4,700 terabecquerels highly radioactive water was released into the sea

[mmix]

in the contaminated water that leaked from underneath the pit near the Reactor 2 water intake.

Remember that one? TEPCO tried bath salt as a tracer to figure out where the water was coming from, until they finally figured out how to stop the leak.

Assuming the leak started on April 1 and lasted until April 6, TEPCO says 4,700 terabecquerels of radioactive materials were released from the crack into the ocean.

From TEPCO's press release (in Japanese):

Iodine-131: 2.8 x 10^15 becquerels (2,800 terabecquerels)
Cesium-134: 9.4 x 10^14 becquerels (940 terabecquerels)
Cesium-137: 9.4 x 10^14 becquerels (940 terabecquerels)
Total: 4.7 x 10^15 becquerels (4,700 terabecquerels)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dcoda.amplify.com/2011/04/22/fukushimas-gift-to-the-sea/

#Fukushima’s “Gift to the Sea”
Apr 22, 2011 11:00am by Elle D'Coda in
Green

Over 6 days, from April 1, 520 tons of highly radioactive water was released into the sea...much more than earlier reports suggested & 10,000 times more than Three Mile Island.

[3Miro]

So much for Sushi. Nobody eat fish from Japan.

[Artemis3]

At least for the next 30 years... (Caesium-137 half-life).

This is the end of TEPCO. Corporate greed bribed officials against the reports this plant had of cracks _before_ the quake. Now their whole assets and money can't ever repay the damage, its going bankrupt and/or nationalized. The gov also failed in being stricter.

Now the whole nation, if not region, will have to pay the consequences for decades; as if the natural tragedy wasn't enough, human selfish behavior was the worst.

[sdowney717]

Iodine 8 days half life
Cesium 30 years, thats a long time.

Sea water will dilute this, the ocean is large so the effect may be less than feared. Perhaps the sea life will rebound abundantly due to fishing pressures removed.

[mmix]

i see the opposite.
guess that radioactivity on inland is much safer than sea.

water is vaporized and circulated..

[forrestcupp]

So much for Sushi.
Yeah. All of the fish is cooked now.

[mmix]

note that this is into air.

Japan Nuclear Safety Commission greatly underestimated radioactive releases (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x949663)



http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/science/news/20110423-OYT1T00667.htm?from=y10

From Yomiuri Shinbun (9:15PM JST 4/23/2011):

The Nuclear Safety Commission under the Prime Minister's Office disclosed on April 23 that the amount of radioactive materials being released from the TEPCO Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant was 154 terabecquerels per day (1 tera is 1 trillion) as late as April 5 when the amount being released was considered stabilized.

On April 5, the estimated amount of radioactive materials released from Fukushima I Nuke Plant was 0.69 terabecquerels/hour for iodine-131 and 0.14 terabecquerels/hour for cesium-137. When the numbers were recalculated according to the INES method (converting cesium amount into iodine equivalent), the amount released turned out to be 6.4 terabecquerels/hour (which was 154 terabecquerels per day. Previously, the Nuclear Safety Commission had simply added the numbers for iodine-131 and cesium-137, and announced it was less than 1 terrabecquerel per hour.

[Johnsie]

It'll get diluted very quickly. The local area will be affected slightly over a temporary period until that dilution happens. Nothing for the rest of us to worry about though. You would need to ingest a lot to get sick from it.

[mmix]

wait and see, how things going on..

[mips]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2QK3xC7csdQ/TZ5Kr36MAaI/AAAAAAAAHkM/yCAwwCN_JX4/s1600/475491-SimpsonsFish.jpg

[mmix]

*nod*

[Random_Dude]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2QK3xC7csdQ/TZ5Kr36MAaI/AAAAAAAAHkM/yCAwwCN_JX4/s1600/475491-SimpsonsFish.jpg

:lolflag:

Well, let's just hope the dilution in the sea does the trick to avoid this.

Cheers :cool:

[handy]

:lolflag:

Well, let's just hope the dilution in the sea does the trick to avoid this.

Cheers :cool:

It's been happening for years already, I'm sorry to say.

[sdowney717]

how about natural oil seeps.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130944.htm

a major amount of oil seeps into the sea all the time naturally.
The sea and the earth have managed to handle what we today consider major amounts of pollution for millenia. If we dont interefere with the natural cleanup process then the earth does a better job of fixing itself.

Even the cesium with a 30 year half life will gradually decay. I really think the fears of people eating radioactive sea food will be a boon to sea life. At least for a short time.

Bikini atoll had many nuclear bombs tested how is it fairing today?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3339485/Marine-life-flourishes-at-Bikini-Atoll-test-site.html


It was blasted by the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United States but half a century on, Bikini Atoll supports a stunning array of tropical coral, scientists have found.

In 1954 the South Pacific atoll was rocked by a 15 megatonne hydrogen bomb 1,000 times more powerful than the explosives dropped on Hiroshima.

The explosion shook islands more than 100 miles away, generated a wave of heat measuring 99,000ºF and spread mist-like radioactive fallout as far as Japan and Australia.

But, much to the surprise of a team of research divers who explored the area, the mile-wide crater left by the detonation has made a remarkable recovery and is now home to a thriving underwater ecosystem.

[Random_Dude]

It's been happening for years already, I'm sorry to say.

What has been happening for years? Radioactive water dumped from Japan's nuclear power-plants or sea pollution in general?

[mips]

how about natural oil seeps.


I saw something once about the Exxon Valdez(?) spill where the untreated areas cleaned up much better than the chemically treated areas. We humans think we are clever and have all the answers but sometimes mother nature knows better. Radioactive waste is a different story though I reckon.

[handy]

What has been happening for years? Radioactive water dumped from Japan's nuclear power-plants or sea pollution in general?

Bizarre deformities, cancers & other diseases.

Due to any number of variables individually or in combination resulting from the multitudinous number ways that humanity has been polluting the waterways via industry & agriculture for so many years now.

All but a few plastic compounds accumulate chemicals that they come in contact with. There is 80 times more plastic than plankton in the oceans these days. The birds & fish eat it (having all kinds of effects on them), bigger fish eat the little fish & so it goes, then we eat the fish. (If you do eat fish, it is wisest to eat the small species & not the big ones, for this reason.)

We are poisoning the food chain from the bottom up.

There are many other things that we have done to devastate the oceans as well, see the following vid's to find out about some of them:

Addicted to Plastic:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoaMWdLTl38

See "Jeremy Jackson: How we wrecked the Ocean" in my signature.

[Random_Dude]

All but a few plastic compounds accumulate chemicals that they come in contact with. There is 80 times more plastic than plankton in the oceans these days. The birds & fish eat it (having all kinds of effects on them), bigger fish eat the little fish & so it goes, then we eat the fish. (If you do eat fish, it is wisest to eat the small species & not the big ones, for this reason.)


I thought that the poisoning of the food chain from bottom up was about mercury and arsenic (toxic materials), and not about mutagen chemicals.
I like the TED talks, I'll check that out later. ;)

Cheers :cool:

[conradin]

Isnt the Becquerel a measure of radioactivity rather than a quantity of material? I mean I could have 1 litter of water iradiated to 1 terabecqueral. As for contamination, Im thinking most of it will cool and settle at the ocean floor, I'm pretty sure cesium doesn't float and is relatively insoluble. Whats more likely I would guess, is a massive dead zone underwater.

[handy]

I thought that the poisoning of the food chain from bottom up was about mercury and arsenic (toxic materials), and not about mutagen chemicals.
I like the TED talks, I'll check that out later. ;)

Cheers :cool:

I was only mentioning some of the ways. There are also loads of 44 gallon (imperial) drums full of atomic waste that were dumped into the ocean first by the US, followed by others, since 1946:

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/ilr/ona/pages/dumping2.htm

"Addicted to Plastic" is a superb documentary, I highly recommend it. You may find that it is not what you think it is.

[Random_Dude]

Isnt the Becquerel a measure of radioactivity rather than a quantity of material? I mean I could have 1 litter of water iradiated to 1 terabecqueral. As for contamination, Im thinking most of it will cool and settle at the ocean floor, I'm pretty sure cesium doesn't float and is relatively insoluble. Whats more likely I would guess, is a massive dead zone underwater.

The OP say:
"Over 6 days, from April 1, 520 tons of highly radioactive water was released into the sea...much more than earlier reports suggested & 10,000 times more than Three Mile Island."

Yes, Becquerel is a measure of radioactivity, 1 Bq = 1 decay/s.
If 4,700 terabecquerels is for the whole 1, 520 tons, it might not be that much (I'm not familiar with the safety levels here). In this case, it's not irradiated water that becomes active, it's radioactive contaminants in the water.

@handy: I'll surely check out that documentary today too. It's gonna be documentary night. :)

Cheers :cool:

[Paqman]

Iodine 8 days half life
Cesium 30 years, thats a long time.


The longer the half-life, the less intense the radiation given off will be. It's the stuff that's decaying rapidly and spitting out a lot of alpha, beta and gamma particles as it does that is more of a problem.

However, like you say, dumping it into the sea should be a pretty effective way to diffuse it quite quickly. I guess it depends on whether any of it settles on the bottom or stays suspended in the water.

[handy]

...

However, like you say, dumping it into the sea should be a pretty effective way to diffuse it quite quickly. I guess it depends on whether any of it settles on the bottom or stays suspended in the water.

Either way, it becomes part of the food chain.

[Paqman]

Either way, it becomes part of the food chain.

Sure, but who can say what the actual impact is? Radioactive materials (by definition) tend to change from one element to another, which will have different chemical and physical properties, and affect biology differently. I wouldn't like to even begin to think about how complex the interactions would be. Maybe most of this stuff will fall to the seabed and be covered over really quickly? Maybe it'll move into deep water, maybe it'll stay in the shallows? How harmful are the daughter products to sea life? Where does it enter the food chain (if it does) and what does it do after it does?

The variables are endless, you could probably spend a lifetime studying it. In fact i'm sure there are people who do just that.

It's certainly not just a case of radioactive = bad. Radioactivity is a natural process. It's just when it becomes too concentrated and/or uncontrolled that it becomes unpleasant to be around. A bit like other natural processes like fire and electricity, really.

[ssam]

did you know that in london alone there are several thousand deaths per year from air pollution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8028244.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2010/jun/24/boris-johnson-london-air-pollution-study

ok, carry on.

[handy]

@Paqman: My wife was fishing down the south coast of NSW in 1975, on the southern side of the bay where she was fishing with her family, there was a large paper mill.

They were catching a lot of flathead fish. Though all of them were deformed, mostly with large lumps on their no longer flat head.

This circumstantially we blame on the chemicals that the paper mill would have been dumping & causing by run-off to enter the ocean. Though of course the paper mill would deny it & say we have no proof.

I agree, just because something is radioactive it doesn't necessarily mean that it will do damage. Though it certainly doesn't take much research to find that we are well into the process of devastating our oceans. The experts say that in 20 -> 30 years our oceans will be dead.

[NCLI]

Meh, the ocean is huge. Not a big problem.

Chemical waste and global warming are bigger issues.

[Paqman]

This circumstantially we blame on the chemicals that the paper mill would have been dumping & causing by run-off to enter the ocean.

You'd probably be right. Paper production uses huge amounts of water, energy and chemicals. Regular industry dumps a lot more dangerous gunk into the sea every day than this disaster has caused the plant at Fukushima to spill.

I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, i'm just saying let's put the problems at Fukushima in perspective. I'd be willing to put money on the environmental damage from spills and fires at non-nuclear industry in Japan outweighing the damage from the nuclear facilities by a considerable amount. Focussing only on the nuclear problems as the media seem to have done misses the point.

[handy]

Meh, the ocean is huge. Not a big problem.

Chemical waste and global warming are bigger issues.

I think you should do some research on the topic. After you do you may be slightly more concerned about what is happening to the oceans.

The effects to life on earth as these already existing dead zones continue to grow will be devastating.

Their growth will have an ever increasing impact on many aspects of life on earth, not the least of which being the weather patterns, climate change & of course the accursed global warming.

This is apart from the continued mass destruction of the intricate & interrelated biological systems that exist at all depths of the oceans.

Without bringing C02 (man made or otherwise) into the debate, what we are doing to the oceans will continue to cause with ever increasing effect, global warming & climate change all on its own.

Which is of course, just another catastrophe!

[handy]

You'd probably be right. Paper production uses huge amounts of water, energy and chemicals. Regular industry dumps a lot more dangerous gunk into the sea every day than this disaster has caused the plant at Fukushima to spill.

I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, i'm just saying let's put the problems at Fukushima in perspective. I'd be willing to put money on the environmental damage from spills and fires at non-nuclear industry in Japan outweighing the damage from the nuclear facilities by a considerable amount. Focussing only on the nuclear problems as the media seem to have done misses the point.

The media can't exist without the attention. The more attention they get, the more power they have & the more money they make. Uncle Rupert told me so.

[forrestcupp]

Sure, but who can say what the actual impact is?

We'll let you be the first to test out eating seafood from that area. ;)

[lonewohlf42]

They now are going to have the record for the most radioactive place on earth.

[NCLI]

I think you should do some research on the topic. After you do you may be slightly more concerned about what is happening to the oceans.

The effects to life on earth as these already existing dead zones continue to grow will be devastating.

Their growth will have an ever increasing impact on many aspects of life on earth, not the least of which being the weather patterns, climate change & of course the accursed global warming.

This is apart from the continued mass destruction of the intricate & interrelated biological systems that exist at all depths of the oceans.

Without bringing C02 (man made or otherwise) into the debate, what we are doing to the oceans will continue to cause with ever increasing effect, global warming & climate change all on its own.

Which is of course, just another catastrophe!
I was just trying to say that compared to many of the other things we're pouring into the oceans, this relatively small amount of radioactive water is nothing.

[Paqman]

They now are going to have the record for the most radioactive place on earth.

You might be surprised how radioactive much of the Earth is anyway. A lot of places have quite high levels of natural background radiation from radon gas. One place near where my wife's family live in Cornwall actually recorded 17,000 bq m^-3 (the action level is only 200bq m^-3, though).

The problem with Fukushima is that they've released a reasonably high level of radiation over a short period. That makes it a genuine issue for the local area, but once you stop emitting horrible stuff the danger drops off pretty quickly.

[sdowney717]

experts say that in 20 -> 30 years our oceans will be dead.
I dont believe it.
In 20 or 30 years many of the experts will be dead and new experts will say in 20 or 30 years the oceans will be dead.:P

[KiwiNZ]

During the 70's I can recall being told at college that the planet will uninhabitable by the turn of the century, this was by environmental experts. That turn of the century was eleven years ago and the planet is still going.

With regards to this "alarmist" thread. This is not your normal industrial spillage or discharge, there is somewhat sizable mitigating circumstances here.

[forrestcupp]

During the 70's I can recall being told at college that the planet will uninhabitable by the turn of the century, this was by environmental experts. That turn of the century was eleven years ago and the planet is still going.

Thank you. It seems like there has always been a lot of extreme environmental alarm around here.

[cgroza]

During the 70's I can recall being told at college that the planet will uninhabitable by the turn of the century, this was by environmental experts. That turn of the century was eleven years ago and the planet is still going.

With regards to this "alarmist" thread. This is not your normal industrial spillage or discharge, there is somewhat sizable mitigating circumstances here.
It keeps going, but for how much time, provided we keep polluting at this pace?

[dh04000]

As a biochemist, the iodine release does not scare me. An 8 day half-life is very short.

If the isotope release were to end today, the equation to describe its decay would be as following.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/5/f/b5fb5185dde86c5a87fdc783bfd4c7ad.png

Where:

N(t) = number of particles remaining after a certain period of time
N(o) = initial number of particles
t = a certain period of time
t(1/2) = the half-life of the particle

So, if we wanted to know how long it would take for the number of iodine particles remaining after one year from their incident (assuming no more iodine is released in the environment), we set up the equation as follows. we'll make the original number of particles as 1 in order to make the math easy.


N(365days) = 1(1/2)^(356days/8days)
N(365days) = 1(1/2)^(45.625)
N(365days) = 1(1.843*10^-14)
N(365days) = 1.843*10^-14 particles

To find the fraction remaining simply divide.

A year from now, only 1 in 5.43*10^13 particles will be remaining in the environment.

So close to zero its unimaginable.



Now the issue with one of the cesium isotopes is that is half-life is around 30 years. If you crank the math for the number of cesium particles remaining after one year, then.

N(1year)= 0.977 or 97.7% of the particles will remain in the environment after one year after the release.

Even worse than this is that in the environment cesium is bio-accumulative. Meaning that is concentrates in organisms. A water column with a very low cesium concentration can still have a high concentration in the biological organisms in the water column. This is because Cs(+1), the cesium cation is electrochemically similar to potassium K(+1) cation, a necessary nutrient. Potassium is rare in the environment, so biological systems have evolved to be stingy with potassium, refusing to release it from their bodies. Longer lived organisms will accumulate cesium in their bodies as they eat smaller organisms, reaching higher and higher concentrations in their own bodies. (The bald eagles were nearly wiped out by DDT bio-accumulation). Even if only half of the particles exist 30 years form now, the concentration in long lived species like blue finned tuna could have higher concentrations of cesium in their bodies 30 years from now than just one year from the cesium release.

Even longer lived species like "humans" could also bio-accumulate cesium, causing cancer in the long run.

Iodine is also an element that bio-accumulates, but due to its short half-life it will not be an issue(we lucked out).


Be prepared, the problem with radioactive cesium isotopes will be an issue we will hear for YEARS to come if enough of it is released into the water. Just ask the people of Chernobyl.

[handy]

I dont believe it.
In 20 or 30 years many of the experts will be dead and new experts will say in 20 or 30 years the oceans will be dead.:P

Have a look at the relatively short TED talk on the Oceans that is in my signature.

The guy that gives the talk is most certainly no fool, that has a head full of book learning from university. He has been involved in the research on site, in the oceans for longer than many of us here will live.

The "Addicted to Plastic" documentary also has a major focus on what we have done & are doing to the oceans & the associated life forms, it is a documentary that I think the would benefit the planet if everyone living on it old enough to make sense of it should also see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoaMWdLTl38

[handy]

During the 70's I can recall being told at college that the planet will uninhabitable by the turn of the century, this was by environmental experts. That turn of the century was eleven years ago and the planet is still going.

With regards to this "alarmist" thread. This is not your normal industrial spillage or discharge, there is somewhat sizeable mitigating circumstances here.

It is too easy to find ways to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because of the way something played out once in our life decades ago, doesn't mean that, that is valid for all seemingly similar situations that we present themselves to us for the rest of our lives.

Times change, & sometimes those changes bring cumulative effects that are so often, extremely difficult for our tiny brains to truly comprehend. So we often take the easy way out & say she'll be right mate.

You may call me alarmist if you like. I made my posts in response to people thinking that everything is OK in our oceans, & have tried to point them in the direction of doing a little research on the topic by posting a few links in this thread, links to easily accessible information on the topic.

As far as the radioactivity from Japan is concerned, it just adds its effect to the ever increasing amount of poisons & rubbish that we have put into the soup that our oceans are becoming.

Not all of the waters of this world are as fresh as many of the lakes in NZ are, I'm very sorry to say.

[ikt]

During the 70's I can recall being told at college that the planet will uninhabitable by the turn of the century, this was by environmental experts.

Was it scientific consensus?

No.

I was told that Apple would die and Linux would never take off beyond hobby software by "IT experts", see where I'm going?

[KiwiNZ]

It is too easy to find ways to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because of the way something played out once in our life decades ago, doesn't mean that, that is valid for all seemingly similar situations that we present themselves to us for the rest of our lives.

Times change, & sometimes those changes bring cumulative effects that are so often, extremely difficult for our tiny brains to truly comprehend. So we often take the easy way out & say she'll be right mate.

You may call me alarmist if you like. I made my posts in response to people thinking that everything is OK in our oceans, & have tried to point them in the direction of doing a little research on the topic by posting a few links in this thread, links to easily accessible information on the topic.

As far as the radioactivity from Japan is concerned, it just adds its effect to the ever increasing amount of poisons & rubbish that we have put into the soup that our oceans are becoming.

Not all of the waters of this world are as fresh as many of the lakes in NZ are, I'm very sorry to say.

I am not saying that we do not need to change our ways with regards to what we do with our Oceans, they are the source of Life on this Planet. The food chain starts in the Ocean.

What I am saying is the "alarmist" do the cause a dis-service with their misinformation. Also what happened in Fukushima is not like the Industrial effluent discharge of 50's, 60's, 70's,80's and 90's. It was an accident with it's cause in Nature, a dreadful tragedy and unprecedented disaster that has needed radical moves to counter.

[dh04000]

Wow, I did a whole mathematical break down, and got ignored. Your off your game UF.

[handy]

Wow, I did a whole mathematical break down, and got ignored. Your off your game UF.

You weren't ignored by me at least. I thank you for your time & effort.

Your statements directly contradict some of what was said earlier in the thread (as I'm sure you know :)) re. which of the two iodine or cesium do the most damage, & you were kind enough to educate us on how that damage is done.

Which is scary, & adds to my suggestion earlier in this thread that if people must eat fish, they should eat the smaller varieties, as the larger & older ones are in general far more toxic.

[Paqman]

Wow, I did a whole mathematical break down, and got ignored. Your off your game UF.

Not at all, really interesting stuff.


You weren't ignored by me at least. I thank you for your time & effort.

Your statements directly contradict some of what was said earlier in the thread (as I'm sure you know :)) re. which of the two iodine or cesium do the most damage, & you were kind enough to educate us on how that damage is done.


Well, it's true that the short lived iodine will release radiation faster (hence the quick decay), but iodine absorption is also pretty easy to counter. If your body has plenty of iodine it won't take any in from the environment. It's also easy to treat the problems it causes.

So looking purely at the raw quantity of radiation that's been released doesn't really tell you what the impact is. It's also worth bearing in mind that when radioisotopes decay they turn into a variety of other isotopes, which have different chemical, biological and radiological effects. So it's pretty complex.

[dh04000]

Paqman has it right. The iodine isotope is much shorter lived and therefore will put out more radiation quicker, so will be MUCH more dangerous in the short term. Poisoning with it will be acute and very damaging. BUT, It will not hand around long enough to a long term cancer causing agent. Even at 1 month, or N(30days) the remaining number of iodine particles will be at just 7.4% of its original amount. At 2 months it'll be 0.55% of the original amount, and at 3 months, just 0.04%.

Basically avoid an acute exposure, and it'll be a non-issue very soon.

The Cesium has a much slower half-life, so therefore does not put out much radiation in comparison to the iodine, but unlike iodine, it will have a legacy. It will hand around for a LONG time. If anything will ruin farming/fishing industry/workers livelihoods, this will be it.

Hopefully, the amount released in the water will be so low that even with bio-accumulation, it'll be a non-issue. Here's hoping. :)

[DZ*]

The Cesium has a much slower half-life

Yes, but unlike the iodine isotope it does not stick around in thyroid or other tissues. It behaves like salt and washes out. Its "biological half-life" is days for mammals. There is an equilibrium concentration in fish depending on conentrations of salts in water, meaning that caesium concentration will always be higher in fish than in the environment, but excess amounts still wash out, although not as quickly as from mammals.

A greater danger is mercury in fish and that comes from burning coal. Airplane crashes get a lot of attention but car accidents kill far more people.

[DZ*]

Longer lived organisms will accumulate cesium in their bodies as they eat smaller organisms, reaching higher and higher concentrations in their own bodies.

This is incorrect. Caesium dynamics had been studied in freshwater fish after Chernobyl. Caesium reaches equilibrium values that are higher than concentrations in the surrounding environment but the excess washes out. It was also studied in plants where concentrations also went down after the initial exposure although not as quickly.

Search for

caesium-137 "biological half-life"

[dh04000]

Yes, but unlike the iodine isotope it does not stick around in thyroid or other tissues. It behaves like salt and washes out. Its "biological half-life" is days for mammals. There is an equilibrium concentration in fish depending on conentrations of salts in water, meaning that caesium concentration will always be higher in fish than in the environment, but excess amounts still wash out, although not as quickly as from mammals.

A greater danger is mercury in fish and that comes from burning coal. Airplane crashes get a lot of attention but car accidents kill far more people.

Yes, the body does hoard iodine in the thyroid, but keep in mind, it'll not last long enough to significantly bio-accumulate.

Actually, I just looked it up. Seawater contains 400ppm potassium. That's pretty high. That'll work in our favor in stopping bio-accumulation of cesium.

Maybe we don't have much to worry about? It looks like the fact this is happening to the water, and not on land is really playing to our favor. They weren't so lucky in Chernobyl. Iodine and Potassium is extremely rare on the land and in freshwater bodies/rivers. Grass soaked both up and were feed to cattle who poisoned a generation of children through their milk.



This is incorrect. Caesium dynamics had been studied in freshwater fish after Chernobyl. Caesium reaches equilibrium values that are higher than concentrations in the surrounding environment but the excess washes out. It was also studied in plants where concentrations also went down after the initial exposure although not as quickly.

Search for

caesium-137 "biological half-life"

If I understand this correctly, that means that after a "single dosing", half of the particles will remain in the body after 70 days. So, yes it will be flushed out. But, remember, there will be no "single dosing". A blue fin tuna eats every day. Each time it eats an contaminated fish, it gets another "dose". Each dose is a new 70 day counter. These doses can build up quicker than they are flushed from the body. This is the concept behind bio-accumulation. There is a maximum amount the fish can absorb, they can't have too much salt in their body. But, they could be at this maximum for YEARS after the original event due to subsequent dosing each time the fish consumes a contaminated fish. Any exceeded cesium goes back into the environment were it can end up back in a fish. It does not "go away" after being exceeded. Thus bio-accumulation a high cesium level in fish above the environmental concentration.

Ever chemical has a half-life in the body. Radioactive half-life and biological half-life are very different. Radioactive half-life is until the radioactive element is destroyed by a fission event. Such as releasing a alpha, beta particle, or neutron creating a stable element. Biological half-life is how long it takes to excrete half of the particles or for half of them to be degraded by the body, or a combination of both. A reactive element cannot be "degraded" by a body. Bodies can not destroy elements like they can break down molecules. We aren't nuclear reactors. They can only be flushed out.

[DZ*]

I think we need to be careful with analogies such as DDT accumulation. DDT accumulates in fat cells and cannot get out. The same with methyl-mercury because it forms a covalent bond with cystein in proteins. Once it's in, it sits there.

Thanks dh04000 for your input.

I just feel it's kind of irresponsible to post these scare articles, especially without any discussion. As I recall, the OP posted here before "run for your life it's raining isotopes" from tabloids (e.g. the daily mail).

[sydbat]

I just feel it's kind of irresponsible to post these scare articles, especially without any discussion. As I recall, the OP posted here before "run for your life it's raining isotopes" from tabloids (e.g. the daily mail).Agreed.

Also, I thought that politically charged, agenda based threads were not allowed under the CoC. Guess I was wrong...

[dh04000]

I think we need to be careful with analogies such as DDT accumulation. DDT accumulates in fat cells and cannot get out. The same with methyl-mercury because it forms a covalent bond with cystein in proteins. Once it's in, it sits there.

Thanks dh04000 for your input.

I just feel it's kind of irresponsible to post these scare articles, especially without any discussion. As I recall, the OP posted here before "run for your life it's raining isotopes" from tabloids (e.g. the daily mail).


I'm trying to add some real science in here, so it'll no longer be a scare article, but an educated opinion piece. :)

As a scientist I feel responsible to society to use my skills to help others understand scientific problems. Also, this honestly interests me, so I enjoyed doing the math and exploring this issue.

BTW, I looked it up. DDT has a half-life of 8 years in a biological systems(half is flushed out after 8 years, the body has no enzymes to deal with it). So the situation "should" not be as bad as DDT by far. :)

[handy]

...

BTW, I looked it up. DDT has a half-life of 8 years in a biological systems(half is flushed out after 8 years, the body has no enzymes to deal with it). So the situation "should" not be as bad as DDT by far. :)

So, to put it in perspective, the effects of DDT on the population that came in contact with it during the Vietnam war would have been far worse, to the point of being extreme, in comparison to the negative effects that the Japanese nuclear disaster will produce in its life time.


Now that I know that, I feel so much better...

[dh04000]

So, to put it in perspective, the effects of DDT on the population that came in contact with it during the Vietnam war would have been far worse, to the point of being extreme, in comparison to the negative effects that the Japanese nuclear disaster will produce in its life time.


Now that I know that, I feel so much better...

Its not as easy as that. Keep in mind that half-life is based on a single exposure. The size of the exposure, the concentration at which it is dangerous, and subsequent exposures are not part of the half-life calculation.

Lets not make an assumptions yet. Fishing in that part of the world needs to be suspended(as a safe guard) until they get data on the cesium and iodine concentrations in the fish themselves. Long term data collection will be needed to evaluate the risk for the next few years at least.

[handy]

I'm with you all the way dh04000.

I just slipped my previous comment in to bring the quality of multifaceted toxicity to the discussion...

[mmix]

As part of the Kuril found traces of radiation from the "Fukushima"

http://mysouth.su/2011/05/as-part-of-the-kuril-found-traces-of-radiation-from-the-quot-fukushima-quot/

-----------------------------------------------------

UCB Milk Sampling Results (http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2174)

UCB Food Chain Sampling Results (http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2525)

[CharlesA]

Just let the thread to die instead of stirring trouble.