Please share far and wide!

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Radiation in the Ocean Food Chain, An Assessment of BioMagnification

A good report on bioaccumulation, I will summarize when I can, bottom line....causes increases of 1000's of times.

This chart is from Woods Hole.    I annotated it, since their description of different rates of plutonium absorption was verbal and very hard to track, seems intentionally so.

Then I tried to come up with actual radiation measurements in the water and the animal life.   The link below has decent water data, and some limited fish and ocean biota.

This report from Woods Hole Oceangraphic Institute is interesting to read.    Of course they always end with "Further research is needed", LOL as giving them more money is their prime objective.

Interesting though....rather then doing testing on Marine Life, they do a lot of testing on water and they do modeling of ocean flows, and it seems a prime objective is to calculate the "source term" of what came out of Fukushima.     This Source Term is an estimate of what and how many radionuclides left the buildings.    Is seems odd but I guess that is what scientists do....calculate things.

But since they are in the ocean on  a boat equipped  with advanced radiation analysis equipment, and the ability to catch fish.     It sure seems like my prime focus would be to test the fish! And the bait crops.

 The above is the main article.     You need to do quite a bit of bouncing around to get to the meat of that data.

Chart below  shows that contaminated water does not mix vertically much.     The radiation stays in the top 300 feet primarily.    It stays where 95% of the fish and critters stay.   It stays where it can do the most damage.

Finally, the bogeyman that no one wishes to speak of.    Strontium.    Strontium goes into bones and becomes a permanent part of the food chain. 

This article states that the Strontium can be present in same levels or more, than the Cesium.

Radiostrontium in the western North Pacific: characteristics, behavior, and the Fukushima impact.


The impact of the Fukushima-derived radiostrontium ((90)Sr and (89)Sr) on the western North Pacific Ocean has not been well established, although (90)Sr concentrations recorded in surface seawater offshore of the damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant were in some areas comparable to or even higher than (as those in December 2011 with 400 kBq m(-3)(90)Sr) the (137)Cs levels. The total amount of (90)Sr released to the marine environment in the form of highly radioactive wastewater could reach about 1 PBq. Long-term series (1960-2010) of (90)Sr concentration measurements in subtropical surface waters of the western North Pacific indicated that its concentration has been decreasing gradually with a half-life of 14 y. The pre-Fukushima (90)Sr levels in surface waters, including coastal waters near Fukushima, were estimated to be 1 Bq m(-3). To better assess the impact of about 4-5 orders of magnitude increased radiostrontium levels on the marine environment, more detail measurements in seawater and biota of the western North Pacific are required.
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
We also know this from our work on estimating the overall source term of all the nuke waste at Fukushima.     The strontium is about equal to the cesium.

Finally a link to some prior work I had done on the bioaccumulation, aka biomagnification on sea life in Alaska.    Alaska was hit particularly hard by the Fukushima fallout, in fact, Fukushima increased the radiation in sea life the same way a direct nuclear bomb test did at point blank range.

Wrap your head around that.

From Alaska 2011 June

The soil and lichens have VERY high radioactivity.   6000 Bq /kG!    30 Bq/kG is dangerous to animals and above 100 Bq/kG said animals cannot be sold.

Here is the full report you can download.   This is an extensive and quite scientific bio-assay of the Alaska waters in June 2011.     They don't plan on going back until 2016.  

So this survey is only 3 months after Fukushima, the opportutnity to bio-accumulate didn't have much time.      3.5 years later, results would be interesting

For your reference pico is 10E-12, or one trillionth
pCi is one trillionth of a Curie
A Curie is a relatively large amount of radiation
One Curie = 3.7E10 Bq

“…* Uranium-234 — 3.854 pCi/kg Dolly Varden
* Uranium-234 — 5.312 pCi/kg Goose Egg no shell
* Uranium-234 — 3.466 Ci/kg Gull egg
* Uranium-234 — 4.96 pCi/kg Chiton
* Uranium-234 — 9.344 pCi/kg Dragon Kelp
* Uranium-234 — 7.885 pCi/kg Rockweed
* Uranium-234 — 4.906 pCi/kg Greenling
* Uranium-234 — 2.304 pCi/kg Halibut
* Uranium-234 — 58.721 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue
* Uranium-234 — 8.86 pCi/kg Irish Lord
* Uranium-234 — 7.127 pCi/kg Octopus
* Uranium-234 — 4.976 pCi/kg Pacific Cod
* Uranium-234 — 4.644 pCi/kg Rockfish
* Uranium-234 — 3.032 pCi/kg Reindeer Lichen
* Uranium-234 — 3.906 pCi/kg Sea Urchin

* Plutonium-239 — .039 pCi/kg Dolly Varden
* Plutonium-239 — .186 pCi/kg Goose Egg no shell
* Plutonium-239 — .104 pCi/kg Gull egg
* Plutonium-239 — .298 pCi/kg Chiton
* Plutonium-239 — .093 pCi/kg Dragon Kelp
* Plutonium-239 — .084 pCi/kg Rockweed
* Plutonium-239 — .379 pCi/kg Greeling
* Plutonium-239 — .038 pCi/kg Halibut
* Plutonium-239 — 4.194 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue
* Plutonium-239 — .378 pCi/kg Irish Lord
* Plutonium-239 — .036 pCi/kg Octopus
* Plutonium-239 — .05 pCi/kg Pacific Cod
* Plutonium-239 — .279 pCi/kg Rockfish
* Plutonium-239 — .152 pCi/kg Reindeer Lichen
* Plutonium-239 — .195 pCi/kg Sea Urchin
* Plutonium-240 — .039 pCi/kg Dolly Varden
* Plutonium-240 — .106 pCi/kg Goose Egg no shell
* Plutonium-240 — .069 pCi/kg Gull egg
* Plutonium-240 — .149 pCi/kg Chiton
* Plutonium-240 — .037 pCi/kg Dragon Kelp
* Plutonium-240 — .02 pCi/kg Rockweed
* Plutonium-240 — .189 pCi/kg Greeling
* Plutonium-240 — .012 pCi/kg Halibut
* Plutonium-240 — 2.097 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue
* Plutonium-240 — .189 pCi/kg Irish Lord
* Plutonium-240 — .021 pCi/kg Octopus
* Plutonium-240 — .015 pCi/kg Pacific Cod
* Plutonium-240 — .139 pCi/kg Rockfish
* Plutonium-240 — .091 pCi/kg Reindeer Lichen
* Plutonium-240 — .117 pCi/kg Sea Urchin

Additional resources emailed in by Pia

Gillian Stewart testimony in support of Riverkeeper

Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation ( 1972 )

The bioaccumulation factor for phosphorus-32 in edible fish tissue 1984
2001 ORNL Study Summary & References

1998 Bioaccumulation and food-chain analysis for evaluating ecological risks in terrestrial and wetland habitats

2008 Environmental and Health Consequences of Depleted Uranium

1994/5 Evaluation of a Performance Assessment Methodology for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities
- clip "The PHG is based on the known carcinogenic effects of radiation observed in humans. In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published“ Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides: Federal Guidance Report 13”"
Have fun and thank you for all you do

And Majia weighs in with some meaty links, including an article by her on bio accumulation

The nuclear complex has known since 1953 that radionuclides – such as Strontium-90, pose irreparable risks to the biosphere.
Read about Project Sunshine
After completion of Project Sunshine (which followed Project Grabriel) the AEC commissioned many studies on bioaccumulation in the environment, which I review here:
A separate study funded by the Rockefellers – BEAR – was published in condensed form in 1956. The genetics subcommittee warned that radiation induces heritable mutations that are transmitted across generations, with potentially devastating long-term impacts to the human genome:
The nuclear complex has known that radionuclides poison life and yet the complex took little-to-no-action to stop the growing contamination of planet Earth, upon which we all depend.
The nuclear complex is leading us toward our extinction. But first we get to watch the animals we love die from our greed, corruption, and denial.


  1. US, USSR, UK, Japan... have all suppressed actual data under a cloak of 'secrecy' regarding nuclear and this situation is no different.

    Nuke Professional, by not analyzing the data - information you post, you are doing more to perpetuate false information. This study is flawed, analyze it! Also false information, including as 'normal' the FAR greater radiation from post-Fukushima, again, is compliant with propaganda, not empowering people with knowledge.

    The problem with WHOI is that they are building a case for explaining away radioisotopes traveling across the Pacific based on a very faulty report by Aoyma for IAEA. Very faulty. This is also happening with the buildup of false information.

    WHERE DOES FUKUSHIMA GO - Pacific and Atmosphere
    includes why Aoyma is unreasonable and unreliable modeling
    and confirms historical information that radionuclides do settle @ roughly 100 meters (328 feet)

    1. Marushka, I appreciate your commentary, but the claim of "perpetuating false information" is not just a little harsh, but kind of pisses me off.

      You quote "the study", what study?!, there are lots of studies cited. I think that maybe just because I quote Woods Hole (whom I normally refer to as Woods Whore)

      Also you sentence structure here makes no sense in English, which is perhaps not your native tonque, however when destroying someone else's language, it is best to keep politeness on top of your list.....

      "Also false information, including as 'normal' the FAR greater radiation from post-Fukushima, again, is compliant with propaganda, not empowering people with knowledge."

      And I really don't think that the average visitor to this site is going to be "thrown off" by any bullshit contained within a Woods Hole report, the sheeple don't come here much.

      Thanks for the comment, but try to be more constructive and specific in the future.

    2. the report by Aoyma is included in the link I provided
      and so is the information on where radionuclides settle.. item #10a and b

      "WHERE DOES FUKUSHIMA GO - Pacific and Atmosphere
      includes why Aoyma is unreasonable and unreliable modeling
      and confirms historical information that radionuclides do settle @ roughly 100 meters (328 feet) "

  2. IRSN:
    not nearly as bad as Chernobyl... study Chernobyl and you will know what we can expect in the worldt from now on.....
    The worst nuclear accident directly into a marine environment - first by fallout 12 -12 March 2011 (like the landmass around the world) and liquid directly into the Pacific (initially the worst was late March to early April 2011) and also by the spewing of hundreds of tonnes of contaminated water trying to keep the corium that's left at Fukushima Daiichi

  3. Any amd all information about how this accident affects our planet is appreciated.

    1. Ya, spread the word! link people to here, Mahalo!


Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments