It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How many hot particles are you breathing in a day?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I saw this on CNN a couple of weeks ago.


They are saying that these "hot particles" are only detectable with filters.

They are also saying people in the North Western U.S. may be breathing up to 5 of these particles a day.

I read today that the air filters of cars in Japan are becoming radio active due to these hot particles, (although it was in Zerohedge and I tend not to trust them because they lie a lot.)

So how many hot particles are you breathing in a day?

Let's find out. Here's what I'm suggesting.

I can't find much data on this at all, so this thread can be used to upload data, radio active results from around the U.S. and other places around the world.

The data can come from anywhere so long as it's credible.

People with Geiger Counters can help a great deal. Monitor your air filters. Record things like radio active readings, time frames, filter size, fan use, fequency, and other relating factors so maybe some of us can get a better idea about how much of this stuff is in the air. Post your results here. The more data that is collected the less ignorant we become.

edit on 25-6-2011 by IndieA because: 5 a day not an hour




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Links and articles are helpful.

Anything related to hot particle ingestion and consumption would also be helpful.
edit on 25-6-2011 by IndieA because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I found this posted to this Berkeley blog.
www.nuc.berkeley.edu...



Here are some relevant excerpts from the above quoted report (dated from the 1970s but still seems relevant) www.hss.doe.gov...
Seems to indicate that inhaling 5 or more "hot particles" (as defined below, and including Plutonium, for example) is a huge amount compared to the maximum recommended dose based on research at the time. Cancer risk is extremely hig.

"a hot particle is defined as a [n alpha-emitting] particle that contains sufficient activity to deliver at least 1000 rem/yr to the surrounding lung tissue. For isotopes having half-lives greater than one year, this would correspond to particles containing at least 0.07 pCi of alpha activity." (p.51)

"we recommend that the MPLPB for members of the public be 0.2 hot particles, and the average lung burden for members of the public be 0.07 hot particles, a factor of 3 less than the maximum." (p. 45)

[it is recommended that...] For accidental releases exposure (10 CFR 100.ll(a) (l)) MPLI’B (2 hours exposure) = 10 hot particles" (p. 52)

"[...]the existinq biological evidence strongly sugqests
that an insoluble particle of respiratory tissue represents a risk of cancer induction of between 1/1000 and l/10,000." (p.41)

[regarding experiments with Beagles exposed to Pu 239]:
"All of these experiments involved intense exposures
and a significant level of carcinogenesis. Severe damage
and disruption of tissue were associated with the exposures.
The most relevant lung experiment is Bair’s Pu
23902 inhalation study with beagles. Exposure was to
particulate of 0.25 u or 0.5 u median diameter; burdens were
in the uCi range. Twenty of the 21 dogs that survived more
than 1600 days post exposure had lung cancer. Many of these
cancers were multicentric in origin. The cancers again
appeared in conjunction with severe lung injury. Since the
natural- incidence of the disease is small, it appears that
at this level of exposure the induction of lung cancer is a
certainty durinq the normal beagle life span. At the same time,
time, since the pathological response is saturated in this
experiment, it is inappropriate to draw any inference about
the magnitude of the response at smaller burdens. The smallest
burden (at death) in a dog showing lung cancer was 0.2 uCi.
Presumably this would correspond to a particle burden of
about 10^7 particles. Burdens which are smaller by orders of
magnitude may still induce a substantial incidence of cancer.
Indeed, the cancer risk may, as for skin and soft tissues,
correspond to a risk per particle in the neighborhood of
1/1000 to 1/10,000."

edit on 25-6-2011 by IndieA because: sp



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by IndieA
 


Sorry, I can only watch videos at work due to really crappy internet at home.

This guys name is Arnie Gunderson of fairewinds.com, a nuclear engineer. I watch his youtube updates on Japan as much as possible.

I believe he knows what he is talking about.
Also Loren Moret.

Hot particles being breathed in on the west coast, I'm not surprised.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I am reading that there are geiger counters that come with air filters.

Does anyone know someone with access to one of these?



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I've read through a number of articles relating to these hot particles, and they all appear to be quoting Gundersen uncritically. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of corroboration for these claims.

Gundersen himself is an activist, very well paid by the anti-nuclear lobby. There are several articles such as this one and many more on this site which look into his history and find it prone to serious bending of the truth.

He is indeed chief nuclear engineer of fairewinds.com, a consultancy company consisting of himself and his wife. He is beloved of the anti-nuclear lobbyists because of his past in the nuclear industry, his willingness to make the kind of scary statements that they want to hear, and his skill in making people believe he knows what he's talking about. As a little internet searching clearly shows, he is doing extremely well out of these scare stories... not only is everyone faithfully reporting his story, but the stories are also all about him.

Of course some will dismiss all this as shadowy nuclear lobby rhetoric. My personal experience is that the anti-nuclear scaremongerers can be a pretty shadowy lot at their worst, and as you can see from the coverage, they get masses of attention with this kind of stuff, and the more extremely concerned citizens you can generate, the bigger and more lucrative the lobby becomes.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by IndieA
Links and articles are helpful.

Anything related to hot particle ingestion and consumption would also be helpful.
edit on 25-6-2011 by IndieA because: (no reason given)


Greetings:

Stars & Flags!

Perhaps this will add to your data base.


19 May 2011
At this time, there is no public health threat in the U.S. related to radiation exposure. FDA, together with other agencies, is carefully monitoring any possibility for distribution of radiation to the United States.

At this time, theoretical models do not indicate that significant amounts of radiation will reach the U.S. coast or affect U.S. fishing waters.
source

Perhaps this will interest you also:


23 April 2011
Japan Nuclear Iodine Radiation In San Francisco Milk Over 2600% Above EPA Drinking Water Limit
source



10 May 2011
Hawaii Farmers Treating Milk With Boron After Finding Radiation 2400 Times Above Safe Levels

source

This was around the same time that the EPA stopped Fukushima nuclear radiation tests on milk, drinking water and rainwater saying the levels of radiation were constantly dropping and posed no health risks.


EPA officials, however, [color=limegreen]refused to answer questions or make staff members available to explain the exact location and number of monitors, or the levels of radiation, if any, being recorded at existing monitors in California.

Margot Perez-Sullivan, a spokeswoman at the EPA’s regional headquarters in San Francisco, said the agency’s written statement would stand on its own.

IMHO, these people theoretically work for we, the people, and this type of behavior should not be tolerated!

Where are those people that actually are aware (and care)?

From the lackluster response to many threads dealing with this subject, one might surmise that there are not enough of us - or that we are not connecting in a collective voice to shout from the rooftops:

America's Being Nuked - Can we Together Stop the Madness?


In the unlikely scenario that pollutants could affect fish that have traveled to the U.S., FDA will work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to test seafood caught in those areas. Together, FDA and NOAA will also inspect facilities that process and sell seafood from those areas.


The FDA has claimed that there is no need to test Pacific fish for Japan nuclear radiation reports the Anchorage Daily News but when drilled on details by the reporter, the FDA [color=limegreen]refused to answer questions and gave the reporter the run-around.

The FDA says there will be no testing of fish until NOAA testing finds cause for alarm but NOAA [color=limegreen]refuses to answer questions on what kind of monitoring has been done.
source



25 April 2011
New EPA Radiation Tests Show Cesium in California Rainwater at Highest Level Since Crisis Began
source



3 May 2011
Hot Radioactive Particles in Seattle at 50% of Levels Seen in Tokyo
source

OK... 50% of what? Are we, the people, to be the least bit alarmed? Do the EPA and FDA have the best interests of the American people at the forefront of decision-making? Are we really screwed? Does anyone read this? Does anyone care?

Interesting. As we write this, David Morrison (NASA mouthpiece) is in the History Channel talking about ELE's - specifically doomsday asteroids (1,100 1 kilometer or larger). 6,000 to one odds. (More on this buffoon in Cometgate2).

Space Guard Survey promoted heavily as a "... not to worry, feel good" piece. (Bangs head on desk and reaches for Vice-Grips).

But we digress. Meanwhile, back at the ranch:


3 April 2011
140,000 Times More Iodine-131 Released at Fukushima Than Three Mile Island… Using March 22 Estimates
source



3 May 2011
Radiation In US Food Will Be Nationwide Problem, Not Just Regional, From Fukushima Nuclear Radioactive Fallout
source



3 June 2011
5.77 microsieverts per hour of radiation measured near Tokyo at ground level — Government “is desperately trying to keep it quiet...”
source


And from our friend Alexander Higgins:

U.S. Radiation Map

Updated With Real Time EPA RadNet Japan Nuclear Radiation Monitoring For Every Major City In America On A Single Page

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Thanks for all the info, however some of your links are not or no longer working.

Both the link about Seattle at 50% and the U.S. Radiation Map did not work.

I have this link to a U.S. Radiation Map, radiationnetwork.com..., but it doesn't measure hot particles and it has barely changed since 3/11/11 so it's not much help.

It seems like the hot particles are the greatest health risk.

Shouldn't people be trying to monitor these in their area?
Shouldn't the FDA be monitoring our milk, meat, and produce?
edit on 26-6-2011 by IndieA because: additional info



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Good lord...

Thanks for the information.

Should we be expecting deformities and things of that nature? What do you guys presume will be the outcome of this situation? Just curious, you guys are obviously much more informed.

Or maybe i'll just stick around and read the thread as it grows..



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BanMePlz

Should we be expecting deformities and things of that nature?
Oh Jeez, is it going to be that kind of a discussion.

No, you shouldn't. But not doubt you'll believe what you please.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BanMePlz
 





Should we be expecting deformities and things of that nature?


Lol. No, however hot particles or "fuel fleas" can cause cancer.

So if there is a significant increase in hot particles, in an area, I would expect to see increases cancer rates in the following years.

So don't freak out but I think it's ok to be aware and concerned.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
This site might be of interest. It shows sampling data for air, precipitation, milk, and drinking water.

From the above-linked page:


The milk sampling results are far below the Food and Drug Administration's Derived Intervention Level for iodine-131 in milk. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children. Iodine-131 has a very short half-life of approximately eight days, and the level detected in milk and milk products is therefore expected to drop relatively quickly.


Half life is eight days meaning that in that amount of time roughly half of the original amount of radionuclides will still be present and fully radioactive, eight days after that the same thing happens and so on. Eventually, the decay process will eliminated the contaminant but the amount of time varies depending on the amount of material you begin with.

Looking at the charts you will see that the most recent update was posted on 06/01/11 with the most recent sample having been taken on 04/30/2011.

From this post we read the following:


Seems to indicate that inhaling 5 or more "hot particles" (as defined below, and including Plutonium, for example) is a huge amount compared to the maximum recommended dose based on research at the time. Cancer risk is extremely hig.

"a hot particle is defined as a [n alpha-emitting] particle that contains sufficient activity to deliver at least 1000 rem/yr to the surrounding lung tissue. For isotopes having half-lives greater than one year, this would correspond to particles containing at least 0.07 pCi of alpha activity." (p.51)

"we recommend that the MPLPB for members of the public be 0.2 hot particles, and the average lung burden for members of the public be 0.07 hot particles, a factor of 3 less than the maximum." (p. 45)

(source link in original post)

While Pu is incredibly toxic, it is by far not the only radionuclide in the bestiary we have to worry about.

Looking at this:


We see that there are two samples in Richmond, CA for two different isotopes of Cs, of 6.6 and 5.8 pCi of activity in precipitation sampled on 04/28/11. My math may be wrong, but I am pretty certain that both 6.6 and 5.8 pCi are a greater amount by an order of magnitude or two than .07pCi.

Full data chart here.

Granted, rain is not something you will be breathing in, but the Cs will be deposited in the soil and can easily be kicked up as dust or otherwise make it's way into the food chain through normal biological processes.

Elsewhere we find this:


Radiation levels in the US have declined, according to the EPA, but the agency has not released data on samples taken after April 30, making the results nearly two months old, according to data sets made public by the agency.

The EPA typically releases test results two to four weeks after a sample is taken, and the EPA has not released new data on milk since May 24. On June 1, the EPA reported that the radionuclide cesium-137 was detected in one sample of drinking water, and two weeks later the same round of samples were clear of radiation.

and

The EPA claims that the levels of radiation it did detect in recent months were not high enough to raise public health concerns. But how high do radiation levels have to be before the government takes action?

For food products like milk, the EPA relies on Derived Intervention Levels (DIL) set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). DILs provide agencies with guidelines - not mandates - as to when the government should take action to keep food contaminated by radioactive material out of the hands of consumers.

A DIL "does not define a safe or unsafe level of exposure, but instead a level at which protective measures would be recommended to ensure that no one receives a significant dose," according to the FDA web site. The DIL for iodine-131, one of the radioactive materials released from Japan, in food products like milk is set at 170 becquerels per kilogram. That number is 1,500 times higher than another government standard, the Maximum Containment Level for iodine-131 in drinking water, which is set by the Safe Drinking Water Act.


source



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
Gundersen himself is an activist, very well paid by the anti-nuclear lobby.


Anyone paying any attention to Fukushima or the nuclear industry in general would conclude that nuclear power is IDIOTIC.

Some scientists study the topic and then become anti-nuclear -- you say that is proof of invalidity, I say that is common sense.

Show us the data proving that breathing in these particles WILL NOT cause cancer. Show us the data disproving the tests on beagles. Show us that those tests were not funded and supported and fixed by corporations. I'm sure Arnie makes SOOO much money from his youtube videos, played to a public that is still asleep. vs. how much money the nuke corporations are making? PLLEEEEEEEASE.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Thanks jadedANDcynical

From the EPA opendata.socrata.com...
These results are related to air quality.

Location: Jacksonville, Florida (near me)
Taken on: 03/24/2011
Sample Type: Air Filter
Unit: pCi/m3
Cs-134: 0.0073
Cs-137: 0.0082
I-131: 0.14
I-132: 0.011
Te-132: 0.016

Can anyone tell me more about these results?

What unit is pCi?
(added, I found this)
Here we go on the measurements.
The curie (symbol Ci) is a unit of radioactivity, defined as
1 Ci = 3.7×1010 decays per second.
This is roughly the activity of 1 gram of the radium isotope 226Ra
And a picoCurie is 0.000,000,000,001 (one-trillionth) of a Curie

I can see that m3 is a cubic meter but correct me if I’m wrong
Can anyone translate this data into hot particles inhaled a day?
I also wonder how long these elements stay radio active.

Here is the air filter data for Seattle, Washington

Taken on: 03/18/2011
Sample Type: Air Filter
Unit: pCi/m3
Cs-134: 0.00052
Cs-137: 0.00045
I-131: 0.013
I-132: 0.0029
Te-132: 0.0034

Wow to me the results look 10 to 20 times higher in Jacksonville, Florida tan in Seattle, Washington. WTF.
However, looking at the results for some of the other locations I noticed higher results in Hawaii, Alaska, parts of California and parts of Nevada.
edit on 26-6-2011 by IndieA because: additional info



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
So if you want some radiation data on your area you can go to this EPA site. www.epa.gov...

You can find results for air, rain, drinking water, and milk.

Granted you'll have to trust the EPA.
(I find it weird there are air filter results for Jasksonville, FL but no drinking water results, for example.)

Also the most recent results are from April and most of the result are taken from the end of March.

We should be asking why there is not any updated data being released.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by IndieA

Can anyone translate this data into hot particles inhaled a day?

1 pCi is roughly equal to one four hundredth of the radioactive content of a banana. (An average banana has an activity of 15Bq = 400pCi)

The total activity of the air from the filters in Jacksonville is 0.1825 pCi/m3.

This means you'd need 2,200 m3 (2.6 tonnes) of Jacksonville air in order for those listed isotopes to give you the radioactivity of a single banana.

How many bananas a day do you feel is safe?
edit on 26-6-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical


"a hot particle is defined as a [n alpha-emitting] particle that contains sufficient activity to deliver at least 1000 rem/yr to the surrounding lung tissue. For isotopes having half-lives greater than one year, this would correspond to particles containing at least 0.07 pCi of alpha activity." (p.51)


That's interesting. Because 1000 rem is equivalent to 10 Sieverts, which is a massive (and probably fatal) dose of radiation over a year.

To get this dose, you would need to ingest 128 million bananas (each of which deliver, on average, a dose of 0.078 millionths of a Sievert). Each banana has an activity of 400pCi.

On this basis, 1000 rem per year corresponds to ingesting 0.051Ci, which is 51,000,000,000 pCi, not 0.07 pCi as stated in your post.

You got some issues with units, my friend. You're a million million times out there.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 


Hmmm.
Here's another article about bannana radiation. wattsupwiththat.com...



The average radiologic profile of bananas is 3520 picocuries per kg, or roughly 520 picocuries per 150g banana.[3] The equivalent dose for 365 bananas (one per day for a year) is 3.6 millirems (36 μSv).

Bananas are radioactive enough to regularly cause false alarms on radiation sensors used to detect possible illegal smuggling of nuclear material at US ports.[4]

Another way to consider the concept is by comparing the risk from radiation-induced cancer to that from cancer from other sources. For instance, a radiation exposure of 10 mrems (10,000,000,000 picorems) increases your risk of death by about one in one million—the same risk as eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter, or of smoking 1.4 cigarettes.[5]

After the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the NRC detected radioactive iodine in local milk at levels of 20 picocuries/liter,[6] a dose much less than one would receive from ingesting a single banana. Thus a 12 fl oz glass of the slightly radioactive milk would have about 1/75th BED (banana equivalent dose).



So I guess, "nothing to see here move along."

Idk because when a nuclear reactor melts down it doesn't release potassium. I also have an issue with how this relates to hot particles or fuel fleas which I hear get stuck in the body.



Finally, the banana equivalent dose concept is about the prevalence of radiation sources in our food and environment, not about bananas specifically. Some foods (brazil nuts for example) are radioactive because of radium or other isotopes that the body does not keep under homeostatic regulation.[

edit on 26-6-2011 by IndieA because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobathon
 





That's interesting. Because 1000 rem is equivalent to 10 Sieverts, which is a massive (and probably fatal) dose of radiation over a year.

To get this dose, you would need to ingest 128 million bananas (each of which deliver, on average, a dose of 0.078 millionths of a Sievert). Each banana has an activity of 400pCi.

On this basis, 1000 rem per year corresponds to ingesting 0.051Ci, which is 51,000,000,000 pCi, not 0.07 pCi as stated in your post.

You got some issues with units, my friend. You're a million million times out there.


First of all that info was found in this paper, www.hss.doe.gov...
On PDF page 38 or report page 33

You say



That's interesting. Because 1000 rem is equivalent to 10 Sieverts, which is a massive (and probably fatal) dose of radiation over a year.


Can you provide a source that proves that please.

This stuff is not easy lets try to get all our facts straight.
I will try to do more research myself.
edit on 26-6-2011 by IndieA because: added page number



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by IndieA
 



The average adult at rest inhales and exhales something like 7 or 8 liters (about one-fourth of a cubic foot) of air per minute. That totals something like 11,000 liters of air (388 cubic feet) in a day.

Source

A cubic meter is ~ 27 cubic feet
388/27=14.37 cubic meters per day on average for an adult at rest.

Take the 14.37 and multiy it by the pCi in question for an estimate for potential exposure at each of the measured locations.

All of this is off the cuff so take it with a pinch of salt.

It is no surprise to find areas away from the west coast that measure higher than areas you would think due to proximity. It perfectly demonstrates the random distribution of particles in several simulations.

This post will give you some good background on this.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join