posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:01 AM
reply to post by matadoor
After looking up the fish that tested high, they appear to either be bottom fishers, or they consume things that are bottom fishers, or did I
I noticed the same thing.
A little bit of looking in google scholar yields, among other things, the following study:
Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan
This is a study conducted in June 2011 by members from Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry and Department of Physical Oceanography, Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University, and Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute,
University of Tokyo.
A few excerpts:
A major finding is detection of Fukushima-derived 134Cs and 137Cs throughout waters 30–600 km offshore, with the highest activities associated
with near-shore eddies and the Kuroshio Current acting as a southern boundary for transport. Fukushima-derived Cs isotopes were also detected in
zooplankton and mesopelagic fish, and unique to this study we also find 110mAg in zooplankton.
Importantly, our data are consistent with higher estimates of the magnitude of Fukushima fallout and direct releases [Stohl et al. (2011) Atmos Chem
Phys Discuss 11:28319–28394; Bailly du Bois et al. (2011) J Environ Radioact, 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2011.11.015]. We address risks to public health and
marine biota by showing that though Cs isotopes are elevated 10–1,000× over prior levels in waters off Japan, radiation risks due to these
radionuclides are below those generally considered harmful to marine animals and human consumers, and even below those from naturally occurring
So these results show that, even though Cs isotopes are ten to a thousand times higher than prior to the accident, the risks are lower than naturally
But wait, there's more:
Though considerable data have been released in Japanese reports regarding the concentration of selected radionuclides in the air, soil, and
coastal discharge sites, large uncertainties remain, including even the magnitude of total atmospheric releases (6) and direct
discharges (7). There is also little information on radionuclide distributions offshore to help assess contamination and transport in the North
Pacific and for independent confirmation of whether the levels are of human health concern.
So, are the levels in the Pacific dangerous to animals and humans or aren't they? The seem to be saying that they are not dangerous on one hand but
at the same time seem to be saying that they might be because they aren't sure of the exact amount that was released.
For anyone still clinging to the notion that Turdco and/or JapGov are honest in their reporting of released contaminants, I present the following:
The source of the 110mAg measured in zooplankton is unclear; no direct releases to the coastal ocean have been reported, but soils
collected near the power plants did show trace levels of 110mAg (11).
What about all of the "official" measurements showing "ND" for Cs?
Second, though elevated, substantial dilution had occurred between the discharge channels at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPPs, where 137Cs activities
averaged 33,000 Bq⋅m−3 in June (5) and our closest samples 30 km offshore, which were on average 50× lower (600–800 Bq⋅m−3). Our Cs
activities are thus consistent with the Japanese reporting in June “below detection” for 134Cs and 137Cs 30 km off-shore [Japanese Ministry of
Education, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)], because their methods had a higher detection limit of 10,000 Bq⋅m−3
Finally, to tie this in with the recent fish report linked by PC (HUGE thanks to you for keeping up with these), we have the following:
However, the salt and fresh water used to cool the Fukushima NPPs and acidic conditions in the core provide possible pathways to mobilize
refractory radionuclides from the core that may have subsequently been discharged to the ocean but have yet to be assessed. Ultimately, though the
radionuclide levels of 137Cs and 134Cs offshore are currently low with respect to human health effects, any assessment of radiation dose should
also consider long-term exposure if the NPP remains a continued source of radionuclides (5) and if, as has been reported, coastal sediments are
contaminated with multiple radionuclides.
As we can see, this study conducted in June seems to say that all is hunkey dorey, but if we read deeper we see that that they are hedging and
indicating that there might
be more to look at in this.