Please share far and wide!

Friday, August 1, 2014

Bringing it Home, Understanding Cesium Deposition at Fukushima and Stirred Up Dust

I like doing this type of calculations that "Bring it Home"

Some others at ENENEWS have gotten good at it. With all the big numbers, scientific notation, various ways of expressing radiation units that the pro-radiation stakeholders use to confuse people....well it's nice when something is presented in an easy to wrap your head around way.

OLDFOOL Since a trillionth of a gram of Cs-137 emits over 3.2 becquerel, a gram of Cs-137 would emit over 3.2 trillion becquerels. So if they are saying that all the dust they created released no more than 4 trillion becquerels, they are implying they only stirred up 1.25 grams of Cs-137 in the dust. I cannot imagine any construction project at that site only stirring up 1.25 grams of Cs-137 in the dust. Most construction projects stir up several kilograms of dust. It would not be pure Cs-137 of course. But it would be more than 1.25 grams. Somebody has made a mistake in their math.

 Securitize July 17, 2014 at 10:04 pm · Reply A Becquerel indicates, on average, an amount of radiation where one radioactive “decay” event occurs each second. 37 billion becequerels are in one curie, or 37 billion disintegrations per second.

Potassium 40 exists in bananas and other fruits and is very weakly radioactive, 71 ten-millionTHs of a curie pure gram. By contrast, cesium 137 has 88 curies per gram. Indeed Cs 137 and Sr 90 emit 10-20 million times more radioactivity than comparable amounts of potassium 40.

Cesium 137 is a significant portion of the long-lasting radioactive isotopes emitted during a nuclear meltdown or other accident. The amount of cesium 137 deposited per square kilometer can thus be used to determine whether that land is fit for human habitation. The lands around the Chernobyl and Fukushima reactors are considered completely uninhabitable for decades based on ~10 curies per square km, or if you like ~25 curies per square mile.

Thus, slightly more than 1/3 of ONE GRAM of cesium 137, deposited across a square mile of land as a smoke or gas, is enough to render that land uninhabitable for decades. Contamination of ~10 curies per square km, ~25 curies per square mile, or ~1/3 of a gram of Cs 137 per sq mi, renders the area unfit for raising crops or livestock. For comparison, dozens of nuclear power plants in the US hold fuel rods containing more than 100 million curies of Cs 137. Remember that just 100 curies can render 1 sq mi uninhabitable.

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

29 comments:

  1. Hi... I suggest enenews meet under NukePro tree if it's down for good...

    Peace

    Bo

    ReplyDelete
  2. All are welcome, even the trolls LOL

    Yeah ENE down hard

    ReplyDelete
  3. Classy hospitality! Thanks, stock :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL I love a good troll joust

      Delete
    2. Just about bananas. Sure bananas do contain radioactive K40, as the thorium nuclear shills love to emphasise. But the thing is; - no matter how many bananas you eat, the body's concentration of K40 remains the same. Homeostatic mechanisms deal with that, as they do for many other matters. Homo Sapiens has been living with K40 for millennia
      In the case of radioactive Cesium134/137 - these isotopes, unknown nature, are created by nuclear fission. When ingested, they accumulate in the body.

      Delete
    3. @Christina, great points on K40 potassium like the old banana lie. Another point is that potassium spreads evenly through the cells. This is far different than congregators like strontium that concentrate in the bone, and Cesium that loads preferentially into muscle (think heart), and of course, hot particles that lodge somewhere in the body and perform mutliple attacks on the adjacent cells, like an MMA fighter who kicks the shite out of your every few hours....how is that going to turn out?

      Delete
  4. Hey Stock, love what you've done with the place. Just checking in to see if anyone has an update on Enenews going down. Hope the Admin is OK. Guess you might be the default hangout if he gets taken down for bit. I'll check back in later..

    Proud to see you on the trail of the Global Warming Scam. Here is the definitive video that will drive a stake through this ungodly lie once and for all. Worth watching just to see the look on the Senators faces. Enjoy and share! AP57

    Global Warming Debunked at Senate Hearing 3/26/2013
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFyH-b3FRvE

    Here it is again in a different setting.

    Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. Part 1 Intro and Scientific Method
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWHMaWJkYDg

    Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. Part 2 - Climate Facts
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbDieg9HChA

    Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. Part 3 Computer Models
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo9h41NQtTc

    Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. Part 4 - CO2 and Global Warming
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz_JuqKsYbY

    Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. Part 5 - Sea levels, Climate
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjPmo2KrOa0

    Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. Part 6 Evidence vs Models
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZvMlbEg47s

    Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. Part 7 Questions
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2O_buWcknY

    More ammo if you need it at the NWO Survival Guide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I wish I had time right now to step it up a bit, but thats a no-go. Building a 28 foot fishing boat, and supposed to be in water in 8 days.

      I was uncertain on global warming until I looked at the real data. What a farce, those powers that be have complete disdain for the little people.

      Delete
  5. Just got an en email message from enenews and the home page is up, but everything else is still down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, its back up for me, that is great.

      Delete
  6. @stock

    You'll probably classify me as a "troll," but since you claim to like a good joust, I thought I would attempt to add a bit of information to go along with your effort to convince people that tiny doses of radiation should be causes for fear and costly evacuations.

    People should understand the lack of hazard that comes when exposed to low levels of radiation - which are defined to be something less than 700 mSv/year -- as long as any individual exposure does not exceed 100 mSv.

    There might be some who consider that an annual dose rate from Cs-137 that was released 3 years ago from a nuclear reactor accident exceeding 1 mSv/year renders land "uninhabitable," but that is an absurd position. Those people apparently overlook the fact that there are places around the world that have been inhabited by people for thousands of years where the natural background radiation can be as high as 250 mSv/year in hot spots and where people are often exposed to 30 mSv/year.

    Human bodies have no way of telling if an alpha, beta or gamma comes from a "natural" or "manmade" source, but some governmental regulators behave as if we can and should treat manmade sources of radiation as uniquely hazardous.

    I won't provide links on this first comment on your site, but I would be happy to do so in future posts if invited to do so. (I understand how links are often indicators of spam.)

    Rod Adams
    Publisher, Atomic Insights

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rod, you will have un-ban me from your own site if you wish to continue to post here. stock out

      Delete
    2. I have no idea who you are or why you think you are banned from my site. There are fewer than a handful of identities who have earned that status and "stock" is not one of them.

      Delete
    3. @Rod, I don't recall what name I was using at your site, but many of your rabid commentators relentlessly attacked me with false arguments and adhominems, and then you went on record as stating that "any means are allowable and justified in attacking anti-nukers". Yes I was banned several months ago.

      stock out

      Delete
    4. As an independent reader, and a concerned citizen, i have yet to see Stock say those exact things you claim. It appears to me that you are putting words in his mouth.

      PS: You do readership here and possibly elsewhere a disservice, in my humble opinion, by not discussing internal versus external emitters, nor do you appear to recognize chemical toxicities of such. You have already discredited yourself here in my eyes.

      Delete
  7. Go visit Rod at Atomic Insights, they don't tolerate truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd rather stick to guns here to help "bring it home".

      For instance, Jebus had some interesting commentary the other day.
      Quote: "Aye, look what's happening in Canada.

      All dressed up in a visibly appealing package of studies.

      I only made it to the board of directors page.

      3.5 mil is chump change, but something had the CPTB concerned.

      Or, it's save our nuke ass brain trusting…

      It lists all the "projects"

      Here is the contamination research part.

      InFORM: International Fukushima Ocean Radionuclide Monitoring Network

      http://meopar.ca/meopar-meeting-ocean-challenges-via-seven-new-research-projects/

      Too tired to dig further…"
      ...
      "I might add that, Kenny Ole Boy, got his grant to study, if you don't have time to read the above…"

      http://enenews.com/nhk-news-flash-meltdown-at-fukushima-worse-than-thought-most-of-nuclear-fuel-melted-through-reactor-3-and-continued-down-to-bottom-of-outer-containment-vessel-has-changed-their-unders/comment-page-1#comment-560791

      Oh, it goes beyond that.
      That got my hopes up briefly. The thought behind the hope was that finally, we are going to get some concrete numbers, and the data will drive minds. What i found, sadly, seems to be mind prejudging data.
      How did i arrive at this theory?
      That would be viia verbal data.

      Noticed Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the list. As others had uncovered, it seems they receive at least a portion of their funding from NOAA & The Navy, if i remember correctly. That was disappointment numero uno for me.

      Health Canada is in their too. Disappointment numero dos. I'll leave that for now.

      Wondering where to look next, i start from the top with the Principal Investigator Dr. Jay Cullen. Seeing UVic's name in there, my curiosity was stimulated.

      Quote: "The 2011 meltdown of nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (FD-NPP) released radionuclides into the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean. Measurements indicate that a plume of seawater contaminated with FD-NPP radionuclides arrived in Canadian coastal water in June 2013. The InFORM team will build a distributed monitoring network involving government, academic, private sector and citizen scientists to acquire data, assess radiological risks and rapidly, appropriately and effectively disseminate this information to the public."

      http://meopar.ca/meopar-meeting-ocean-challenges-via-seven-new-research-projects/

      Thank you, Jebus for that link.

      Delete
    2. I refer now to a Victoria Times Colonist oped piece, written by Jay T. Cullen.

      Title: "Comment: Fukushima radioactivity is not a threat to B.C." ... "November 21, 2013"

      Quote: "Since the Fukushima Daiichi disaster on March 11, 2011, there are many reports of the potential impact of radioactivity from Fukushima causing harm to sea life and people on the West Coast of North America.

      But radioactivity from Japan poses no danger and little risk to us on the West Coast."

      http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-fukushima-radioactivity-is-not-a-threat-to-b-c-1.703961

      To Doctor Cullen's credit, he does cite some evidence to back up his opinion.


      Title: "Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood" ... " approved April 18, 2013 (received for review December 14, 2012) "

      Quote from Abstract: ... "PBFT captured off California in August 2011 contained activity concentrations below those from naturally occurring radionuclides. To link the radioactivity to possible health impairments, we calculated doses, attributable to the Fukushima-derived and the naturally occurring radionuclides, to both the marine biota and human fish consumers. We showed that doses in all cases were dominated by the naturally occurring alpha-emitter 210Po and that Fukushima-derived doses were three to four orders of magnitude below 210Po-derived doses."

      http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10670.full

      Title: "Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California" ... "approved April 25, 2012 (received for review March 22, 2012)"

      Quote from Abstract: "We report unequivocal evidence that Pacific bluefin tuna, Thunnus orientalis, transported Fukushima-derived radionuclides across the entire North Pacific Ocean. We measured γ-emitting radionuclides in California-caught tunas and found 134Cs (4.0 ± 1.4 Bq kg−1) and elevated 137Cs (6.3 ± 1.5 Bq kg−1) in 15 Pacific bluefin tuna sampled in August 2011. We found no 134Cs and background concentrations (∼1 Bq kg−1) of 137Cs in pre-Fukushima bluefin and post-Fukushima yellowfin tunas, ruling out elevated radiocesium uptake before 2011 or in California waters post-Fukushima. These findings indicate that Pacific bluefin tuna can rapidly transport radionuclides from a point source in Japan to distant ecoregions and demonstrate the importance of migratory animals as transport vectors of radionuclides."

      http://www.pnas.org/content/109/24/9483.full

      What is causing me (quote) "public anxiety and concern"? It appears the lead investigator has already made his mind up, long before any such "distributed monitoring network" can be designed, tested, and implimented - let alone any data gathered or preliminarily analyzed.

      Delete
  8. Respectfully, I believe the public, including First Nations deserve better from our public savants.


    Title: "Limitations of the ICRP Recommendations for Worker and Public Protection from Ionizing Radiation" by Dr. Gordon Edwards

    Quote: "I am referring to the very narrow administrative decisions which limit the focus of ICRP concern, and make possible the simplifications designed for administrating its recommendations. For example, the recognized biological endpoints deemed to be of concern for regulatory purposes are limited to: radiation induced fatal cancers and serious genetic diseases in live born offspring. "

    http://www.ccnr.org/radiation_standards.html


    How many bluefin were caught? Where and when were they caught?
    I see now. They refer with footnote (2) to the older submission to the PNAS.

    Will take some time to review, as we are all human and subject to our own humanity. That is, human beings have a tendancy towards making mistakes. Not here to besmirch anyone's good name. This is simply my own personal observations, and the "preliminary editorial" here is my own humble opinion.


    Thank you for your consideration of such disclaimer.
    If however; this "op-ed piece" aligns with the truth, you have my full permit to use any or all of my words Stock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dud, thanks for all the comments, they are very insightful. you even give the minimalists some credit were you can. I am days away from finishing my rebuild on a 28' fishing and excursion boat complete with 2 hot water showers, convection microwave, dual 3.7L engines, radar, 120V inverter, blu-ray, etc, etc, etc, etc, very excited to get this beast in the water. And yes, I will test the fish for radiation and mercury. So BUSY.

      But in future I will compile a bunch of your posts into articles at the nuke pro, mahalo and out.

      Delete
    2. @Dud, I see Woods A-Holes as part of that meopar study. I see that as a real problem.

      I also worry that they are study ship noise effect on marine environment whilst goverments blast 140 dB to talk to their subs and other nefarious stuff.

      I have pictures of a dead whale on the beach at Barking Sands Kauai, 1 week after they start underwater "communication", that was early 2000 years.

      Delete
  9. Was being "tongue in cheek" about "credit".
    Actually, it appears to be a discredit concerning the head of "MOPAR" stating (quote) "Fukushima radioactivity is not a threat to B.C." ... "November 21, 2013"" based upon a couple of bluefin tuna caught off of California in August of 2011.

    He appears to have already drawn conclusions well ahead of any data.
    Isn't that a form of academic dishonesty?
    Shouldn't the data drive conclusions, not the other way around?

    How can that man be aloud to head such a division?

    Would anyone be surprised to find more examples after further research?

    Citizens NEED an open-source electronics project towards employing laptops/desktops/"stupid"phones to collect pulse data from low-cost "sensors", such as "ye old" 2N2222A transistors via Audio Input for said computing devices.

    We need public-gathered data not subject to "massaging" STAT, imho.

    Spectrometry for the Masses could involve separate "audio" input to detect gamma sources, beta, x-ray, etc. (alpha?) Welders could certainly immediately benefit, for instance (polarity affecting bremsstrahlung directionality - DCEN vs DCEP).

    Feel free to utilize any research presented here by myself, with credit to "me" or not. I don't care if i'm mentioned. I just want to know what is, not some academic opinion of what isn't there based upon dubious small sample size outdated data from a different part of the world which might as well be from Tuktoyaktuk because the data presented by that Doctor has little to do with radioisotopes here.

    Domo arigato.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Title: "UVic Gives Banana Molesting Nuclear Apologist Jay Cullen $630,000 Hush Fund"

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXMA9FcmecA
      by beautifulgirlbydana

      Sweet Jesus bye! Ya haz my vote!

      Delete
    2. yes most of these scientist are nothing more than whoremesis radiation mongers chasing the almighty grant money. There will be a special place in hell for them.

      Delete
    3. Good morning Stock! O-genki desu ka?

      That was disturbing news concerning Desolation Sound Marine Park to Molly's Reach (set of CBC TV series "The Beachcombers", if i have that correct)

      Compared to beautifulgirlbydana, Ductor Cullen appears to be simply a "navel" researcher. Wonder how much lint he has garnered so far today? (nope no fuku-goo there, only cobwebs! He doesn't even have to look. His mind is already made up. :lol)

      PS: don't forget thermal sensor for neg. post on battery for inverter/charger. Why does nobody like utilizing 240VAC for inverter output? Is it floating neutral?

      Delete
    4. @Dud, yes of course its a 'floating' nuetral, its a BOAT lol

      4 tradesmen working on the boat today, massive progress in the works. Lit up the interior and exterior power panels and sub panels last night.

      Wifey is pissed, the galley is better than her kitchen, lol

      Delete
    5. Ah. lol. 120VAC safer than 240 on water, i presume.
      How is neutral bonded to ground, if at all?
      Am unfamiliar with marine electrics. Tek cable w. waterproof connections might be utilized.
      If that is a boat (w. 2 panels & sub-panels), how do you define "ship"?

      Nevermind; i digress too far off topic. d'oh

      Cool stuff though!

      Delete
    6. @Dud
      Ill post up some pictures when it is done, now 50 projects underway.
      I think I have 8 total panels and busses

      I think everything grounds at the engine which also grounds through transom to water, I think, the Xantrex inverter instructions will rule of course.

      The 120AC all gets 2 pole breakers to break the hot and neutral, that is required to meet commercial marine code for future charter, plus it’s a good idea.


      If you want a real laugh, check out these whoremesis whores who obviously have some training, but are just pychopathic idiots, Cyril is recommending that the Japanese be forced to resettle at 730 mSv external amd that none of that will become internal, and because cesium is gamma and the W(r) of gamma is 1, that therefore there is no risk to the internal cesium beyond that of external cesium. Wow, just wow.

      http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2014/08/innumerate-professionals.html

      They are linked in with Rod Adams and they are sent to discredit me, LOL

      Delete
    7. Trolls help me refine my game, never met a troll that had real game, blue pill takes your game away.

      Delete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments