Collective Sampling Effort Update 9/7
Posted by BC 9/7/2011
As promised, I wanted to share with all the results of the soil test from my location in northern central NV. All soil was sandy/fine, top 3 cm or so. Lab work was done by EMSL analytical. I am showing both pCi and bq/kq.
I-131 - ND (I hope they didn't charge extra for that LOL)
Cs-134 - ~0.525 bq/kg (14.186pCi/kg), but technically non-detect as the MDA is just a bit higher than this amount at .535bq/kg (14.450pci/kg)
Cs-137 - ~6.735bg/kg(182.02pCi/kg.
And there was a bunch of other stuff on the report as well (none of which I was freaked out about, but for measure I have fowarded the report in entirety to Mark) . Here's couple of interest. I am working under the assumption that the U-235 is naturally occuring but I guess I can't rule out it being from Fuku, Chernobyl, or atomic weapons testing.
U-235 - ~5.515bq/kg (149.05pCi/kg) (BTW, the EPA has a water test that has a scale for Uranium of 1-6. Our water here is a 6...)
And for some perspective, the ubiquitous...
K-40 - ~1615bq/kg (43,624pCi/kg). Yes, that number is correct.
Some thoughts - The recent BRAWM soil testing puts an interesting twist on this test...basically, since the Cs-134 is just below the MDA (at around 0.5 bq/kg), and the ratio of Cs-134 to Cs-137 from Fukushima has been ~1:1, it is very likely that only about 0.5bq/kg of the Cs-137 came over with the Cs-134 from Fukushima. The rest was out there before, I just never gave it a thought. This is very much like the recent Sonoma and Sacramento tests - http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2525#soilSacramento
I also stated that I would comment on my experience with the lab. It was very good and professional as one would expect.
OK, cmon guys, let's get a few more going. I hope to get the "free range herbivore" test done next...
ratio in soil tests
It seems from the recent tests sighted above, the ratio of Cs-134 to Cs-137 is the same as yours out there in NV. Looks like the ratio coming from Fuku was not 1:1.
All the Berkeley
All the Berkeley measurements show ~ 1:1 ratio, as did the University of Washington (http://www.npl.washington.edu/monitoring/) as did the EPA's Radnet - the top three measurements are Cs-147, the bottom three are Cs-134, and they are from the same respective dates.
BOISE, ID PRECIPITATION 22-MAR-11 Gamma Spectrometry Cesium-137 11.6 3.1 --- pCi/L
BOISE, ID PRECIPITATION 27-MAR-11 Gamma Spectrometry Cesium-137 36.4 3.8 --- pCi/L
BOISE, ID PRECIPITATION 27-MAR-11 Gamma Spectrometry Cesium-137 35.6 3.7 --- pCi/L
BOISE, ID PRECIPITATION 22-MAR-11 Gamma Spectrometry Cesium-134 11.2 2.8 --- pCi/L
BOISE, ID PRECIPITATION 27-MAR-11 Gamma Spectrometry Cesium-134 42 2.9 --- pCi/L
BOISE, ID PRECIPITATION 27-MAR-11 Gamma Spectrometry Cesium-134 34.3 3 --- pCi/L
The upshot to all this is that I had way more cesium in my soil from the tesing era than I got from this sad situation in Japan. I recently had a friend send me a map of worldwide Cs-137 deposition from the atomic testing era, and my location got about 2000-3000 bq/m2 of Cs-137 during that time. Figure that roughly a quarter of that Cs-137 is still around, and you can see why the ratio of Cs-134 to Cs-137 in my soil is not 1~1. It is important to note that this is old soil - any dirt from say more than 6 or 12" deep likely has close to no cesium in it. This explains why some of BRAWMs early testing of soil showed the 1~1 ratio - that dirt had not been around to be rained on in the 60's.
Dear BC, can you share the
Dear BC, can you share the map of worldwide Cs-137 deposition from the atomic testing era? We are relocating to the Bay Area from the East Coast, due to job changes. It seems the testings did more damage than Japan so far. However, east coast has a lot of its own problems, such as elevated iodine in drinking water, nuclear power plant clusters, cancer red zones from Maine to DC... It would be nice to know if we are moving to the better or worse. Thanks.
Free Maps
Here's a link to free maps that include the Baneberry test 12-18-70:
http://www.260press.com/atlas-nuclear-fallout-vol-1.htm
As mentioned in the abstract in the last post, the East Coast took alot of fallout due to rainout. The worst counties in the US were in Idaho and Montana, elevated due to Hanford. Although California looks like it was spared, you have to remember: pacific testing, China, India, Chernobyl, Rancho Seco and unreported incidents.
One More Map
http://www.ieer.org/offdocs/csdepglo.pdf
Rancho Seco?!?!
I could not find a free
I could not find a free source for the info - it is available here for $31 for the whole paper.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15063539
If you will post an email address, I will send you the Cs-137 deposition map.
This is my email address,
This is my email address, thanks a lot for sharing!
jingjyu@hotmail.com
jingjyu@hotmail.com
BC - how much rain did you
BC - how much rain did you get in late March?
For 3/15-3/31, 0.95"
For 3/15-3/31, 0.95" precip.
For 4/1-4/18 (last rainfall that BRAWM detected Fukushima fallout in) 1.19" precip.
That adds up to 2.14". Berkeley received about 4.3" during this time period. But please bear in mind that some rainfalls contained much more radioactive materials than others, so it's not just about the amount of rainfall but also the level of contamination in each rainfall.
Sample depth
Bc how deep did u go with your soil sample?
Ooh I see 3cm
Or 1.18 inch in depth .so that seems shallow for weapons testing cesium to be on surface does it not ?after 50 years I would think it would be driven deeper into soil this needs explanation...
It would be great to have
It would be great to have more tests, shallow and deep, but after reading page 38 of the oft-linked (by me) Blair paper -
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/9293/thesi...
I decided to go shallow. The truth is, I really was not looking for Cs-137 so much as Cs-134, the "smoking gun" for Fukushima fallout, and I figured that in the short amount of time that has elapsed, I should get most of the Cs-134 in that top inch. The high-ish Cs-137 kind of surprised me. Also, please note that the avg precip in my area is less than 10 inches....
If UCBNE or anyone else would like an extensive set of different depth samples, I would of course be happy to provide them.
In the meantime, has anyone else had some testing done?
Not a study but interesting
Pg 5 paragraph 4
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp157-c6.pdf
Cesium has a very low mobility in soil.in general it has been reported that cesium does not Usually migrate below depths of 40 cm with the majority of cesium being in upper 20 cm.There are exceptions.
Hope u can help with results
Very cool, bc do you feel better about the situation knowing the levels in your area?I will be testing the soil in my area. I haven't done so yet but i intend to today as this knew data posted by brawm about Sonoma has me eager to know what's in my soil.
Better and worse at the same
Better and worse at the same time. It does give me a whole lot of perspective on my increase in risk from cesium in the local soil. I estimate that my location got an additional ~1bq/kg of the cesium isotopes from this thing, and that there was ~6bq/kg of Cs-137 in my soil before Fukushima.
God knows exactly where it came from, but no doubt at points in history the level of cesium in my soil was actually higher...much of the Chernobyl and atomic testing stuff has decayed away.
So it is cool to know that at least there isn't gobs and gobs of freshly deposited cesium in play. In fact, it looks like most places got more from Fukushima than here...it doesn't rain much in Nevada.
Thanks for motivation to test
Yes I actually am scared to know what's on my land as I received far more rain in march, April, and may than usual it was a wet spring.Check the map for past precip for 180 days I am in the 25 to 30 inch range bc how much rain did u receive ?
http://water.weather.gov/precip/
I recieved 1-2 inches. The
I recieved 1-2 inches.
The rain that was bad was from 3/15 or so through 4/20...I believe after that it was all ND, at least in Berkeley,
Get it tested, what the hell.
I don't know how this
I don't know how this happened, but above post is mine (BC) not Tdm.
Apologies to all. It was a long weekend, still recovering.
Contact for lab work price is 250$
To learn more about testing for radioactive materials or other environmental issues please visit www.EMSL.com, call (800) 220-3675 or email info@EMSL.com.
Bump
Bump
Bump
Bump
Bump
Bump
Bump
Bump