Experts claim radiation on CA beaches is not from Fukushima

This is a followup post to Fukushima Radiation hits San Franciso. I thought that I would post this new info in an attempt to set the record straight and calm people down.

It looks like that famous video got enough attention to spark a real investigation by professionals. There have been other videos posted since, one even showing 415CPM which was taken by electrical engineer Steven Weiss, a 40 year veteran designer of Geiger counters.

Even though these new investigations have found more evidence that these levels are indeed much higher than normal, experts still claim that none of it can be directly tied to the Fukushima plant. Weiss sent a sample of the material which was registering high on his counter to his lab for spectral analysis. The results found mostly Thorium and Radium (naturally occurring isotopes). There is no mention of any Caesium-137 found, and go on to say that what was found most was Thorium and Radium.

Now, I'm not posting this to tell people not to worry about the Fukushima contamination. I'm just happy that professionals have taken a much closer look at this situation.


The EPA responds:

Radionuclides in the air

Cesium-137, like that which emanated from the Fukushima meltdown, and radium and thorium, as found on the coast, are among several commonly encountered radionuclides, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

• Cesium-137: It comes from splitting uranium and plutonium as is done at nuclear reactors. It is a soft, silvery white metal that is actually a liquid at near-room temperature.

• Radium, like that found at Surfer’s Beach, was discovered by French physicist Marie Curie in 1880. It is a silver-white metal that blackens when exposed to air. It was used extensively before World War II for glow-in-the-dark clocks and instrument dials.

• Thorium, also found in low levels at Surfer’s Beach, is named for the Norse god of thunder and weather, Thor. It is naturally occurring and is found in very low levels in virtually all rock, soil and water.

Source - EPA

On Monday, Weiss carried a Geiger counter in each hand for a second survey of Surfer's Beach. As he descended to the waterline, the readings on his gadgets climbed. He tested various spots: the side of the bluffs and the white sand closest to the waterline, both registering levels that were high but not suspiciously so as far as he was concerned. But when he placed the sensors down near a line of black silt along the back of the beach, the meters on both his gadgets spiked. The counters registered about 415 counts per minute. A cpm of 30 is considered the baseline for radioactivity typically found in the air. “It's not normal. I've never seen 400 cpm when I just wave my Geiger around.” he said. “There has to be something radioactive for it to do that.”

Weiss is no amateur; for 40 years he has made a living designing Geiger counters, most recently for International Medcom Inc. After he verified the hotspot, he took a sample of the dark sediment and sent it to his company's main offices in Sebastopol for analysis.

International Medcom CEO Dan Sythe later put the dirt sample in a spectrum analyzer to view the radioactive “signature” of the particles, the photon energy associated with each isotope. What he found was different from cesium-137, the fissile material used in the Fukushima reactors. He would know – since the 2011 meltdown, Sythe has visited Japan nine times to help map the cesium fallout. Instead he was seeing radium and thorium, naturally occurring radioactive elements.
“It doesn’t mean that it‘s OK. It's not something you'd want your baby playing in,” Sythe said. “All we’re saying is this radiation is not from Fukushima.”

Although the radiation levels were clearly higher than is typical, San Mateo County Health Officer Dean Peterson emphasized that it was still not a dangerous level for humans. A person would need to be exposed to 100 microREMs of radiation for 50,000 hours before it surpassed safety guidelines by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, he explained.

SOURCE

What do all you beautiful people think?

reply to post by peacenotgreed


Sounds like good news to me. We need some. This is a 50 year problem so the testing will require major commitment. The public outcry is the only thing that can prompt that kind of action.

Test the tuna, California seaweed and Alaskan salmon. I want to see a major study from a University like UC Berkley.

There is no amount of active radionuclide that is safe to consume or breathe. WTH is Thorium anyway?

I posted this in response in another thread and figured it fit in well here.

Radiation is bad, that I will not disagree with. In fact I truly think Fuku will be a ELE event, unlike an asteroid hit this killer is invisible, slow and impossible to identify as anything other than cancer.

All that being said I try to look for the upside. This link leads to what seems to be a counter view of Fuku's effect on our oceans at this time. deepseanews.com... These marine scientists are made up of the type of people that are usually alarmists. Conservationists, Environmentalists and all in all they are fairly young.

It is worth reading some of the articles.
Is the seas floor litered with dead animals becasue of Fukushima?

Recently we at Deep-Sea News have tried to combat misinformation about the presence of high levels of Fukushima radiation and its impact on marine organisms on the west coast of the United States. After doing thorough research, reading the scientific literature, and consulting with experts and colleagues, we have found no evidence of either.

Three Reasons why Fukushima radiation is not causing Sarfish Wasting Syndrome

Some have become concerned that there is a direct influence from Fukushima. Much of this seems unlikely. Deep-Sea News (among many other sources) have presented excellent reviews of data that can help the rational person make sense from some of the confusing deluge of misinformation.

Deep Sea News


Hard to tell who to believe.....

I wonder if the "experts" would like to weigh in on why high rads are taken from fresh snow fall in Missouri? Some people have been keeping track since this disaster happened.

These "experts" have been hired to quell the concern that is rising.

No no, just go back to sleep, everything is A-OK. Just ignore all of the dead, deformed, and sick looking sea creatures washing ashore.

I give it one year, just one, and there will be no more denying the reality of this situation. Then where will these "experts" be? Still trying to convince everyone that it's not radiation?

reply to post by Aisling


How about looking into the background of the Experts before you discredit them entirely? Some are on the right side.

there needs to be a larger area tested than the Bay area. How about have tests conducted every couple hundred mile from Astoria, Oregon south to San Diego?

If there are increased readings, that would carry more weight. If the local San Fran area is the only place with such high levels, then something more local is to blame.

What about tests near San Onofre? the plant was shut down recently.

Also, I realize it is far off crazy, but,

What if Russian submarines were dumping rad waste off our shores.? or the Chinese? NK?

slow kill and we wouldn't know until it is too late.

Aisling
I give it one year, just one, and there will be no more denying the reality of this situation. Then where will these "experts" be? Still trying to convince everyone that it's not radiation?

They will deny and downplay till the bitter end. Even then,they will probably place blame elsewhere.

reply to post by AccessDenied

Personally I am tired of hearing everyone say "They" when they don't even know who "They" is.

Instead of just taking a side one way or the other (as I nearly have) do some level of independent investigation and post up what you find. I am not talking about just news articles.

If you want to discredit someones opinion you need more information to be credible than just an opposite opinion. I have been looking into the backgrounds of people/scientists that say Fuku is not a big deal for us over here as well as those that say it's doom.

In fact, I bet you did not read the biography of a single one of the bloggers I listed at Deep Sea before responding.

DENY IGNORANCE I am still trying to find the Truth!

reply to post by peacenotgreed


I read a report some place in the last week that said the high readings in California are too soon for Fukushima, and instead the results of US radioactive waste dumped in barrels off the coast of California for decades and some of them are leaking. anybody got any info on that?

Aliensun
reply to post by peacenotgreed

 

I read a report some place in the last week that said the high readings in California are too soon for Fukushima, and instead the results of US radioactive waste dumped in barrels off the coast of California for decades and some of them are leaking. anybody got any info on that?

Took but a second. Just gotta know how to ask the Oracle the right question ( :

Concern grows over 'burying' nuclear waste at sea as officials probe Farallon Island site Concern grows over 'burying' nuclear waste at sea as officials probe Farallon Island site

The Farallon Island dump site near here has been the focus of the controversy in recent years. It encompasses an area of at least 300 square miles located in a major shipping lane and commercial fishing area some 50 miles off San Francisco. Between 1946 and 1970, tens of thousands of barrels of "low-level" radioactive waste were dumped there as well as in other locations off the coasts of California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Could the radiation increases be a result of this? Perhaps! Meanwhile I still have no doubt Fuku will catch up with us all sooner or later. I am thinking it is not yet as bad as it's gonna be, not even close.

Mamatus
reply to post by AccessDenied

 

Personally I am tired of hearing everyone say "They" when they don't even know who "They" is.

Instead of just taking a side one way or the other (as I nearly have) do some level of independent investigation and post up what you find. I am not talking about just news articles.

If you want to discredit someones opinion you need more information to be credible than just an opposite opinion. I have been looking into the backgrounds of people/scientists that say Fuku is not a big deal for us over here as well as those that say it's doom.

In fact, I bet you did not read the biography of a single one of the bloggers I listed at Deep Sea before responding.

DENY IGNORANCE I am still trying to find the Truth!

Iam going to assume you were taking out frustration because I quoted a post you made a similar reply to. Please do not think that because not everyone posts findings that we do not read or do research. Replies like yours are the very reason why many are afraid to even voice an opinion for either side. For the record, this is the one subject I DO research, hence why I even clicked on your thread. Seeing as how though my apparent "lack" of research" insults you, I'll be sure to keep any information I do uncover, in my own posted threads, and not just take the opposite side to your obviously well investigated opinion.

You know what we should all do.....just hit the ****MUTE**** button, on our "leaders". Who cares if they destroy Earth? Ain't like our "vote" matters. Who cares if they run the country into the ground. Ain't like our "protests" matter! Let's just stop caring because "caring" isn't working. Besides, there's NOTHING we can do to stop them anyway, so, WHY BOTHER???

They feed off of fear. It's their gravy train! We were all born at a certain time and date; the same shall occur when we die. Live life and stop eating from the tree of B.S.!

I agree. We do need to perform tests up and down the entire west coast and collate the data to paint a more accurate picture. We should also do tests that determine which isotopes exactly that we're dealing with and the amounts of each.

Snowfall and rainfall are true ways to test for Fukushima related radiation since it gets carried through the air and spit out in the clouds. That can all be confirmed in my opinion. Also UC Berkeley did a study in April 2013 on the radioactive contents of the soil, plantlife, and wild mushrooms. They all tested positive for Iodine-131 and Caesium-137, which are not naturally occurring isotopes.

The ocean water content is a whole different equation and requires a different approach to figure out the true numbers. After all, along with the US dumping radioactive waste into the oceans, I remember hearing a while back how Russia had dumped complete reactors into the ocean... So there are many different points to factor into this research.

Mamatus

Aliensun
reply to post by peacenotgreed

 

I read a report some place in the last week that said the high readings in California are too soon for Fukushima, and instead the results of US radioactive waste dumped in barrels off the coast of California for decades and some of them are leaking. anybody got any info on that?

Took but a second. Just gotta know how to ask the Oracle the right question ( :

Concern grows over 'burying' nuclear waste at sea as officials probe Farallon Island site Concern grows over 'burying' nuclear waste at sea as officials probe Farallon Island site

The Farallon Island dump site near here has been the focus of the controversy in recent years. It encompasses an area of at least 300 square miles located in a major shipping lane and commercial fishing area some 50 miles off San Francisco. Between 1946 and 1970, tens of thousands of barrels of "low-level" radioactive waste were dumped there as well as in other locations off the coasts of California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Could the radiation increases be a result of this? Perhaps! Meanwhile I still have no doubt Fuku will catch up with us all sooner or later. I am thinking it is not yet as bad as it's gonna be, not even close.

Even the U.S government disposing of radioactive barrells in those waters is insane, just goes to show you what kind of nuts are in charge allways. Wow and as a bonus we will have a nice mix of this with fuko.

reply to post by AccessDenied

Don't assume....... Hard to read a persons tone in a forum

One just needs to look for a radiation/thermal image from a satellite and can see the radiation spreading from Japan to America. Fish and birds are dying in masses. coicidense? i don't think so.

reply to post by peacenotgreed


I appreciate the logic and common sense your piece brings to a situation with a lot of misinformation and passion around it. While I think Fukushima has the potential to become much much more than it is as long as the fuel is sitting on-site and outside proper containment? It's not there yet and may never get there (despite some seemingly hoping with anxious anticipation).

Alas....The impossible is still, thankfully, impossible and the idea that humans are freely walking around the very source of radiation supposedly strong enough to cross thousands of miles of air and water to do real harm is still as much a statement now as it was before.

If Fuku turns to the worst case scenario and America actually has serious threat? It'll start by life AT the SOURCE of it dropping dead long before those half a world away do.....

It helps to hear it again from people who do this for a living though. That perspective certainly helps to hear. S/F

I must ask for my apologies. The only other radiiactive source of polution i know of at the moment beyond the Fukusima plant disaster is my dog.

I must have left him take a stroll on the beach again and this is what happens.

I am sorry.

You see my dog has radioctive gasses.

Sorry...

I'm glad to see it was investigated. I sensed there would be a natural explanation for this beach. Hearing about the junk burried at sea is troubling, but ruling Fukushima out is a good start due to concerns. If something is leaking out there I hope they locate it and fix that too.