Would this be a safe assumption based on precipitation amounts?

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2011-09-07 04:58

Boise received the two highest levels of 131 in precipitation according to the currently available EPA data. Boise also had 134 and 137 in their precipitation. Would it be safe to assume that since Kansas was third, that we are also looking at having cesium 137 wet deposition on the ground? The EPA data does not indicate cesium in the precipitation, but that does not make much sense given Boises amounts. This is the problem with the EPA not providing data, and on that basis I am going to assume the worst case scenario.

‹ Milk update (9/27/2011) brawm: infant milk formula testing? ›

There would also have been

Submitted by bandstra on Tue, 2011-10-04 12:11.

There would also have been some amount of Cs-134 and Cs-137 in the precipitation. The ratio of I-131 to Cs-134 and Cs-137 changed dramatically from day to day in our rainwater samples, so it is not possible to infer how much cesium would have been deposited given the measured levels of I-131. However, nearly every time I-131 was detectable in our measurements so were the isotopes of cesium. The EPA's detection limits may have been just too high to detect the levels of Cs-134 and Cs-137. Mark [BRAWM Team Member]