Radioactivity (90-Sr) found in fish upstream from Vermont Yankee

[jpak]

http://www.pressherald.com/news/radioactivity-found-in-fish-upstream-from-vermont-yankee_2011-08-03.html

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont health officials said Tuesday a radioactive substance had been found in a fish sample taken from the Connecticut River nine miles upstream from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

The substance, strontium-90, is a byproduct of nuclear fission that has been linked to cancer and leukemia.

William Irwin, the state's chief radiological health officer, said that the sample was unusual in that the strontium-90 was found in the fleshy, edible portion of the smallmouth bass sample. Irwin said the substance more often turns up in fish bones. Nine of 13 bone, head and scale samples checked also turned up strontium-90, he said.

"It is to be expected to find strontium-90 in the bone, head, etcetera, because strontium is in the same chemical group as calcium," Irwin said. "It is not as likely to be found in muscle tissue, yet the literature does describe results where they have found strontium-90 in the edible portion of fish. It's just not as likely."

<more>

I would check local eagles, ospreys, loons and cormorants too...

[FBaggins]

1. How much?

Or doesn't anyone think that's relevant?

[bananas]

2. Toxic waste is good for you.

http://www.prwatch.org/tsigfy.html

[FBaggins]

5. Of course it isn't

But when judging whether to pay any attention to a given amount of polution... isn't the amount relevant when deciding whether or not action (or even attention) is warrranted?

Do you think that this fish had zero contamination from non-nuclear sources?

[jpak]

3. If you can detect it it's too much

yup

[FBaggins]

4. Nonsense.

What a crock.

Do try to keep the conversation on a rational footing, ok?

[madokie]

8. You done fucked that one up

Only one who is not keeping this on a rational footing, as you put it, is none other than you yourself. :hi:

eta: rec

[jpak]

9. It is not a natural isotope - it comes from fission in nuclear power plants

Power plants that are not suppose to release it into the environment.

and the fact that is found in muscle tissue (as well as bone) is NOT good - and points to an ongoing release from a local source...

VT Yankee

yup

[FBaggins]

11. And nuclear bombs.

Current estimates are that nuclear testing alons put 350-400 PBq of Sr90 into the oceans alone. The stuff has a half-life of almost 30 years, so 100-150 PBq of the stuff is still "out there".

That's many thousands of times as much as Fukushima put out. Likely many MANY thousand times.

and the fact that is found in muscle tissue (as well as bone) is NOT good

Which, of course, you're just making up as you go along. It's less common, but hardly "NOT good". Strontium in bone is actually more dangerous than in muscle tissue. Don't confuse "less common" with "more dangerous".

and points to an ongoing release from a local source...

And higher amounts in fish all around the world (including places nowhere near reactors) points to what?

[jpak]

13. FYI - the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1963

VT Yankee is leaking fission products today

yup

[FBaggins]

14. Do you need someone to explain half lives again?

Just let me know. :)

[jpak]

15. no you don't - you just have to explain the data and it is not from bombs

yup

[FBaggins]

16. You have absolutely no way of knowing that... and it should embarrass you to try.

Sr has been found in higher concentrations in fish all around the world - including areas FAR from any reactor.

There is no "data" at all that would tie a background-level reading to a particular source. And the state made that clear the last time they detected Sr in fish.

You're just making it up as it goes along, aren't you?

Do facts not matter at all?

[jpak]

17. If it was fallout from the 50'as and 60''s then VT cheese would be full of it

which it ain't

yup

[FBaggins]

18. You always provide the rope to hang yourself with, don't you?

Strontium is, in fact, found in cheese... also all over the world.

[jpak]

19. You always defend the undefendable

yup!

[FBaggins]

21. And you seem to think even hard facts are "undefendable" if they conflict with your preconceptions.

You'll find yourself on firmer ground in the future if you start with facts and use them to inform your understanding.

"Confirmation bias" is an error of poor inductive inference... but it seems to be a way of life for too many here. :)

[bananas]

24. "How Much?" was the title of a Nuclear Engineering International article

which I've quoted over and over...
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917

[PoliticAverse]

6. "He said the finding could have been related to background levels in the environment...

resulting from above-ground atomic bomb testing in the 1960s and '70s or from the Chernobyl accident in 1986."

But not Fukushima ?

Have they been testing fish periodically over the years ?

[FBaggins]

7. Yes, fish are tested periodically over the years

and it isn't unheard of for trace amounts of strontium to occur.

But not Fukushima?

Possibly, but Chernobyl and nuclear testing put out far more - and a significant portion of that is still around.

[madokie]

10. How do you know that chernobyl put out more

when the meters they measure this with in Japan is being pegged? When I use a meter that pegs the needle I know that more than likely whatever I'm testing is more.
Man please stop trying to make light of this grave situation we have with the nuclear power plants poisoning our planet, it makes you sound foolish.

Peace but no thanks

[FBaggins]

12. Because it did?

Chernobyl was estimated to release about 10 PBq of Sr90.

http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/reports/2003/nea3508-chernobyl.pdf

when the meters they measure this with in Japan is being pegged?

Meters measuring Sr90 have been pegged in Japan?

Sorry... that's flat wrong.

[TheWraith]

25. Nuclear weapons testing was a much, much, much larger release source than even Chernobyl.

Fukushima, in comparison to nuclear testing, is the difference between a fender bender and 9/11.

[kristopher]

20. Perhaps this will protect the fish

After all, the threat to fish from biomass is extremely high in all areas of the world.

[FBaggins]

22. Lol!

Very good. :)

OTOH... how do we know that those are even fish? Best send some this way for testing early this afternoon. We need to validate the testing with locally grown vegetation, so please send lemons as well.

[PoliticAverse]

23. Additional article on the topic from Forbes here...

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffmcmahon/2011/08/05/how-did-those-vermont-fish-get-radioactive/

"The strontium found in the fish last summer was higher than current background levels, but within background levels measured in the Connecticut River in 1971."
...
"The Vermont fish were taken from the river months before the Fukushima accident."