Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-10-21 17:20.
I work for a federal government food monitoring agency that monitors food grown in Canada. I can tell you that I brought up the issue of radiation getting into our food (through rainwater) with my manager soon after Fukushima and received nothing but silence.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-10-21 00:35.
In Vancouver, the city did its first test of the drinking-water supply on March 16, a few days after the Fukushima accident on March 11. No radiation was detected in that day’s sample. But this was to be expected because it took until March 18 and 19 for the radioactive plume from Fukushima to first hit the west coast of Canada.
Instead of continuing with frequent monitoring, the city didn’t do another radiation test until March 25—nine days after the first test. On March 25, testing detected alpha radiation at 0.11 becquerels per litre in the drinking water at the city’s Seymour-reservoir intake.
Alpha radiation comes from isotopes like plutonium-238 and is the most dangerous form of radiation when ingested or inhaled.
That nine-day hole between March 16 and 25 is exactly when SFU prof Starosta found massive radiation spikes in rainwater in Burnaby.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-10-21 09:22.
Just because you detect alpha doesn't mean it is plutonium. You need to do alpha spectroscopy. There are numerous natural isotopes that will be found in your water that alpha decay. It could have been uranium, thorium, radium, radon, bismuth, radium, etc. All of those are in nature and alpha decay.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-10-21 16:33.
The fact remains that all that plutonium shot into the air had to go somewhere. And will keep going places, for a long, long time to come.
It could well be plutonium in Vancouver drinking water. It being on the tip of the first downwind landmass, it would seem to be more likely than most places to have a nice little collection. However, it seems like the mountain regions in North America got hit the worst of all, as was the case in Japan.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-11 08:13.
The fact remains that all that plutonium shot into the air had to go somewhere. And will keep going places, for a long, long time to come.
==========================================
The amount of plutonium dispersed by Fukushima pales compared with the amount that was dispersed in the '50s and early '60s due to atmospheric nuclear testing; which is about 10 metric tons.
We've lived with that 10 metrics tons of plutonium in our environment for decades, and it amounts to a tiny fraction of what we get from Mother Nature. Courtesy of the University of Michigan:
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2011-11-11 14:51.
You act as if your statement suggests or actually PROVES some fact, but odd that you see no possible relationship to the millions of cancer deaths that have occurred to non-smokers since those nuclear tests, such as the twelve close friends and relatives that my wife and I sadly saw get cancer by the age of forty, which half of them died from.
I work for a federal
I work for a federal government food monitoring agency that monitors food grown in Canada. I can tell you that I brought up the issue of radiation getting into our food (through rainwater) with my manager soon after Fukushima and received nothing but silence.
Sigh. I used to be proud to
Sigh. I used to be proud to be Canadian.
City Data is acceptable
Vancouver Water Data appears plausible
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/water/qualitytreatment/QualityTre...
http://yourwatermatters.com/vancouver-water/post-fukushima-radiation-%E2...
In Vancouver, the city did
In Vancouver, the city did its first test of the drinking-water supply on March 16, a few days after the Fukushima accident on March 11. No radiation was detected in that day’s sample. But this was to be expected because it took until March 18 and 19 for the radioactive plume from Fukushima to first hit the west coast of Canada.
Instead of continuing with frequent monitoring, the city didn’t do another radiation test until March 25—nine days after the first test. On March 25, testing detected alpha radiation at 0.11 becquerels per litre in the drinking water at the city’s Seymour-reservoir intake.
Alpha radiation comes from isotopes like plutonium-238 and is the most dangerous form of radiation when ingested or inhaled.
That nine-day hole between March 16 and 25 is exactly when SFU prof Starosta found massive radiation spikes in rainwater in Burnaby.
Just because you detect
Just because you detect alpha doesn't mean it is plutonium. You need to do alpha spectroscopy. There are numerous natural isotopes that will be found in your water that alpha decay. It could have been uranium, thorium, radium, radon, bismuth, radium, etc. All of those are in nature and alpha decay.
The fact remains that all
The fact remains that all that plutonium shot into the air had to go somewhere. And will keep going places, for a long, long time to come.
It could well be plutonium in Vancouver drinking water. It being on the tip of the first downwind landmass, it would seem to be more likely than most places to have a nice little collection. However, it seems like the mountain regions in North America got hit the worst of all, as was the case in Japan.
Actually...
The fact remains that all that plutonium shot into the air had to go somewhere. And will keep going places, for a long, long time to come.
==========================================
The amount of plutonium dispersed by Fukushima pales compared with the amount that was dispersed in the '50s and early '60s due to atmospheric nuclear testing; which is about 10 metric tons.
We've lived with that 10 metrics tons of plutonium in our environment for decades, and it amounts to a tiny fraction of what we get from Mother Nature. Courtesy of the University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
That 10 metrics tons of plutonium is part of the dose labeled "fallout" in the table, which amounts to a trivial <0.03% of your annual dose.
You act as if your statement
You act as if your statement suggests or actually PROVES some fact, but odd that you see no possible relationship to the millions of cancer deaths that have occurred to non-smokers since those nuclear tests, such as the twelve close friends and relatives that my wife and I sadly saw get cancer by the age of forty, which half of them died from.
Will a member of YOUR family be next?
what we get is what we sign up for...
'....10 metrics tons of plutonium in our environment for decades, and it amounts to a tiny fraction of what we get from Mother Nature....'
Your Mother Nature wears army boots and spews Pu? What planet are you from ?