actually received. Well, for perspective, my area’s cesium contamination levels from Fukushima fall-out are comparable to Nevada Test Site downwinders in Utah. The federal government felt that the NTS downwinders’ contamination was significant enough to warrant compensation programs, and the injuries to the public’s health contributed largely to the decision to discontinue the atmospheric testing. But re: Fukushima fall-out the US government has been SILENT and full-steam ahead to extend operating licenses for aging reactors! It’s perfectly clear who our public officials represent.
Incidentally, my outside air samples ran at a typical 38 cpm today. Ambient air samples do not reveal the radionuclide contamination of your soils unless it is extremely severe. Get your soil tested.
Stay tuned, plutonium & strontium analyses are forthcoming.
Thank you
Thank you very much for doing these tests!! Can't wait to get the plutonium and strontium results.
Sad that citizens are having to do this, in order to get any answers.
Tdm lab results
Isotope Activity (pCi/g) Activity (Bq/kg)
Cs-137 0.028460 1.0530
Cs-134 0.01686 0.6238
K-40 1.6039 59.34
Figured I'd post this here for comparison purposes .this soil was only exposed to fukushima rainout.location Coastal valley of northern California.
First in united states wow
Plutonium and strontium wow yea buddy !now the truth will be revealed since to my knowledge u will be the first to test for the Alphpa particltes in soil yea uc berkely tested but didn't have sensitive enough equipment.I think that was the story hard to believe .props for doing more testing than our government and sharing your data ..tdm
Unless soil is Was unexposed to Fukushima
Its going to have lots of past deposition of radiation .apparently southern California May even be a downwinder deposition area .
http://www.nuclearcrimes.org/downwinderday.php
First in united states wow
Plutonium and strontium wow yea buddy !now the truth will be revealed since to my knowledge u will be the first to test for the Alphpa particltes in soil yea uc berkely tested but didn't have sensitive enough equipment.I think that was the story hard to believe .props for doing more testing than our government and sharing your data ..tdm
First in united states wow
Plutonium and strontium wow yea buddy !now the truth will be revealed since to my knowledge u will be the first to test for the Alphpa particltes in soil yea uc berkely tested but didn't have sensitive enough equipment.I think that was the story hard to believe .props for doing more testing than our government and sharing your data ..tdm
Posted by BC 11/27 Thank you
Posted by BC 11/27
Thank you very much for this data point! I appreciate your expense and effort.
Interesting that our areas have similar total Cs levels, but yours is fresh and mine is mostly old (not much Cs-134). Yeah, I know, it's all bad.
I do understand you being pissed about it, and I am too. Personally, I do not think our level of exposure from this event will come anywhere close to what the whole country saw from global fallout, let alone the super high levels seen in the downwinder's area. But we have had some exposure, and I think we need to get handle on how much and where.
I am sending two new food samples this week.
To anyone else out there listening, how about you contribute too?
Hi BC - I'm trying to get
Hi BC -
I'm trying to get some perspective about my soils readings, relative to past events and the ensuing consequences. From what I can find, my area's cesium contamination is comparable to:
1/3 the amount Paris received from Chernobyl (countries are listed alphabetically, scroll down to France):
http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad7b.html
and generally comparable to SW Utah's cesium soils contamination from NTS:
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/9293/thesi...
Now... I am unsure of whether I should convert my bq/kg to bq/m2 using the 20 or 65 multiplier. It appears that both are used.
Japan is currently using the 65 multiplier, so that would be relevant for real time dispersion comparisons relative to Fukushima.
I do not know which multiplier the Thomas & Martin Assessment (1986) used to determine the Paris ground deposition. I also noted that their deposition does not state that Cs134 is included, so their actual cesium contamination may have been greater, if it was not included in these numbers.
I have the same problem with Bentley's thesis on residual Cs137 contamination of SW Utah soil, I do not know if he uses the x20 or x65 multiplier. Additionally, when these samples were taken in 2008, any Cs134 has long since decayed away, and the Cs137 detections had been reduced by 60 years of radioactive decay. Nevertheless, his averages by county and town are both greater and less than my cesium levels using both multipliers. It also appears that the NTS downwinders' primary exposure was to radioactive plutonium and iodine. However, the cesium exposure was real and appears to be generally comparable to what we've gotten here in southern California from Fukushima.
I've followed your comments over the past several months and respect the level of research you've done pertaining to all of this. You state that you don't think we'll come anywhere close to the super high levels seen in the downwinders' area, but this linked thesis shows data to the contrary. Am I missing something?
Thanks.
Sorry for the delay in
Sorry for the delay in posting on this.
I am not sure what conversion factor is correct, but I would say that any methodology has it flaws dues to differences in soul composition and porosity. This is to say that the most accurate conversion factor for my locale vs yours is going to be different. When I took my sample, I scraped off the top 2.5cm or so of an area about 33cmx33cm (about 1/9 of a square meter, and it yielded about 1.5 kg of soil). The soil is sandy with some clay, and I live in a arid climate (ie, it has probably rained less than 3" or so since the meltdown, so that fresh stuff is near the top). Interestingly, the Cs-137 was in more abundance than the Cs-134, so that indicates that cesium migrates pretty slowly through my soil.
Bottom line is that I think I got a pretty good snapshot of what type of Cs-134 deposition my area received and from there I can assume a like level of Cs-137.
An interesting and quick read on this subject that I have yet to fully digest -
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q7878.html
BC 12/15
I am pretty busy but I will
I am pretty busy but I will crunch this a little when I get a chance and post here about it.
BC 11/29
Soils Testing Results - southern California
Hello:
I sent some samples off for Gamma Spectroscopy analysis recently. The samples were taken from the Santa Monica Mountains (30 miles NW of Los Angeles). Results are in:
Pine Needles: Cs134 = .33798 pCi/g = 12.50526 bq/kg; Cs137 = .46122 pCi/g = 17.06514 bq/kg (thinking we’ll go for the fake Christmas tree in the house this year)
Soil: Cs134 = .087249 pCi/g = 3.228213 bq/kg; Cs137 = .1363 pCi/g = 5.0431 bq/kg
Cesium contamination of soil in my area totals 8.27 bq/kg, of which 6.46 bq/kg, or 78% is attributable to Fukushima! This is assuming the 1:1 ratio we’ve seen throughout for 134:137. Folks, these samples were taken 8596.10 km, or 5341.37 miles from Fukushima, Japan, proof that NPP melt-downs know no boundaries and that the entire world will live with the repercussions of this disaster.
What was it that our president said, something like, “no measurable or significant levels of radiation will reach our shores?” It’s almost 9 months later and I had to take the samples and pay for the tests in order to have any idea of what kind of fall-out we actually received. Well, for perspective, my area’s cesium contamination levels from Fukushima fall-out are comparable to Nevada Test Site downwinders in Utah. The federal government felt that the NTS downwinders’ contamination was significant enough to warrant compensation programs, and the injuries to the public’s health contributed largely to the decision to discontinue the atmospheric testing. But re: Fukushima fall-out the US government has been SILENT and full-steam ahead to extend operating licenses for aging reactors! It’s perfectly clear who our public officials represent.
Incidentally, my outside air samples ran at a typical 38 cpm today. Ambient air samples do not reveal the radionuclide contamination of your soils unless it is extremely severe. Get your soil tested.
Stay tuned, plutonium & strontium analyses are forthcoming.
Posted by BC 11/28 Thank
Posted by BC 11/28
Thank you!!
More to follow.
Bump
Bump
Coastal valley in northern California results above mda
Results are in on a sample That was only exposed to Fukushima there had been excavation of 3 feet of topsoil where sample was taken .soil area was 14 by 12 inches at 1.5 inch depth.results/// 2 sigma line- cesium 137 2.8460-oe-02 pci/g - cesium 134 1.686-1e-02 pci/g
Natural k40 1.6039e+00. Pci/g
Big thank you to tepco for contaminating my land with " tiny amounts " of cesium.
Thanks for testing. I'm not
Thanks for testing. I'm not good at interpreting the numbers, are these
results considered "tiny amounts"?
Thanks
Tdm- Very interesting. My
Tdm-
Very interesting. My Cs-134 came in at 1.4186E-02 pci/g. Very close yours, even though you live in a rainy part of Northern CA and I an arid Nevada. Then again, we did have a rainy spring.
Thanks to you for sharing the data!
BTW, did U-235 show up in your soil?
U235 below mda
Bc the U235 was 5.3339E-02 the mda level 8.639E-02
http://www.wolframalpha.com/i
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2.8460+pCi%2Fg+in+Bq%2Fkg
Bc does this conversion look correct? the uranium 235 was below mda but did come in at 5.33pci/g mda 7.91pci/g
Lab used was EMSL analytical
Lab used was EMSL analytical ..
Update to original thread- I
Update to original thread-
I have soil being tested, should have results late this week or early next.
Also, to be followed up by "free range herbivore"
Has anyone else had anything tested?
BC
action
Finally
First off I have seen a few posts that want to get the testing done so we can ‘move on’ or some other news cycle crowd management ploy. For some and perhaps for most this crap shoot at the radiological casino will mean very little in the short save the coming economic shock wave from a Japan rushing toward the bronze age. Some will notice that Japanese things will start coming from Peru. For others like children and generations to come the future is looking more Chernobyl with each day Fukashima belches out liquid, gas and particle poison. Whatever has or will yet accumulate in fallout will be around for decades, centuries and in the case of plutonium TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND years. It is THE gift that keeps on giving. Potentially affecting almost everyone, it is the news story that will resurface for DECADES with cumulative genetic damage that will be with us FOREVER. We must learn all that we can about and from this horrible nuclear experiment gone awry.
So many isotopes, so little time.
Radiological bio accumulation has been shown to remain or even increase over a period of decades so engaging and doing the testing is for those that care and might want an alternative to a move to the southern hemisphere.
An effort of by and for the communities effected is the only method that looks like success.
Here are a set of ideas to both improve our science and most effectively and progressively test as much as can be justified based on the most sophisticated fallout modeling we can muster.
First we need to determine how long we can use this fourm and make a plan for moving before that date. Google plus here we come?
I feel we need to recruit specialized skills. ‘Specialized’ could be a gardener that joins a moss and lichen club and learns something like identification and taking salient field notes so we can better understand the biology of bioacculation and the fallout pattern. People that make a living outdoors are golden and could help this effort quite a bit.
We need to figure out the audience for test results and participants. Smart ‘marketing’ of testing should be to create a self-sustaining economy of and for testing. Of course hotspots, when we find them, will create peaks of participation. These ‘peaks’ will allow the development of more data, intensification of our research and ‘actionables’.
I see a 501 in out future. We need a grant writer. With a foundation structure and a large enough engaged community we could even get legislative mandate and support.
To get started we need to finance this ‘service’ of testing ourselves. Let’s spec out the small lab setup and get it up. The key is a buy in from community, yours, mine, as many as possible. WE could put together a few standard models for setting up a testing station, sizing them and place them according to likely need / volume in a given area. Were to put it? Well Larry’s garage is perfect if that is where the community that sponsors it thinks it belongs. Maybe volunteer fire departments could receive a donation of some first ‘responder support equipment’ and add this to services like fire inspections. In larger cities technical community sponsored services like health or anything with room for a lab could do the testing. Garden and agricultural supply businesses could ‘market’ the service as they already do some testing through labs for the public.
We are accomplishing several things here: gaining an understanding of what is going on in every community; learning about and creating awareness of our thin little biosphere that gives us life; building a future where this is less likely to happen again and if it does we are better able to get the facts and proceed accordingly. This progress will be sustained with infrastructure and toolsets that will create and maintain radiological awareness.
Dissemination of data and education is feared in many corridors of power because knowledge brings power and change. In doing this we will create community, perhaps something similar to the French CIiRAD.
And……
Better than dirt
This seems like a fairly decent 'stand by' plan.
It is reflective of some actions taken by the Japanese population.
Just a few thoughts on the subject.
This will be an appropriate action WHEN a defective-design, MOX Fueled, over-aged, GE Mark-1 nuclear power generation unit, or some other reactor fails in the USA.
Soil is too variable to be a good data source. Sand will percolate the radionuclides deep and do so quickly. Clay may seal the radionuclides shallow or, if dry let them fall through the cracks.
IF we want to measure bio-accumulation, which is a good idea, then measure a bioaccumulator. Two representative LOCAL bioaccumulators are dairy cattle and dairy goats. Cattle graze grass while the goats browse forbs (weeds). If we want really good, local data, then milk, urine and meat will tell us much of what we want to know about soil, air, water and food bioaccumulation.
The US dairy associations have long held substantial political power. Just google (AMPI NIXON). So, the dairy guys killed publication of milk tests following the Fukushima core meltdowns and the Reactor-3 nuclear explosion. They will do so again, when it matters. US politicians, LE Commerce and the national news media are as corrupt as Somalia.
We would need a redundant mechanism, for gathering, transmitting, storing and reporting results for the same reason. A telephone chain would probably backup a government shutdown of the internet.
So can I count you in for
So can I count you in for sending a sample and sharing results?
At least it's a start, right?
first we need a place to share the results
This forum could be shut overnight. Let us figure out an alternative first so we CAN SHARE our results. This I feel is both urgent and paramount.
Great. Where? I do not see
Great. Where?
I do not see the forum closing down overnight, after seeing how exceptionally long suffering the BRAWM team has been. But I do agree there should be a place to post independently gathered data. I would prefer it to be tinfoil free (now that'll be a challenge!).
supporting community creation
Here is a link to a summary of low and no cost groupware.
http://jonudell.net/GroupwareReport.html
Let me know which of these / any / other look good. I have heard about Google Plus but haven't researched it yet. One problem is universal for all outsourced software: you are a hostage. They go down and everything stops, they jack up the price and it's "pay the price" because migrating FROM them is SO much more expensive.
We could just rent a server and run it securely. If it is Lotus Notes I can set it up, do the admin and groupware apps as needed.
I confess my ignorance of
I confess my ignorance of all things software related :).
Anything will be fine, I think. It would be nice to be able to display graphs and charts. It would be good to have a map with pushpins (kinda like the Radnet map) that could show locations samples were taken from, you click on the pin and see the media and results.
Simple is OK, let's just get it up and get some data. And thank you.
Just Want To Comment BC, On How Grants Might Apply Here
"First and foremost, I want to yet again thank the good people who have done the sampling work at UCBNE and provided this forum. In no way would I ever downplay their efforts, they have gone above and beyond what anyone else has done and for no pay. Full respect."
___________________________________________________________
CONGRATULATIONS to UC Berkeley Professor Kai Vetter and the $25 Million Dollar Department of Energy Grant for UCB Nuclear Engineering!!! (...in addition it appears to many other grants!)
http://coe.berkeley.edu/news-center/press-releases
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/1846
"Teaching will be accompanied by an active research component to give the students full exposure to the advanced theoretical and experimental techniques."
Woot! Woot! We can all anxiously await the best 'Rubber Ducky' analogies and 'Monkeys Banging Cymbals' analogies which 'money can buy'!
___________________________________________________________
Also BC, I think the idea for additional testing is excellent although I believe sparse single source testing will yield limited results. (I still think it's important to get started so 'Kudos')
Given decay rates of Cesium and other long lived isotopes, we will be testing for decades, so 'single source' testing should be discarded asap so that a more sustainable and less 'controllable' method of testing exists, which could re-establish trust with the public. I'm hoping for localized independent testing, which is what we likely would have had evolve absent the 'Airplane Analogy', which 'lullabied' the public to sleep on the matter.
What do you mean by 'Put this baby to bed'?
From what I understand Fukushima continues to emit releases and shows no sign of slowing. Currently they have 'suicide corps' composed of the elderly to aid the situation, which sounds dire.
Are you or anyone else considering making projections based upon your individual test results?
You have manners that are
You have manners that are not so good. The crew here has put up with a lot of crap over the past 3 1/2 months, and it is certainly not their fault that this horrible thing happened. I personally would be in a much worse place mentally if not for the info here. Seriously, for any level of conversation on this subject their is this forum, enenews which is sketchy, basically a clearinghouse but I do read it, and the enviroreporter guy who I have some very serious doubts about after he deleted something I know was posted there.
I do not know of anything that has been censored here.
Anyhow, back to the question of single source testing - one thing I think is important to note here is that the thing we really need to look for is Cs-134. It has a relatively short 2 yr half life, and you know for sure that any Cs-134 detected is from Fukushima. Cs-137 is a different story, I have little doubt that some of the Cs-137 out there is from Chernobyl and the nuclear testing era. More testing now and in the short term gives us a better idea of what is new and what is old, although from a health perspective, I suppose it does not matter much. Still, I want to know how much of that crap is in my backyard. A soil test gives some idea, and I could care less what lab does it so long as the test is accurate.
When I say "put this to bed", I mean let's find out just how much of this crap is here and where. Contaminations DO have comparisons. No release is harmless, but let's find out just what are risks are, and how and why. Some we can mitigate, some we can't, but damn it, let's know.
As for emissions at Fukushima, they are indeed greatly reduced from peak. Even the French (is is CRIRAD?) have shut testing down, and they were very puckered up about this. So far as I know, the only scientific organization still testing at all is Berkeley. Here is some info on peak vs. "current" emissions. Yes, I know is TEPCO.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110719e...
I am not well versed in this, but I think the "suicide corps" thing is perhaps overplayed. I read that there were elderly people volunteering to go work, but have not seen that they make up a large percentage of the crew. I guess we can look at Chernobyl and see a very dire situation, where the USSR threw hundreds of thousands of men at the meltdown. I would say that the even though the GE BWRs at Fukushima have proven to be dangerous pieces of junk, they have not blown wide open and straight-up burned with no confinement at all like Chernobyl did.
Projections? Of what? Fatalities? Sickness? I have no doubt there will be much sorrow in Japan. Here in the US, I think that it will be hard to see what has happened "statistically". I think Busby and Caldicott are way over the top, but I also think that traditional risk assessments are inaccurate. I am not a scientist or an expert, I am a guy with a wife and kids and a job and some pretty solid science aptitude trying to make sense of this and how it affects my two beautiful kids and their world. I read and watch and hope I am lucky. What the hell else can you do?
Manners? How does one 'overplay' suicide corps?
Try comparing my manners to those who have put children at risk so that they may please industry.
Japanese Seniors giving their lives over to radiation exposure because the Nuclear Industry has no idea how to handle their 'disaster which supposedly couldn't happen'?
I'm glad you want to know as we all should. Maybe if that would have been the mantra from the beginning- instead of 'Airplane Analogy' assurances, we WOULD know.
The TEPCO info stops at the Pacific Sea. they don't even want it on the map. Did you notice that? Have you noticed that EVERYONE is dodging that bullet?
Guess 'why'?
Well Leo, how far do x rays
Well Leo, how far do x rays travel?
I will also get a couple of
I will also get a couple of samples done. I believe soil is most important, as it gives a sense of what has been coming down with the rain and what may be taken up by food crops. Also, I want to know what the levels of Pacific seafood (e.g., salmon) are. I am in Vancouver, BC. This whole effort needs to be organized, though, similar to the Radiation Monitoring network with civic air measurements. A website with a map and ability for individuals to post updated results. If anyone has pointers on how to best accomplish that, it would be much appreciated. The French organized CIIRD after Chernobyl, a civic organization monitoring and reporting on radiation. They have been doing measurements in Japan and providing advice to the Japanese people, and seem to pursue a systematic and scientific approach. We need something like this here in Northamerica and Canada.
Seattle Mom Wants to Participate- but $ is an issue
Hi BC,
I love your idea of having the citizens take this issue up and create a reporting system for testing of local soil, food, drinking water, air and rain in their area. I would be SOOO happy to have independently verifiable results showing no elevated levels of radiation exist in my neighborhood! :-)
The other option would be to start a petition to send the EPA and/or Canadian equivalent to allow for independent oversight and transparency for all radiation testing they do. They're already set up for it; it would be a much cheaper way to go. (BTW: The EPA twice promised me they'd give me a specific date when they'd start routine, quarterly, testing Seattle drinking water again, after they reported only one test from March 28...but they still haven't gotten back with a date...what's the hold up? Quarterly should mean they would test again on June 28, no?)
As a North Seattle mom, I would LOVE to get samples of soil, moss, leaves, etc. in my area which is heavily forested. (The DOE flew their aerial radiation testing helicopter directly over my lucky household the other day. Eerie, to say the least...)
I am not happy to report that my family spent a good portion of their time IN THE RAIN during many of the days of the highest fallout last Spring, and I've seen some health issues crop up in both family members and friends, which of course I can't help but question if they are related...(I know, only "minute amounts were detected that couldn't affect anyone's health".)
But still, so many kids I know (and adults) having stomach/digestion issues lately (some tied to drinking milk, another, to eating potatoes). And two episodes of never-before experienced anaphylaxis-type symptoms by my child during May and June after playing outside and after picking berries near a stream. And a strange pulsing on my child's tongue after hiking on a trail on a sunny day in June (the pulsing was still happening the next morning for a bit.) And a pulsing twitch on my EYEBALL on two occasions while sitting in the sun in my car. Weird...
There's more, but I won't go into them here. Someone should start a citizen's epidemiological website where people can list their anecdotal health issues they've experienced since March...
My issue for the lab testing is one of money. I would be happy to gather the samples and ship them, but can't afford to pay for the testing. If others in the Seattle/Western Washington area would like to chip in, that would be great.
Some suspects I'd love to get tested:
1. We have some leaves under our eaves which still have the "yellow pollen" on them which rained down on us during the Spring. (I put "pollen" in quotes as it looks like pollen, but I never noticed this last Spring when we first moved to the PNW, so I'm not sure... If it is pollen, it could have potentially been exposed to fallout raining down onto the flowers it came from. If it isn't pollen, well, I'd sure like to know what the heck it is.
2. They say that areas where runoff is highest are good places to test. Indeed, the leaves of plants which are growing under our rain gutters and under areas of runoff from our deck now have this strange white substance on them (it first looked like white splotches burned onto the leaves, but now, it is taking over the entire leaf, so it looks like a fungus growth or something like that...)
3. Moss and fungus (mushrooms) - we've got lots of that around here. I read that that fallout like cesium tends to collect more readily in forest environments (it soaks into the moss, etc.) rather than in more sandy soils in which it could trickle down further into the soil.
4. Soil
Ok, if anyone wants to chip in, let me know. If I collect and send 4 samples at $250 each, based on your quote from the one lab you mentioned, that would be $1000...I wonder if whatever lab we select would give us a price break since we are pooling our resources and sending them so many samples?
P.S. I agree: we need a national/North American radiation testing registry of sorts on a separate website from this one. (this forum is not an appropriate place for that type of thing and we don't want to wear out our welcome.) ;-) Maybe someone can consult with the Safecast.org or Radiation Network founders for advise on the best way to get started...?
Seattle Mom- Post an email
Seattle Mom-
Post an email address here where I can contact you. Let us discuss details, I may have some help for your $ problem.
Thanks!
BC