PNAS Paper Claims Radioactive Sulfur Seen In SoCal
Prof. Kai Vetter says calculations are fubar:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/radioactive-isotope-de...
Search
Prof. Kai Vetter says calculations are fubar:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/radioactive-isotope-de...
Bumping this due to new question
Hi Mark,
Not sure if you saw my response to your latest answer, so bumping this up again just in case. :-) See my reply and additional questions below.
Also, as you'll see, I am questioning why the high beta count spikes on the EPA Radnet for many U.S. cities in the past couple of months, including, interestingly enough, spikes up to nearly 800 CPM in early August for Harrisonburg, VA...which is pretty near to Mineral, where I believe today's earthquake happened and near the North Anna nuclear power plant that was taken offline afterwards due to malfunctioning equipment. What could be happening here that the public just isn't privy to at the moment? This is a very strange coincidence indeed, don't you think?
I was just reading about the problems some of the nuclear power plants in VA have had just last night..especially the BWXT Lynchburg nuclear fuel plant: http://www.wise-uranium.org/epusaf.html#ANPLYB
Just got to these questions
Just got to these questions below...
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Bumping this due to more spammer escapes tonight.
Please see my posted questions below.
Thank you!
Hope everyone had a good weekend. :)
Context for Sulfur-35 Measurements
- Sulfur-35 is naturally-occurring.
- The increased levels were larger than average levels, and about 50% higher than occasional spikes.
- The measured levels of S-35 are harmless.
- The extra S-35 could be from the seawater used to cool the Fukushima reactors.
I hope this helps. Mark [BRAWM Team Member]Sulfur-35 is an extremely rare radioactive isotope formed through cosmic ray spallation of Argon gas in the atmosphere (see, e.g., this article), making it a so-called cosmogenic nuclide. It has an 87 day half-life and decays via pure beta emission. The betas have very low energies — less than the endpoint energy of only 167 keV — making S-35 relatively harmless.
The authors of the paper are climate researchers who study the mixing and transport of gases and aerosols in the atmosphere, particularly sulfur-containing pollutants such as gaseous SO2 and aerosol-based SO42-. As such, the researchers specialize in measuring exquisitely small levels of S-35 so that it can be used as a radioactive tracer of those chemicals in the air.
They typically measure about 500 nuclei of S-35 per cubic meter of air, with occasional spikes up to 1,000. The spike they measured was about 1,500 nuclei/m3. By comparison, there are about 2.7×1025 molecules of gas in one cubic meter of air. This is what I mean when I say they can measure "exquisitely small" levels.
One argument for the levels being harmless is simply that the researchers had to go through great pains in that paper to show that the spike was not natural. The spike they measured was only 50% higher than some natural spikes they have seen, and they had to show in the paper that it wasn't just due to natural variations.
Another argument is that S-35 is much more rare than radiocarbon (Carbon-14). S-35 is similar in many ways to the cosmogenic nuclide Carbon-14 (famous for radiocarbon dating), since C-14 is also a pure beta emitter with a nearly identical beta endpoint energy. C-14 is always present in the environment in low levels. It turns out that though C-14 is also very rare, it is much more abundant in the atmosphere (and our bodies!) than S-35. The atmosphere contains about 1.0×1010 nuclei of C-14 per cubic meter of air. Compare this to 500 or even 1,500 nuclei of S-35 per cubic meter — C-14 is about 10 million times more abundant!
Even the radioactivity of C-14 is much higher than S-35's: 4.0×10-5 Bq/L as opposed to 1.4×10-7 Bq/L. So at normal levels, C-14 is about 400 times more radioactive than the spike seen in S-35.
Lastly, C-14 is known to make up only a small fraction of our yearly natural background dose (<0.01 mSv out of 2.4 mSv, or <0.4%, according to UNSCEAR 2008 Annex B Table 12). This puts the dose from S-35 in the range of <0.001%, which is practically zero.
It is known from nuclear tests in the ocean that when neutrons interact with seawater, they are absorbed primarily by hydrogen (in H2O) and Chlorine-35 (dissolved in the seawater). Stray neutrons could have interacted in the seawater used to cool the reactors from March 13–26 and produced these trace amounts of S-35, which then became airborne. As Professor Vetter was quoted by the LA Times, on its face this result is "not surprising," and further analysis of the neutron fluences in the reactors will show whether or not their result departs from what would be expected.
I should also highlight that S-35 would not be expected if seawater not been used to cool the reactors.
S-35 sources
@Mark: You highlighted that "S-35 would not be expected if seawater not been used to cool the reactors." I don't agree with that. There is quite an amount of S-35 in the primary coolant of nuclear power plants, originating from Cl-35(n,p) reactions. The Cl concentration in the coolant is low (typically just below the ppm level), but the coolant receives a very high neutron does during operation. Further, there are also Cl impurities in the fuel itself, so that also in the fuel the Cl-35(n,p)S-35 reaction takes place.
Erik
Interesting, Erik, I did not
Interesting, Erik, I did not know that. In the paper they assume that all of the S-35 is from chlorine in the seawater, but from what you're saying other sources would have to be taken into account when the full calculation is performed.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Mark
Does Radioactive Sulfur-35 increase/get stronger/interact with oceans of seawater as it travels across oceans?
Thanks, Mark :) and couple of questions
This is very helpful. Thank you. :)
I have some related questions:
1. What does the article mean when it says: "If unchecked, these particles can heat up fuel rods and stores of spent fuel to the point of causing disastrous meltdowns like the one that rocked Chernobyl in 1986"?
Which particles are they referring to exactly? The neutrons? (are those considered "particles?") or do they mean the Sulfur-35?
2. Another question is this:
If radioactive particles like the ones the article mentions can in fact interact in a way that would heat up fuel rods and/or stores of spent fuel to potentially cause a melt-down, then what happens if, say, due to a major release of said particles into the world's atmosphere, that some of these particles might fall upon existing spent fuel pools sitting on the top floor of many of the world's existing nuclear reactors (which I believe are outside the reactor core containment, yes?) or wherever else one might store spent fuel or radioactive waste these days?
Can these radioactive fallout particles actually interact with the spent fuel pools at these plants, potentially causing such above-mentioned problems like heating them up, etc.? Or could these fallout particles possibly interact with stored nuclear waste like that under the tents in Los Alamos, or in areas exposed by the recent fires in Los Alamos or the Nevada Test Site, creating additional concerns?
I am still just trying to discern whether the spikes in beta counts in cities around the country might be possibly caused, at least in part, by fallout from Fukushima, and whether this scenario, that fallout particles might actually interact with our nuclear power plants or exposed radioactive waste or other elements (uranium mill tailing piles?) here in the U.S., is at all a possibility?
So, for example, I found this interesting bit of information about the lung cancer-causing Radon-222 gas emitted from uranium mill tailing piles on the EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/radinfo/subpart_w.html)
Not sure if the above-mentioned fallout particles could also interact with the uranium tailing piles, or perhaps, the Radon-222 gas itself to have some possible unwanted results?
I remember someone mentioned that radioactive particles tend to attract to metal surfaces. It would be interesting to know if such particles might also interact with gases like Radon (whether "naturally occurring" or from that emitted from uranium mines or uranium mill tailing piles).
Thanks again for your help! :)
Neutrons
Hi Seattle Mom,
I've been meaning to get to your questions and I hope this first try works:
(1) The particles referred to in that quote are neutrons, not S-35. Neutrons are the particles responsible for fission chain reactions in nuclear reactors (and weapons). In a nuclear reactor, the amount of neutrons is controlled so that the nuclear chain reaction proceeds at a constant rate, and the heat that is generated is used to make power.
So it is true that "if unchecked, these particles [neutrons] can heat up fuel rods and stores of spent fuel to the point of causing disastrous meltdowns like the one that rocked Chernobyl in 1986." In a reactor you don't want too many neutrons, otherwise the reaction will proceed too fast and can run away, producing way too much heat for you to control. So reactor operators use control rods — which absorb neutrons — to tune the amount of neutrons to exactly what is needed for a sustained chain reaction (this is "criticality").
The worry in Fukushima was that as the cores melted down, the nuclear fuel would melt into a blob, and neutrons would interact in such a way that a chain reaction could proceed again, thus producing more heat or perhaps even an explosion (this would be "recriticality"). Extra precautions were taken, such as adding boron to the seawater that was being used to cool the cores. Boron is a great neutron absorber, so they hoped it would ensure that any neutrons would be stopped and not allow further fissioning. Recriticality was always very unlikely if not impossible, and it seems like it indeed has not happened.
You might be able to see why the measurement of S-35 could be so interesting. S-35 would be produced by neutrons in the reactor cores interacting with the seawater used to cool them. The amount of S-35 then would tell us directly how many neutrons were zipping around inside the reactor cores during and after the meltdowns. There might not be any other way to measure the amount of neutrons. I still have not heard whether the measurements differ from what is expected assuming no recriticality.
Two final points about neutrons that are also relevant:
(2) I hope the answer to #1 makes the answer to this one clear. Neutrons are not part of the fallout from Fukushima, so we have nothing to worry about from them. They also wouldn't live long enough to make it here.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Thank you and another question...or two... :)
Thanks for answering, Mark. I know school's back in session, so your volunteering your time on this forum is much appreciated. :-)
Ok, so the report was talking about the neutron particles on site in Fukushima. Thanks for clarifying. :-)
So now my other part of the question was referring to the other types of particles, i.e. the radionuclides like Cesium-137 or Cesium-134, which have made their way over to the West Coast (as your tests found in the soil in Berkeley and San Diego), which are harmful because they are both beta and gamma emitters and have long-half lives which allows them to build up in the environment, water and food chain (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/gamma.html#properties):
Could a constant stream of these continuing to come to the U.S. from Fukushima (what was the latest report? Billions or Trillions bq/hour being released?) have any possible affect through interacting with other existing radionuclides at either our nuclear power plants, or nuclear waste storage facilities, or unlined nuclear waste pits in the ground like at Hanford or Los Alamos or the Nevada Test Site, or re-distributed radiation in the air due to uranium mill tailings off-gassing radon, or the recent fires at Los Alamos and the Nevada Test Site, etc.?
Could the high beta counts we've been seeing in numerous U.S. cities this summer on the EPA RADNET site be due to a combination of higher radon activity and these radionuclides from Fukushima, or some kind of interaction between the two as mentioned above?
Also, does the heat of the summer create more radon? Why so much higher radon levels NOW, so many months after Fukushima, than they were in April or May? What is the dynamic happening here that the radon levels people are finding in their rain tests being so much higher now than when we experienced the main fallout here in March and April from Fukushima?
Thanks again for your help in putting the puzzle pieces together. :-)
Fission products, radon, etc.
Great questions, Seattle Mom. Let me know if I am answering your concerns:
Fission products do not create more radioactivity
The radionuclides that have been detected from Fukushima are so-called "fission products," meaning that they are the waste products created from the fission of uranium in the reactors (like CO2 is a waste product of combustion in a car engine). The majority of fission products are themselves radioactive, and once produced they start to decay. Fission products decay by beta decay, often with accompanying gamma rays. Since they do not produce neutrons, they do not induce radioactivity in other materials, nor are they able to induce nuclear reactions if they get near nuclear fuel. Also, they cannot do anything to other fission products in nuclear waste. They simply undergo radioactive decay, and their danger is to human health, from ingestion or inhalation of significant quantities of them.
Continuing releases are negligible
About the "constant stream" of fission products from Japan: I think the scale of continuing releases needs to be put in context. As I calculated on another thread, the current estimate of the release rates from the reactors is less than one millionth of the peak release rate back in March. The peak releases in March were only trace amounts in the U.S., so any further releases will be undetectable and negligible.
Also, since the releases from the plant in March were propelled high into the atmosphere through venting and hydrogen explosions, they were able to travel far across the world. Any current releases do not have active dispersal mechanisms like explosions — the idea is more like radioactive dust particles being kicked up by air currents — and they will not get up into the upper levels of the atmosphere where long-distance transport can take place.
For these reasons, there will not be any significant amounts reaching the U.S. This same argument holds for the current concern some have about the burning of radioactive crops in Japan — the scale of the potential emissions are too small for there to be any significant levels in the U.S.
Dispersion also important
You asked about build-up in the environment. I would say that the motion of the fission products throughout the ecosystem is complex, but the tendency is toward dispersion, not build-up. There are some concentrating mechanisms in plants and animals (e.g., bio-accumulation of Iodine in milk), but for any accumulation there is also at least one dispersion mechanism at work (e.g., biological elimination / biological half-life). For example, even though Cesium-137 has a 30 year half-life, the chemical Cesium has a 100 day biological half-life. This means that cesium is constantly being eliminated from your body, and it is not accumulated forever. And once it leaves your body, it is diluted further in the ecosystem.
EPA RadNet
The EPA RadNet spikes are not due to Fukushima fallout, but are from radon decay products in the air. Radon is naturally present in the air from radioactive decays in rocks and minerals, and the radon decay product concentrations are very sensitive to local weather conditions. Higher temperatures cause faster seepage of radon gas out of the ground, so high summer temperatures could definitely be causing some of the higher rates. Local wind conditions and barometric pressure also contribute. Since many of these conditions have a 24 hour cycle, that is why the spikes tend to happen at that frequency as well. Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Thanks, Mark! :)
Great answers! Very clear and understandable. Much appreciated. :)
The only concern I would still have about the potential dispersal of any further radiological releases from Japan would be the new tent TEPCO is building for Reactor 1 (with more to follow for the others?) which will have the tall chimney stack with a high vent at the top, as Arne Gundersen referred to in his latest video. He seems concerned that that would in fact be a method for sending the radioisotopes/particles/whatever you call them, high up into the atmosphere, so they would make their way to the West Coast on the Jet Stream.
The info on radon levels being affected by the heat makes sense (as I suspected.) Even with a relatively short half life, I for, one wouldn't want to be breathing in those elevated levels the EPA is finding in several cities. We've got enough pollution to worry about in our air. We want MORE clean air, not less, no? ;-P
Anyway, your help is as always, much appreciated.
Good luck with school this semester. :)
No energy for high atmosphere dispersal
First, assume anything you hear from Arnie Gundersen is propaganda that has been specifically designed to scare / frighten you. That's his business. He's been hired by the anti-nukes to run an anti-nuclear power PR campaign.
It doesn't matter that you have a high stack. As Mark stated, in order to get material up to the high atmosphere, you need to give it energy - which the explosions and high pressure venting did. There's no high energy source to launch radionuclides to high altitudes now.
Stacks reduce the fallout in a very local area, by distributing the fallout over a larger intermediate-sized area. However, just because you have a high stack doesn't mean the fallout has enough energy to be propelled into the jet stream.
Additional info to help clarify my question :-)
To help you better understand my above-mentioned question, take a look at this article I just found (dated May 2, 2011) which mentions yet another problem (a.k.a. radiation leak) at another Japanese nuclear power plant (Tsuruga genpatsu) discovered shortly after the March 11 earthquake.
It says that "radioactive leakage from fuel rods" at the nuclear power plant" may be causing a "surge in the density of toxic substances detected in coolant water".
So which of the following scenarios do you think are the cause of the leaking radiation at Tsuruga Genpatsu?
1. Could these leaky spent fuel rods be leaking from damage from the 3-11 earthquake
2. Or are the leaks just due to the normal, but inevitable wear and tear of aging, hot spent fuel rods?
OR, as I am questioning:
3. Could this "density of toxic substances" in their spent fuel pools which they are referring to actually be CAUSING the spent fuel rods to leak, and could these extra "toxic substances" be in fact due to the fallout and ongoing radioactive releases at Fukushima making their way to that power plant?
So, my earlier question relates to this: that if this build up of toxic substances at another nuclear power plant outside of Fukushima could actually be caused by Fukushima fallout, then could some of that fallout that makes it way to the U.S. have a similar problematic effect on our own power plants?
(And to further try to connect the dots, is this perhaps why, as an earlier poster mentioned this evening, the State of PA is issuing free idodine tablets to residents within a 10 mile radius of their 5 nuclear power plants in PA and why EPA RADNET beta counts for many U.S. cities have shown ever higher spikes in the past couple of months?)
In other words, are these radioactive particles from Fukushima in our atmosphere somehow interacting with our own nuclear facilities in the U.S.?
Please tell us this is an outrageous and scientifically impossible notion, so those of us on this forum who live near U.S. power plants can all sleep a bit easier. Thank you! ;-P
Here's the link to the entire article: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/02/c_13855348.htm
Here's an excerpt from it:
"Japan Suspects Radiation Leak from Fuel Rods at Plant in Fukui Prefecture
English.news.cn 2011-05-02 18:19:10
TOKYO, May 2 (Xinhua) -- Radioactive leakage from fuel rods at a nuclear power plant in the city of Tsuruga in Fukui prefecture on Honshu island of Japan are believed to be the cause of a surge in the density of toxic substances detected in coolant water, the prefectural government said Monday.
Japan Atomic Power Company, owner and operator of the potentially faulty nuclear plant, has said it will attempt to manually override the plant's No. 2 reactor's system in an effort to contain the leak and conduct further investigation into its critical cooling systems.
The utility firm operating the 1,160-megawatt No.2 reactor at its Tsuruga nuclear plant cited "technical difficulties" at the reactor and while claiming there had been no radiation leak did confirm a possible leak of iodine from the reactor's nuclear fuel assemblies into its coolant system, adding a new saga to the nation's ever-unfolding nuclear crisis.
P.S. Just an FYI: Apparently the Tsuruga Genpatsu reactor in Fukui is still leaking, as 2.50uSv/h was detected in Fukui on August 10, as this more current blog posting on Fukushima-Diary.com mentioned:
http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/08/breaking-news-tsuruga-genpatsu-is-als...
(or try this, if that one doesn't work: http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/08/breaking-news-tsuruga-genpatsu-is-als...)
Sigh...
Adding to the issue of
Adding to the issue of radioactive sulfur, Seattle Mom, are the continuing moderate to severe magnitude quakes pounding Honshu, Japan. I do not think it unlikely that at least some of Honshu's other nuclear power plants have in some manner been weakened by the initial great Japan 9.0 earthquake. And, these same nuclear plants continue to be a rocking and a rolling. Further damage may well be possible over the course of time. Some signs of damage showing up now. Some later. As with Fukushima, I suspect that much information is being withheld from the public. Coming to mind is the Chinese wry curse: "May you live in interesting times."
Bump
Bumped just in case you missed these questions. :) Thanks!
Learning more Lots of details here
"For each square meter of reactor space doused by saltwater, the nuclear material ejected 400 billion neutrons before 20 March. And that, in turn, may give scientists a good look at the damage done to the cores during the disaster, says study co-author Mark Thiemens, an atmospheric scientist who is also at UCSD. If unchecked, these particles can heat up fuel rods and stores of spent fuel to the point of causing disastrous meltdowns like the one that rocked Chernobyl in 1986."
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/08/fukushima-reactor-damage-p...
I'm giving this thread a
I'm giving this thread a 'bump' up due to the importance it and comments here.
Thanks for finding it and sharing other related articles.
-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...
Interesting From the op link
"But Vetter and other nuclear engineers questioned elements of the research, which used the readings taken in La Jolla to extrapolate the amount of neutron leakage from the Fukushima plant. Elmer Lewis of Northwestern University and Michael Golay of MIT were unconvinced that the radiation in question even originated at the nuclear plant.
Edward Morse, of UC Berkeley, said that the traces of radioactive sulfur probably originated at Fukushima, but he took issue with the team's final calculations.
"They're not nuclear engineers," Morse said. "They were a little out of their depth."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/radioactive-isotope-de...
Sulfer-35 from Fukushima - more questions...
Thanks for posting this.
I also found an abstract of the original study on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences' website here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/11/1109449108.abstract?sid=0de...
The original study is available for purchase only.
And the UC San Diego press release about this study can also be found here:
http://www.lajollalight.com/2011/08/15/traces-of-radioactive-sulfur-meas...
(As it is a press release, there is no commentary about the validity of the study's results.)
I learned some new things today. First, I didn't realize that nuclear explosions could create radioactive sulfur (sulfur-35).
The article states:
"“You know how much seawater they used, how far neutrons will penetrate into the seawater and the size of the chloride ion. From that you can calculate how many neutrons must have reacted with chlorine to make radioactive sulfur,” said Antra Priyadarshi, a post-doctoral researcher in Thiemens’ lab and first author of the paper. Gerardo Dominguez, another member of Mark Thiemens’ research group, is also an author of the report.
"After accounting for losses along the way as the sulfate particles fell into the ocean, decayed, or eddied away from the stream of air heading toward California, the researchers calculated that 400 billion neutrons were released per square meter surface of the cooling pools, between March 13, when the seawater pumping operation began, and March 20, 2011."
400 billion neutrons were released between March 13 and March 20! Yikes! :-P
Putting two and two together:
This now makes me revisit our discussion from this past spring on this forum (don't have the link available at the moment) about whether the rainout of yellow powdery substance here (I'm in Seattle, but I think I remember others on the West Coast experienced it too, no?). Do you remember that discussion?
Some tossed it off as most likely being pollen. However, those of us who had NEVER seen this rainout on our cars of this yellow substance were concerned it might have been caused by fallout from Fukushima.
This above referenced article seems to be pointing in this direction...that the substance was in fact radioactive sulfur-35. Anyone know what the half-life is for sulfur-35? I did a Google search and got ZERO results.
Then, when searching Google images for sulfur, I found these images, which look very much like the yellow powder that fell on our cars and plants here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/4-lbs-Sulfur-Prills-sulphur-vaporizer-burner-sulfer-...
and this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/5LBS-Pure-Sulfur-Powder-/160579796251#ht_4862wt_1139
In fact, I still have some of the yellow powder and would love to have someone test it for me. Any takers? :-)
A related question/comment I had:
You'll notice that the ebay website I referenced above which is selling the sulfur powder mentioned that it was to be used for purposes of preventing mold build up on leaves of certain plants.
This is very strange, since though we had the yellow powder fall on some of our plants and our cars, we also have some plants which are growing directly under our rainspouts which started to grow a moldy-looking white substance after Fukushima. Strange huh?
Any botanists or "plant radiologists" (if there are such things) in the room who could comment on what they think the white moldy looking substance might be and what could cause it? I know Gardening Gal has been posting quite a bit lately. :-)
BTW: They say radioisotopes would be most prevalent under rainspouts, as they would build up over time. The mold is NOT growing on any other plants in our yard except the ones under the rainspouts. Strange...
Any input would be much appreciated.
What concerns me is that, if it is sulfur-35, it is still around in our environment, and despite the article reassuring San Diegans that the levels they found there are too low to be of a health concern, those of us in Seattle are concerned that due to the high rainfall we got this past Spring, the levels of fallout from Fukushima (not just sulfur-35, but all the radioisotopes) would be much higher here.
But I have not heard a peep from anyone about testing of soil in Seattle. Does anyone have any test results of soil from Seattle they can share with us?
If not, I would love to have BRAWM's help testing a soil sample here. Especially the soil directly under our rainspout which is next to my child's bedroom window. I shudder to think that, should we have a high build up of radioisotopes in our soil next to our window, what affect that could have on our child's health.
But the EPA and the Department of Health in WA continue to say they are not concerned and thus no one that I know of is in fact testing our soil here. If anyone has any different information, please let me know.
Speaking of testing, in Arne Gunderson's latest interview podcast over the weekend (http://solarimg.org/?p=1722), he mentioned having a very expensive piece of equipment for testing for radioactive isotopes.
He mentioned that anyone who was doing post-rainfall tests by swiping a surface and testing with a Geiger counter and finding high readings (like the guy in British Columbia on YouTube last month) should send him the cloth swipe sample (triple wrapped in plastic, then placed in an envelope). But he requests you send ONLY those cloth samples with high readings.
Their contact info on Fairewinds.com:
You can contact Arne at Fairewinds.com here:
Contact Us
Maggie Gundersen, President contact@fairewinds.com
Arnie Gundersen, Chief Engineer contact@fairewinds.com
Fairewinds Associates, Inc. Burlington, VT 05408
Office (802) 865 9955
For media requests please fill out our media request form.
contact@fairewinds.com
or
802-503-3890
One final comment about Arne's latest interview on the SolarIMG.org website this weekend:
After listening to his interview, I am increasingly concerned about possible negative health effects from what we received and may continue to receive from Fukushima. Arne mentions that some people in Japan are burning radioactive plants, wood, etc. and that is releasing more radioactivity in the atmosphere. As a result, he says we in the U.S. (especially the Pacific Northwest) can expect to see additional rainouts of those "hot particles" he had previously mentioned....for at least another year! :-(
I am a mother and to put it mildly, I am very concerned about my child and other children being affected by this.
And despite the reassurances by well-meaning people that the levels we already received during the heaviest fallout in March and April are low health risks, I am feeling less reassured as Arne says he has colleagues who are scientists who are studying the levels they've found in the U.S. and that data will be forthcoming. He says that he does believe the levels ARE indeed a health risk. And Marco Kaltofen mentioned that any fallout in the dirt here could be disturbed and kicked up and re-released into the air (i.e. inhaled) and that could be a concern. And he previously had mentioned the possible build up of radioactive substances in our food supply... :-(
So who are we to believe? I am sure if you are like me, you want the TRUTH. We all deserve the TRUTH, as it will only be through this truth that we as citizens, and parents, can make the best informed decisions about how to protect our families.
I guess time will tell...but the clock is ticking and our children's health may be at risk. :-(
Sulphur-35
@Seattle Mom: Here is some data on Sulphur-35
University of Waterloo
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, Ontario
Canada N2L 3G1
http://www.safetyoffice.uwaterloo.ca/hse/radiation/rad_laboratory/data_s...
Physical Characteristics
Isotope 35S
Half Life 87.9 Days
Mode of Decay Beta 100%
Energy Maximum O. 167 MeV
Average 0.049 MeV
Decay Product 35C1
Biological Data
Biological Half Life 90.0 Days
Effective Half Life 44.3 Days
Target Lungs
Legislative Limits (*this is for Canada...I assume)
Exempt Quantity 100 MBq (2.7 mCi)
ALI Ingestion 26 MBq (0.7 mC1)
Sewage discharge (institutional Limit) 1000 MBq/yr (27 mCi/yr)
Sewage discharge (laboratory limit) 0.037 MBq/L (1 uCi/L)
Landfill discharge 0.37 MBq/kg (10 uCi/kg)
Shielding Data
Maximum range in air 30 cm
Shielding required None
Dose Rate from External Exposures
Low energy Beta particle emitted by Sulphur 35 is not an external radiation hazard, as it cannot penetrate the skin or travel very far in air.
Dose from Skin Contamination
Uniform Deposit 1 kBq/cm2 = 3.5 10-1 mSv/hr
0.05 ml droplet 1 kBq = 4.1X 10-3 mSv/hr
External Dose form a 1 MBq Source in:
Point source at 30 cm = 0 mSv/hr
10 ml glass vial at 100 cm = 0 mSv/hr
Contact with a 50 ml glass beaker = 0 mSv/hr
Contact with 5ml plastic syringe = 0 mSv/hr
Contamination
Monitoring Method
Liquid scintillation
Geiger Counter
Limits of Contamination
Controlled Areas = 300 Bq/cm2
Uncontrolled Areas = 30 Bq/cm2
Notes:
Effective biological half-life applies to the radionuclide in a simple inorganic form. If the nuclide is ingested in the form of an organic molecule which can become incorporated or absorbed by a metabolic process, the half-life in the body may be much longer. Consider tritium as an example: tritiated water has an effective biological half-life of 12 days whereas tritiated thymidine has a 190 day half life.
ALI is defined as the Annual Limit of Intake by ingestion or inhalation which would produce a dose of 20 mSv .
Handling Procedures
Disposable gloves and lab coat should be worn when handling 35S.
Disposable gloves and lab coat should be worn when handling.
Use a spill tray and absorbent paper to contain spills.
Radio-lysis of 35S radiolabeled compounds may occur during storage, causing the release of volatile 35S compounds. Vials should be opened only in fume hoods.
Radio-lysis may also occur during heating. Insure that all processes which heat 35S compounds are done in a fume hood.
___________________________________________________________________________
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area...East Bay actually...not too far from Berkeley. I haven't noticed any "yellow" powder residue...but a lot of "white" powdery residue. This "white" residue is NOT mildew because it is not only on plants but also on other objects...i.e. metal barbeque, tables, etc. Don't know what to make of it. It would need to be tested for a definitive answer. The highest concentration seems to be on plants near downspouts!
Dear Gardening Gal and
Dear Gardening Gal and Seattle Mom,
I, too, at one point during this whole fiasco noticed an unusual, slightly sticky like whitish substance (with a tinge of another color-- brownish yellow possibly?) on my car maybe for about a week, or so. Wondered if maybe there was a fire nearby. But whatever was on my car was the wrong color for ash. And, there were no fires anywhere around. Hm-m-m-m?
***
Seattle Mom, you might want to contact Arnie Gundersen to see if maybe he is interested in testing the yellow dust you have. Or, maybe even BRAWM...
Wow--thank you, Gardening Gal
This is very helpful (and scary) information, especially if the sulfur-35 is ingested or inhaled, it has such a long half-life, enough at least to do some damage to the nearby cells.
One thing I forgot to mention is that the yellow powdery substance also stuck to the rubber seals at the base of my car's windows. It did not completely wash out in the regular rain we received this past Spring, nor did it come out in a car wash. It looks "stained" and I tried using --without gloves or a mask as your posting suggested... :-( --a paper towel and water at a gas station to remove the stain but it still didn't come out.
Now I'm wondering if this is why I get a static electric charge every time I get out of my car ever since Fukushima. :-( Strangely enough, no one else in our family gets one, just me. (I also use my Smart phone a lot, and perhaps there is some kind of interaction going on between the EMF from the phone and whatever radioactive particles I or my car may have been exposed to? (One of Chris Busby's videos discusses the dynamic of this type of interaction.) Yikes...
I remember one night during the main "fallout season" last spring, accidentally leaving the driver's window slightly open and it rained overnight. I'm wondering if the radiation got into my car and on the steering wheel as well, etc?
Regarding the white powdery substance on the plant leaves near downspouts...I am not a gardener, so I can't tell if the substance is mold or powder. (Email me and I will send you a photo of it to compare: seamom@ymail.com).
But it did start out just looking like tiny white splashes/splotches (star shaped), but over several weeks, grew to where it is covering the entire plants, so I was assuming it was mold.
But I have noticed in our upstairs room, a converted attic which has a sky light and a screened window which we leave open regularly, the feeling of a powdery substance on everything.
I read somewhere online about a guy who took a "dusting" from an attic in an area downwind (Utah?) of the Nevada atomic bomb tests from the Cold War and found plutonium in the dust...50+ years after the last bombs were tested. :-(
Anyway, send me an email if you'd like to compare notes.
Thanks again for your shared concern and active participation in this forum! :-)
There was some yellow
There was some yellow powdery stuff at my location as well. We had a ton of pollen this year, so I chalked it up to that and my "over-awareness" of all things that could be fallout-related.
I did test a big swipe of it with my lil' toot geiger counter, and came back with nothing. Interestingly, if it was S35 (which I doubt), the geiger counter may not pick up on it anyhow - from looking at what GardeningGal just posted, S35 is all beta which is pretty tame, and it has a fairly low decay energy.
Question to anyone who may know - this stuff came from the SFP. Does this mean that it boiled dry?
Odor of Sulphur / Sulfur
Sulphur has a particular peculiar odor: It smells like eggs. To be more precise, the egg odor comes from its sulphur content. The more sulphur in an egg, the stinkier it smells.
The matchhead on a stick match contains sulphur...causing a distinctive smell.
BUMPASS HELL - Lassen National Park - California
"The largest geothermal area in the national park - large hot pools of varying activities and colors, plus fumaroles and mudpots. The active area can be seen (and smelt!) from some distance away - a wide valley filled with steaming pools and unusual multi-hued soils, stained orange, brown, yellow and green by sulphur and other chemicals."
http://www.americansouthwest.net/california/lassen_volcanic/bumpass_hell...
If you have ever visited Bumpass Hell, you will never forget the smell! EGGS...thousands of them...or so it seems.
I don't know if radioactive Sulphur-35 has this smell, but if it contains sulphur, it seems as if it should.
Are you smelling any egg smells?
Not putting that stuff ANYWHERE near my sniffer ;-D LOL
Good point...never thought about the possibility of a" sulfur-like" smell, Gardening Gal.I don't recall such a smell when the yellow powdery rainout appeared on my car...but since it rains so much here, it could have washed any smell in the air away....if it was sulfur-35.
But I think I have any easy way to test it. I'm sure basic chemistry kits would have a way of confirming if a substance contained sulfur, no? If not, one could then chalk it up to pollen. :-)