Radioactive substances in seawater near Japan nuke plant

[highplainsdem]

Source: AFP

Radioactive substances in seawater near Japan nuke plant

(AFP) – 28 minutes ago

OSAKA — Abnormally high levels of radioactive substances have been detected in seawater near a quake-crippled nuclear power plant in Japan, its operator said early Tuesday.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) said the level of iodine-131 was 126.7 times higher and caesium-134 was 24.8 times higher than government-set standards.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hkvcJuytxEwNemFkk6Zxk-jdiGPw?docId=CNG.c1a375e7c725666e2ee5e250a84aa0a7.5d1

---

I'm editing this message, with help from the mods who've made it possible for me to edit it (thanks, mods!), after finding out the distance the testing was done from the plant was much closer than the AFP story reported.

As replies 25 and 28 explain, AFP had incorrectly reported that the test was 100 kilometers from the plant, when in fact it was 100 meters.

See these links for the story from NHK and the test data from TEPCO:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_19.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110322e1.pdf

[Lucinda]

1. With the ever present "not a threat to human health" thrown in for good measure

I'm glad the information is being released though...

[thereismore]

2. no, just fish health that humans might eat later. nt

[ixion]

6. yeah, suddenly these higher levels are 'no danger'

sorta like breathing the air after 911 was 'no danger'.

[marasinghe]

37. no problem. the Japanese govt. will reset the danger level with a decree.

like they did with the exposure levels, when they had to send the workers back into the plants.

[thereismore]

3. 100 km south? Did they sample the water closer? Of course there is stuff

in the water when they spray seawater into the cooling pools. That is the price for doing that.

[jpak]

22. Other reports say 100 m - someone need to edit these things

That said - if it was 100 km then this is amajor threat to Japanese fisheries and mariculture.

yup

[Hannah Bell]

26. NHK says the tests were done 100 METERS from the plant. a meter isn't a kilometer, or a mile.

1 foot = .3 meters.

i just heard the same measure used on nhk world tv.

someone is doing some really, really, bad reporting.

i'd bet on the foreign press.

the report above comes from Agence France-Presse.

the other info is the same, there's only the discrepancy between kilometers, meters, & apparently miles in some reports.

interesting considering some other questionable reports coming out of france.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_19.html

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. FUCK!!!

[jtuck004]

5. Dropping water from helicopters onto reactors which are spewing

radiation into the air which runs off the reactors onto the ground and into the sea, shooting water cannons and hoses into the same reactors accompanied by public statements that sometimes they don't know if the water is actually hitting the pool or even where it's going, and huge radioactive steam and smoke clouds from each of the 4 reactors rising into the sky and condensing over the land and sea, or being rained out of the sky, or escaping to ride the winds at higher altitudes.

And some got into the sea. Wow.

They are not putting near enough resources onto this. As of early today they were evacuating again because of smoke (radioactive) from 2 reactors.

And they have a firehose on it.

The gov needs to step in and take this crap away, cool these off, and get that fuel into stable onsite pools. We should be well beyond being polite to these idiots now. They even let #2 sit for days in a gamble that the pumps could put enough water in to overcome the damage that would be caused by waiting to open the outer building and flood it with more water.

That they are letting their own citizens bathe in the happy glow without really stepping in amazes me.

[flamingdem]

10. Not enough resources is right, the world need to be there or we are all skrewed nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. MSNBC...Tokyo residents told do NOT drink the tap water?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

8. In Tokyo? Are you sure?

I wonder if they may have misspoke? There's a village in the Fukushima Prefecture where they've been told not to drink the water. I can't recall the villiages name. Perhaps they got confused?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. that's what I think also..I was watching .Dylan Radigan and he was having it out with a frenchmen...

about the cost and France was going to help pay for the millions in weapons and equiptment costs..."why should the American taxpayers foot the bill when it was you guys(Germany, England) who wanted this"

[highplainsdem]

12. Some Fukushima prefecture residents have been told not to drink tap water. In Tokyo,

they've detected low levels of radiation but at supposedly safe levels.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20268-nuclear-crisis-how-safe-is-japans-food-and-water.html

MSNBC might have scrambled the reports.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. that makes more sense..they had to have scrambled the reports....I was watching Dylan Radigan

[LaPera]

9. WOW - What a surprise! How could this be explained? - I'm stumped!

[Snoutport]

11. 60 miles is not "NEAR"!!! and does it radiate to the north, east, west?

yikes.... terrible implications

[humus]

14. evaporates and is wind blown to western U.S.

[highplainsdem]

15. Wikipedia articles on the ocean currents off Japan, and the Fukushima plant, showing its location

for easy comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuroshio_Current

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Looks like the current nearest the shore would take the radioactivity southwest first, before reaching the Kuroshio current taking it northeast.

[Hannah Bell]

30. The actual distance from the plant was 100 METERS. That's .062 of a mile.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x713456

[DLnyc]

17. Very helpful would be some actual numbers. What level was detected?

126.7 times government set standards is not too useful without knowing what the level of government set standards is.

If someone can find out, and post, this amount (probably in picocuries per liter ??), that would be really useful.

[DLnyc]

39. Finally found a number close to the government-set standard, apparently:

"Under government guidelines, water containing a radioactive substance of more than 100 becquerels per kilogramme should not be used for milk for babies"

from http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Japan-Radiation-In-Tokyo-Tap-Water-Is-Unsafe-For-Infants-Despite-Fukushima-Nuclear-Plant-Boost/Article/201103415958344?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_2&lid=ARTICLE_15958344_Japan%3A_Radiation_In_Tokyo_T

I think this translates to 2.7 X 10^-9 Ci per liter = 2.7 nanoCurie per liter = 2700 picoCurie per liter. I think.
using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becquerel#Relationship_to_the_curie

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. This gieger counter in Tokyo...

normal is 18CPM


http://static-cdn1.ustream.tv/i/channel/live/1_7517126,192x108,b.jpg

scroll down on the page to the gieger counters located in several locals around Japan
http://www.globale-evolution.de/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=22523#p22523

[DLnyc]

19. So 126.7 times the government-set standards is "not a threat to human

health"? What exactly is the purpose of the standard then?

[TheMadMonk]

21. The purpose is to prevent "chronic" contamination from building...

...up over time.

"Acute" events like this may result in localised levels, excceeding those limits enormously for a short period of time, without their representing any appreciable threat. Mixing in the ocean and natural decay will quickly reduce these levels to nothing.


There is also the posibility that "standards" for nuclear contamination are set far more rigorously than for just about any other substance. Far more rigorously than is absolutely necessary.

And before you squeal too loudly that no "standard" is too high for the nukular, consider this. Rules for cleanup of nuclear sites in some locales are so ludicrous that they demand site radiation levels be impossibly taken below the background average before it can be released.

Maximum public exposure limits (from nuclear reactors) are in fact set so low, that people routinely pick up bigger doses on ski trips than any member of the public will receive living next door to a nuclear reactor. And in fact that ski trip will likely deliver a bigger dose than any member of the public is expected to receive from this little nuclear excursion.

Are you aware that nuclear workers actually have a lower incidence of cancer and other environmentally triggered illnesses, than the general population. Unlike us, they, the lucky sods, get eight hours a day almost completely islolated from the ordinary pollutants of the outside world. Soot, smog, PCBs, PAHs, heavy metals, NOXs, you name it, their world is scrubbed of it. AND they get danger money for the privilege.

I wonder just how much radiation exposure a concreter picks up from the radioactive fly ash in the concrete he pours every day? Likely it's far more than a worker in the nuclear industry.

Check out this chart and look at just what 100 times or 1000 time "normal" means in the greater scheme of things. At 1000 times "normal", it would take about ten days of constant exposure to pick up a dose that would measurably increase your risk of cancer.

[DLnyc]

23. Nice post, but somewhat patronizing.

I just want to know what the "government-set standard" is. I am capable of multiplying that by the number(s) in the original post and then doing research to see what the significance of that level is. You gave a very long post saying "don't worry", but I still don't know, and I guess you don't know either, what level (in picocuries per cubic meter, say?) we are being told to not worry about.

Thanks anyway for all your effort.

[TheMadMonk]

27. You're asking the wrong question.

The physical quantity of contamination is measured in Curies (or tiny fractions thereof). Very crudely it's a measure of the amount of radioactive material in a given volume of air, water or soil.

The amount of exposure is measured in Sieverts (or fractions thereof). It is a measure of the amout of radiation put out by the contaminants in a given sample.

I suspect that at least one reason that the "only" figures are background radiation readings is that the numbers you are asking for will be all over the place like a dog's breakfast. 10 mins @ x 1000, an hour @ x 5, six hours of nothing measurable and then off again for a few minutes after another steam release. Unless you knew exactly what you were looking at it would be impossible for the average person to make head or tail of them. However, given these sorts of numbers as "official figures" to manuipulate and cherry pick the media and doomsayers would have a field day. We've seen it already when the media gets hold of a single elevated isolated reading 1000 x normal. They breathlessly announnce radiation levels 1000 times normal, grudginly admit that no one was harmed, with an unspoken "this time" tacked on the end. And then somehow comepletely fail to report that the TOTAL amount of radiation released over the entire day amounted bugger all and that almost none of it made it as far as the perimeter fence.

I'm sorry if I sounded patronising. However, when up against a great multitude running around screaming: "We're all going to die!" it's hard not to hammer points.

[DLnyc]

32. Patronizing, lacking facts and spinning

1) I do actually understand the difference between Curies, Sieverts and Sieverts per hour
2) You give another post with interesting information, but still lacking the key number, namely:
What is the government-set standard?
3) You spend a lot of words saying everything is probably okay, without making use of any actual evidence (numbers, sources).

When you tell me what the actual level is at a given place and given time, back that up with sources, and take care not to obfuscate or use the wrong units, then I will be very grateful for the information.

When you just tell me how your superior knowledge enables you to tell me everything is certainly fine and I shouldn't bother my pretty head with a bunch of confusing actual facts, then I will be annoyed.

Interestingly, the Japanese government seems to have understood this. They are putting out the actual numbers and letting people draw their own conclusions. I guess they have faith in the ability of the 'average person' to make reasoned judgments, once they have accurate and precise information.

[TheMadMonk]

38. I have no idea. You could google it as easily as I could.

I do not know the numbers. I do however known that the numbers are low enough relatively, that many normal every day activities, like going on a ski trip, living halfway up a mountain, frequent flying, mining, concreting, stonemasonry and so on can result in utterly unremarked exposure levels that exceed exposure limits for man made radiation. Sometimes considerably.

Thus I conclude that 3 times normal (or even permissible) is NOT a health risk worth a moment's worry. And that for progressively shorter periods of time even exposures as high as 1000 times normal for a week or so (leaving aside bioaccumulation effects), are still unlikely to have a negative long term health impact on any given individual. Although it would at this point be possible to detect anomalies in a large enough population of so exposed individuals over the next few decades.

I know the threat is non-zero. However, I also know it is sufficiently small that many other polulation wide risks I (or anybody else) never give more than a moment's thought to present far greater and more immediate dangers.

Why when we collectively don't give enough of a shit about things that are actually killing us, to make the effort to do anything fully effective about them, do we then fly into such coniptions over what is quantifiably a very minor risk, as soon as the subject is "The Nukular"?

[DLnyc]

24. Also, that chart is a little inaccurate, I think

It gives 3.5 microsieverts as the "extra dose from one day in an average town near the Fukushima plant". Since these towns, today, are reporting mostly 1 to 5 microsieverts per HOUR, that would be more like 24 to 120 microsieverts per day, not 3.5. Some towns are reporting more like 100 per hour, so that's even higher.

I appreciate that you are trying to bring objectivity to the issue. The best way to do this, maybe, would be to give actual numbers and to be careful to be accurate.

(Check out Fukushima prefect at the MEXT site: http://www.mext.go.jp /english/ )

. . .
Monitoring Post (length from NPP)
Monitoring Time 2011/3/21 10:53
2011/3/21 11:23 2011/3/21 11:13 2011/3/21 10:20 2011/3/21 10:01 2011/3/21 10:40 2011/3/21 10:10 2011/3/21 10:50 2011/3/21 10:45 2011/3/21 11:35 2011/3/21 11:51 2011/3/21 17:25 2011/3/21 13:03 2011/3/21 16:44 2011/3/21 11:38 2011/3/21 15:00 2011/3/21 11:00 2011/3/21 11:10 2011/3/21 14:40
Reading (unit : μSv / h ) 1.7 *2
6.7 *2 1.3 *2
28.0 *2
66.0 *2 90.0 *2 61.0 *2 45.0 *2
111.0 *2 24.0 *2
1.5 *2 2.5 *2 2.8 *2 2.0 *2 2.1 *2 1.1 *2 1.2 *2 6.9 *2
12.0 *2
Weather No rain
No rain rain No rain No rain No rain No rain No rain No rain No rain No rain rain rain rain No rain rain rain rain rain
Reading by MEXT
MEXT
MEXT
JAEA (Japan Atomic Energy Agency)
Police ( counter NBC operations unit )
JAEA (Japan Atomic Energy Agency)
Police ( counter NBC operations unit )
JAEA (Japan Atomic Energy Agency)
Police ( counter NBC operations unit )
JAEA (Japan Atomic Energy Agency)
JAEA (Japan Atomic Energy Agency)
Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.
Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.
Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.
Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.
JNFL(Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd.)
JNFL(Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd.)
Shikoku Electric Power Co., Inc.
Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc.
Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point Reading Point
【20】 (about 45Km Northwest)

[glinda]

20. duh

[Hannah Bell]

25. NHK is reporting that the test was done 100 METERS south of the plant. big difference/

Excessive levels of radioactive iodine and cesium have been found in seawater near the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company, or TEPCO, collected seawater samples 100 meters south of the plant's water outlet on Monday afternoon.

The samples were found to contain radioactive iodine-131 in excess of the legal standard by 126.7 times, cesium-134 by 24.8 times, and cesium-137 by 16.5 times.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/22_19.html

[highplainsdem]

31. I've used the Alert link to contact the moderators to ask that a note be added to the OP

about the mistake, and that the note include that link and the one in reply 28.

[Agony]

28. the actual Tepco report 100 meters w/data

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110322e1.pdf

[Hannah Bell]

29. thank you. i'll link that in the GD thread on the error.

[Baclava]

33. SHIT!

Just when the dolphins, tuna, and sharks were getting a reprieve from the Japanese fishing fleets in those waters too.

Fucking humans shit their bed again.

[Dappleganger]

34. Thanks for editing with the correct info.

Now I won't have to go back into outrage mode this afternoon. ;)

[highplainsdem]

35. You're welcome!

:hi:

[highplainsdem]

36. New reports today. Yesterday's was about radiation at 100 meters. Today's tests at 10 miles

showed elevated levels of radioactivity:

From the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-seawater-20110323,0,731263.story

Radiation found in seawater near Fukushima plant
Officials insist the levels of radiation discovered are not cause for alarm. But after radiation was detected Monday in seawater about 0.2 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi complex in northeastern Japan, radiation was detected in a wider area Tuesday, in samples taken from as far as 10 miles south of the damaged plant.
By Victoria Kim, Los Angeles Times
March 22, 2011, 9:41 a.m.

Radiation has been detected in seawater in areas surrounding the earthquake and tsunami-ravaged nuclear plant in northeastern Japan, creating one more cause for concern after radiation was found in food items and tap water.

Officials stressed that the levels -- which they said would have minuscule impact on the human body even if the seawater were ingested daily over a year -- were not cause for alarm.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, which owns the plant, said it detected radioactive iodine-131 more than 125 times higher than the legal limit in a sample of ocean water found about 0.2 miles south of the Fukushima Daiichi plant on Monday, Kyodo News Agency reported. Government and power company officials said Tuesday it would test seawater at eight locations about 18 miles off the coast.

By Tuesday morning, radiation levels at the same spot had fallen but seawater contaminated with radiation was detected in a wider area, in samples taken from as far as 10 miles south of the damaged plant, where efforts to cool the reactors have included dumping seawater on them.

-snip-

From the Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0322/Japan-says-high-seawater-radiation-levels-are-no-cause-for-alarm

Japan says high seawater radiation levels are no cause for alarm
Japanese authorities began testing for radiation in seawater near the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on Tuesday, but officials stressed that the elevated levels are no cause for worry.
By Winifred Bird, Correspondent / March 22, 2011

Shingu, Japan

As engineers reported progress on stabilizing overheated reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant Tuesday, elevated levels of radiation have been found in seawater nearby, fueling concern over long-term environmental and health impacts.

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) announced today that in samples taken 1,100 feet south of the plant on Monday, radioactive iodine exceeded legal limits for wastewater by 126.7 times, cesium-134 by 24.8 times, and cesium-137 by 16.5 times. Samples taken 16 kilometers (10 miles) south were up to 16 times above legal levels.

Radioactive elements in the ocean will not likely pose a threat to human health because they quickly become diluted, says Masaharu Hoshi, a specialist in environmental impact assessments at Hiroshima University’s Research Institute for Radiation Biology and Medicine. He says contamination of seawater was not a problem following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

However, Jun Misono of Tokyo’s Marine Ecology Research Institute said that while radioactive iodine breaks down relatively quickly, cesium is more persistent and can accumulate in marine animals, such as fish. “We need to carefully monitor the amount of radiation that continues to be emitted and evaluate the impacts,” he told national broadcaster NHK.

-snip-

It was very good news that the levels of radiation mentioned in the OP for this thread were at only 100 meters, not 100 km.

But it's also good news that they're going to keep monitoring this, and at locations farther from the plant.