Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire True facts about Ocean Radiation and the [bleep] Disaster

http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-[bleep]-disaster/

On March 11th, 2011 the Tōhoku earthquake and resulting tsunami wreaked havoc on Japan. It also resulted in the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl when the tsunami damaged the [bleep] Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Radioactive particles were released into the atmosphere and ocean, contaminating groundwater, soil and seawater which effectively closed local Japanese fisheries.

Rather unfortunately, it has also led to some wild speculation on the widespread dangers of [bleep] radiation on the internet. Posts with titles like �Holy [bleep] � Radiation From Japan Is Already Killing North Americans� and �28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From [bleep]� (which Southern Fried Science has already throughly debunked ) keep popping up on my facebook feed from well-meaning friends.

I�m here to tell you that these posts are just plain garbage. While there are terrible things that happened around the [bleep] Power Plant in Japan; Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast aren�t in any danger. These posts were meant to scare people (and possibly written by terrified authors). They did just that, but there is a severe lack of facts in these posts. Which is why I am here to give you the facts, and nothing but the facts.
WHAT WAS RELEASED INTO THE OCEAN AT [bleep]?

The radioactive rods in the [bleep] power plant are usually cooled by seawater [CORRECTION: they are usually cooled by freshwater. As a last ditch emergency effort at [bleep] seawater was used as a coolant.]. The double whammy of an earthquake and a tsunami pretty much released a s**tstorm of badness: the power went out, meltdown started and eventually the radioactive cooling seawater started leaking (and was also intentionally released) into the ocean. Radioactive isotopes were also released into the air and were absorbed by the ocean when they rained down upon it. These two pathways introduced mostly Iodine-131, Cesium-137, and Cesium-134, but also a sprinkling of Tellurium, Uranium and Strontium to the area surrounding the power plant.

There aren�t great estimates of how much of each of these isotopes were released into the ocean since TEPCO, the company that owns the power plant hasn�t exactly been forthcoming with information, but the current estimates are around 538,100 terabecquerels (TBq) which is above Three-Mile Island levels, but below Chernobyl levels. And as it turns out, they recently found contaminated groundwater has also started leaking into the sea. TEPCO, the gift that keeps on giving.
WHAT�S A BEQUEREL? WHAT�S A SIEVERT?

Units of Radiation are confusing. When you start reading the news/literature/blogs, there are what seems like a billion different units to explain radiation. But fear not, I�ve listed them below and what they mean (SI units first).

Becquerel[Bq] or Curie[Ci]: radiation emitted from a radioactive material (1 Ci = 3.7 � 1010 Bq)

Gray [Gy] or Rad[rad]: radiation absorbed by another material (1Gy = 100 rad)

Sieverts[Sv]* or �roentgen equivalent in man�[rem]: how badly radiation will damage biological tissue (1 Sv = 100 rem)

You can convert from Grays and Rads to Rem and Sieverts, but you have to know what kind of radiation it is. For example alpha radiation from naturally occurring Polonium-210 is more damaging to biological tissues than gamma radiation from Cesium-137. Even if you absorbed the same number of Grays from Cesium or Polonium, you would still effectively receive more damaging radiation from Polonium because the number of Sieverts is higher for Polonium than Cesium. And kids, Sieverts and Seavers are both dangerous to your health but please don�t confuse them.
WHAT�S CESIUM-137?

Cesium-137 is product of nuclear fission. Before us humans, there was no Cesium-137 on earth. But then we started blowing stuff up with nuclear bombs and VOILA!, there are now detectable, but safe, levels of Cesium-137 in all the world oceans.
WHAT DO THE MAPS OF [bleep] RADIATION IN THE PACIFIC REALLY TELL US?

There are a bunch of maps being thrown around on the internet as evidence that we are all going to die from [bleep] radiation. I�m going to dissect them here. Apologies in advance for dose of snark in this section because some of these claims are just god awful. Spoiler: radiation probably has reached the West Coast but it�s not dangerous.

You can convert from Grays and Rads to Rem and Sieverts, but you have to know what kind of radiation it is. For example alpha radiation from naturally occurring Polonium-210 is more damaging to biological tissues than gamma radiation from Cesium-137. Even if you absorbed the same number of Grays from Cesium or Polonium, you would still effectively receive more damaging radiation from Polonium because the number of Sieverts is higher for Polonium than Cesium. And kids, Sieverts and Seavers are both dangerous to your health but please don�t confuse them.
WHAT�S CESIUM-137?

Cesium-137 is product of nuclear fission. Before us humans, there was no Cesium-137 on earth. But then we started blowing stuff up with nuclear bombs and VOILA!, there are now detectable, but safe, levels of Cesium-137 in all the world oceans.
WHAT DO THE MAPS OF [bleep] RADIATION IN THE PACIFIC REALLY TELL US?

There are a bunch of maps being thrown around on the internet as evidence that we are all going to die from [bleep] radiation. I�m going to dissect them here. Apologies in advance for dose of snark in this section because some of these claims are just god awful. Spoiler: radiation probably has reached the West Coast but it�s not dangerous.


MAP OF TERROR #1: The Rays of Radioactive Death!

A-Radioactive-Nightmare



[source: http://www.enviroreporter.com/investigations/[bleep]/a-radioactive-nightmare/]
This is not a map of [bleep] Radiation spreading across the Pacific. This is a map of the estimated maximum wave heights of the Japanese Tohuku Tsunami by modelers at NOAA. In fact, tsunamis don�t even transport particles horizontally in the deep ocean. So there is no way a Tsunami could even spread radiation (except maybe locally at scales of several miles as the wave breaks onshore). Dear VC reporter, I regret to inform you this cover image could be the poster child for the importance of journalistic fact-checking for years to come.

MAP OF TERROR #2: EHRMAGHAD radioactive SPAGHATTA NADLES attack Hawaii!

[img]http://www.asrltd.com/japan/plume.php[/img]

I mean I guess this is a bit better. At least this map used an ocean model that actually predicts where radioactive particles will be pushed around by surface ocean currents. But it still gets a BIG FAT FAIL. The engineering company that put this image/piece of crap out there couldn�t even be bothered to put a legend on the map. Their disclaimer says �THIS IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME CONCENTRATION.� Then what do the colors mean?



MAP OF TERROR #3: THE BLOB!



It�s true, oceanographic models have shown that radiation from [bleep] has probably already hit Aleutians and Hawaiian Island chain, and should reach the California Coast by Fall 2014 [Beherns et al. 2012]. The map above is showing the spread of Cesium-137 from the [bleep] reactor would look like right now, I mean radiation is apparently EVERYWHERE! But what is missing from most of the discussion of these maps is what the colors ACTUALLY mean.

We shall now seek guidance from the little box in the upper right hand corner of the map called the legend**. The colors show how much less radioactive the the decrease in the radioactive concentrations of Cesium-137 isotopes have become since being emitted from [bleep]. For example, the red areas indicate the [bleep] Cesium-137 is now more than 10,000 times less radioactive concentrated than when released. The California Coast, more than a million times less. The punchline is that overall concentrations of radioactive isotopes and therefore radioactivity in the Pacific will increase from Pre-[bleep] levels, but it will be way less than what was seen in coastal Japan and definitely not enough to be harmful elsewhere (we�ll get to more of that later).

** As Eve Rickert has thoughtfully pointed out, my description of the image is a little confusing. I�ve added corrections in blue to clarify.
HOW MUCH RADIATION WILL REACH THE WEST COAST?

Practically, what does ten thousand or a million times less radiation mean? It means that these models estimate the West Coast and the Aleutians will see radiation levels anywhere from 1-20 Bq/m3,while Hawaiian Islands could see up to 30 Bq/m3 [Beherns et al. 2012, Nakano et al. 2012, Rossi et al. 2013 ].

I could write a small novel explaining why the numbers differ between the models. For those that love the details, here�s a laundry list of those differences: the amount of radiation initially injected into the ocean, the length of time it took to inject the radiation (slowly seeping or one big dump), the physics embedded in the model, the background ocean state, the number of 20-count shrimp per square mile (Just kidding!), atmospheric forcing, inter-annual and multi-decadal variability and even whether atmospheric deposition was incorporated into the model.

Like I said before, the West Coast will probably not see more than 20 Bq/m3 of radiation. Compare these values to the map of background radiation of Cesium-137 in the ocean before [bleep] (from 1990). Radiation will increase in the Pacific, but it�s at most 10 times higher than previous levels, not thousands. Although looking at this map I would probably stop eating Baltic Herring fish oil pills and Black Sea Caviar (that radiation is from Chernobyl) before ending the consumption of fish from the Pacific Ocean.

WILL THE RADIATION REACHING THE WEST COAST BE DANGEROUS?

No it will not be dangerous. Even within 300 km of [bleep], the additional radiation that was introduced by the Cesium-137 fallout is still well below the background radiation levels from naturally occurring radioisotopes. By the time those radioactive atoms make their way to the West Coast it will be even more diluted and therefore not dangerous at all.

It�s not even dangerous to swim off the coast of [bleep]. Buessler et al. figured out how much radiation damage you would get if you doggie paddled about [bleep] (Yes, science has given us radioactive models of human swimmers). It was less than 0.03% of the daily radiation an average Japanese resident receives. Tiny! Hell, the radiation was so small even immediately after the accident scientists did not wear any special equipment to handle the seawater samples (but they did wear detectors just in case). If you want danger, you�re better off licking the dial on an old-school glow in the dark watch.
CAN I EAT FISH FROM THE PACIFIC?

For the most part the answer is YES. Some fisheries in Japan are still closed because of radioactive contamination. Bottom fish are especially prone to contamination because the fallout collects on the seafloor where they live. Contaminated fish shouldn�t be making it to your grocery store, but I can�t guarantee that so if you are worried just eat fish from somewhere other than Japan.

Fish from the rest of the Pacific are safe. To say it mildly, most fish are kinda lazy. They really don�t travel that far so when you catch a Mahi Mahi off the coast of Hawaii its only going to be as contaminated as the water there, which isn�t very much.Hyperactive fish, such as tuna may be more radioactive than local lazy fish because they migrate so far. As Miriam pointed out in this post, there is a detectable increase of radiation in tuna because they were at one point closer to [bleep], but the levels are not hazardous.

To alleviate fears that you may be glowing due to ingestion too many visits to your local sushi joint, Fischer et al. figured out exactly how much damaging radiation you would receive from eating a tower of tuna rolls. Seriously. Science is just that awesome. Supermarket tuna hunters would receive 0.9 μSv of radiation, while the outdoors subsistence tuna hunter would receive 4.7 μSv. These values are about the same or a little less than the amount a person receives from natural sources.

To put 0.9 μSv of radiation in perspective check out this awesome graph of radiation by xkcd. You�ll get the same amount of radiation by eating 9 bananas. Monkeys might be doomed, but you are not.
I EAT PACIFIC FISH AND SO CAN YOU!

I hope this list of facts has answered most of your questions and convinced you the Pacific and its inhabitants will not be fried by radiation from [bleep]. I certainly feel safe eating sustainable seafood from the Pacific and so should you. If you are still unsure, please feel free to ask questions in the comments section below.
UPDATE #1: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM GROUNDWATER LEAKS

There�s been a lot of discussion in the comments about the contribution from the groundwater leaks. I did some homework and here�s what I came up with. (Also thanks to everyone for the interesting discussions in the comments!)

The ground water leaks are in fact problematic, but what has been released into the ocean is MUCH less than the initial release (although I admit the groundwater itself has extremely high radiation levels). The estimates from Jota Kanda are that 0.3 TBq per month (1012 Bq) of contaminated groundwater is leaking into the ocean, which has added another 9.6 TBq of radiation into the sea at most. The initial releases were about 16.2 PBq (1015 Bq), about 1500 times more radiation. With this in mind, the additional radioactivity leak from ground water isn�t a relatively large addition to the ocean.

The models by Behrens and Rossi used initial source functions of 10 PBq and 22 PBq, which is on par with the most recent estimates. Since their models used a much higher source function, that says to me that this relatively smaller input from groundwater still won�t raise the radioactivity to dangerous levels on the West Coast, Alaska and Hawaii. Recent observations around Hawaii by Kamenik et al. also suggest that the models may have even overestimated the amount of radiation that hit Hawaii, which is good news.

But there are caveats to this information as well. The leaking groundwater contains strontium and tritium which are more problematic than Cesium-137. But it sounds like strontium accumulates in bones and is only problem if you eat small fish with the bones in, like sardines (and it will only affect sardines caught near Japan since they don�t travel far). I suspect there might be some precedent for understanding the dangers of tritium in seawater from the 20th century nuclear testing in atolls, but I really don�t know. There is also 95 TBq of radioactive cesium is in the sediment around [bleep], which is still super problematic for bottom dwelling fish and therefore local Japanese Fisheries. Lastly, another source is terrestrial runoff. These numbers haven�t been quantified but they are probably minor because they contain a fraction of the total deposition from atmospheric fallout, which itself was a fraction of what was released into the ocean.

So even with the new groundwater leaks, the available evidence still tells me I can eat fish from the West Coast, Hawaii, and Alaska.

http://www.nature.com/news/ocean-still-suffering-from-[bleep]-fallout-1.11823

http://www.biogeosciences.net/10/6045/2013/bg-10-6045-2013.pdf

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/11/[bleep]-fallout-not-affecting-u-s-caught-fish/

[DISCLAIMER: The creators of the NOAA tsunami map work in my building. I secretly fangirl squeal when I walk past their offices. I recently had coffee with Joke F. L�bbecke, who also works in my building. It was caffeinated.]

*Confusingly, oceanographers also co-opted the acronym Sv for Sverdrups their unit for volume transport. 1 Sverdrup = 1 Sv = one million cubic metres per second = 400 Olympic swimming pools just passed your house in one second.
SOURCES:

Behrens, Erik, et al. �Model simulations on the long-term dispersal of 137Cs released into the Pacific Ocean off [bleep].� Environmental Research Letters 7.3 (2012): 034004.

Buesseler, Ken O., et al. �[bleep]-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan.� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.16 (2012): 5984-5988.

Fisher, Nicholas S., et al. �Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the [bleep] nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood.� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2013).

Nakano, Masanao, and Pavel P. Povinec. �Long-term simulations of the 137 Cs dispersion from the [bleep] accident in the world ocean.� Journal of environmental radioactivity 111 (2012): 109-115.

Rossi, Vincent, et al. �Multi-decadal projections of surface and interior pathways of the [bleep] Cesium-137 radioactive plume.� Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers (2013).

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution FAQ: Radiation from [bleep]

Explained: rad, rem, sieverts, becquerelsl. A guide to terminology about radiation exposure

ya but what about the [bleep]?

Aw, crap, facts aren't any fun...... We were just starting to work up a good head of steam on the conjecture....

I hope eyrball kept his lowes receipts

Billions are going to die!!!

I read it on the internet.

that made me laugh out loud!

Sycamore

Those "facts" (have they been verified?) won't be applicable if the fuel rods stored on site go into melt down..

That is what the engineers onsite are try to prevent. The cooling /monitoring systems has been destroyed, and they have cobbled together make shift replacements. Escaping steam is not a good sign as it indicates a rise in temperature and a possible boiling off of the sea water being used as coolant.

Trouble is, they really don't know whats going inside the storage pools as everything is so badly damaged..

This sort of accident has happened before in Russia back in 1957 see Kyshtym_disaster

The current incident in Japan is already rated as more serious than the Kyshtym_disaster. If the stored fuel rods suffer a melt down, it will be worse by an order of several magnitudes.

The issue is containment in Japan. Really quite simple. Back when I was in the Navy I was a Reactor Operator in the Nuclear program. So I do know first hand a thing or two about this stuff.

The situation at the reactor site in Japan is serious but well in hand. It will be 20 to 30 years 'cleaning' that place up, but honestly beyond the reactor site with the current conditions it is very difficult to even measure radiation 'leakage' from the plant beyond background levels and normal fluctuations in it.

Sycamore and pick.....thank you. I worked with the Washington State Department of Health, Office of Radiation Protection during the Japan disaster (had to change words so Rick Bin's gremlins didn't interpret it as a bad word). Their biggest issue was dispelling all the BS.

Bob

From Southern Fried Science

http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=15903

28 fallacies about the [bleep] nuclear disaster�s effect on the US West Coast

The [bleep] Daiichi nuclear power plant is back in the news, with recent reports of continued leaks. Coming on the heels of these new reports is a viral blog post entitled 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From [bleep]. The article is a paranoid, poorly reasoned attempt to link the tragedy of the [bleep] disaster to just about every environmental issue facing the US west coast in the last few months. At its best, it�s an illogical piece of post-modern absurdism. At its worst, its empirically false and intentionally misleading, rife with out-of-context quotes and cherry-picked data. The author had 28 chances to make a single reasonable point, and every single one rang hollow.

Of course it went viral.

Since I believe in open, honest discourse, let me begin by pointing out that I am not a physicist, nor do I have any particular credentials when it comes to nuclear energy. I am a marine ecologist. You�ll find, however, that for these 28 points, the devil is not in the details. Most are the result of logical fallacies, rather than technical inaccuracies. Many are simply articles taken out of context or unbelievably tenuous observations followed by �couldn�t it be [bleep]?� In a follow up, the author even argues that he�s �Just asking questions� a phrase I thought was long ago relegated to Glenn Beck parodies. A fifth of these points don�t even have to do with the North American West Coast.

So here we go, with a point by point debunking of this unfortunate article. I�ve broken them out into larger themes which I hope will make the many logical fallacies apparent. For reasons that will become obvious, we begin with point 20.

An article arguing that the West Coast is being �absolutely fried� by radiation also argues that the radiation won�t reach us until 2014.

�20. One recent study concluded that a very large plume of cesium-137 from the [bleep] disaster will start flowing into U.S. coastal waters early next year�
Ocean simulations showed that the plume of radioactive cesium-137 released by the [bleep] disaster in 2011 could begin flowing into U.S. coastal waters starting in early 2014 and peak in 2016.�

The title of this article is �28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From [bleep]�, but buried deep in the text is point 20 � the radioactive plume won�t reach the West Coast of the United States until 2014. Are you familiar with the old robot folk-saying �Does not compute�? Keep this point in mind while reading through the rest of these points. Interestingly, the whole paragraph that the 2014 line was cherry picked from reads:

�Ocean simulations showed that the plume of radioactive cesium-137 released by the [bleep] disaster in 2011 could begin flowing into U.S. coastal waters starting in early 2014 and peak in 2016. Luckily, two ocean currents off the eastern coast of Japan � the Kuroshio Current and the Kuroshio Extension � would have diluted the radioactive material so that its concentration fell well below the World Health Organization�s safety levels within four months of the [bleep] incident. But it could have been a different story if nuclear disaster struck on the other side of Japan.�

source

Points with no connection to [bleep]

These are real issues affecting the ocean but there is no evidence that any of them are connected to the [bleep] Daiichi nuclear disaster. Remember, the original article itself even noted that the first radioactive ocean plumes wouldn�t reach the Pacific coast of North America until 2014.

1. Polar bears, seals and walruses along the Alaska coastline are suffering from fur loss and open sores�

From the actual article cited:

�Reuters noted that preliminary studies do not support a theory that the disease is due to contamination from the tsunami-wrecked [bleep] nuclear plant in Japan.�

source

2. There is an epidemic of sea lion deaths along the California coastline�

This is true, and those dead sea lions were killed by starvation. One theory is that a decline in food fish populations has made it harder for mothers to nurse newborn pups.

From one of the sources:

�Sarah Wilkin is a marine biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service. Asked why it has reached this point, she said: �We�re looking at whether the prey that these animals should be eating just isn�t available to them for some reason, and that could be because there�s less of it or because it�s moved and it�s not accessible.��

source

3. Along the Pacific coast of Canada and the Alaska coastline, the population of sockeye salmon is at a historic low. Many are blaming [bleep].

There is no mention in the source article of anyone blaming [bleep]. Salmon populations have been struggling for decades. What the article does say is:

�Conservation groups have sounded the alarm, saying Alaskan commercial fishermen are contributing to the problem as Skeena River sockeye get caught in the nets of Americans fishing for pink and chum sockeye.�

source

4. Something is causing fish all along the west coast of Canada to bleed from their gills, bellies and eyeballs.

The suspected cause is viral hemorrhagic septicemia, a disease known from other Pacific fish species. Again, no mention in the source of anything to do with [bleep].

Points that are misleading or deliberately distort facts

5. A vast field of radioactive debris from [bleep] that is approximately the size of California has crossed the Pacific Ocean and is starting to collide with the west coast.

The 2011 earthquake and tsunami was an unprecedented natural disaster. The [bleep] Daiichi nuclear disaster was an unprecedented human disaster. They are related, but they are not the same thing. There was a large amount of debris washed into the Pacific by the tsunami. A very small component of that debris may have come from [bleep]. There is not a California-sized island of radioactive debris making its way across the Pacific.

6. It is being projected that the radioactivity of coastal waters off the U.S. west coast could double over the next five to six years.

Technically true, egregiously misleading. From the source:

Tentatively assuming a value of 10 petabecquerel (PBq) for the net 137Caesium (Cs) input during the first weeks after the [bleep] incident, the simulation suggests a rapid dilution of peak radioactivity values to about 10 Bq/m� during the first 2 years, followed by a gradual decline to 1�2 Bq/m� over the next 4�7 years. The total peak radioactivity levels would then be about twice the pre-[bleep] values. �While this may sound alarming, these levels are still lower than those permitted for drinking water,� said B�ning.

source

7. Experts have found very high levels of cesium-137 in plankton living in the waters of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and the west coast.

True, but again, misleading. Cesium-137 doesn�t biomagnify like mercury. Cesium has a biological half-life of 70 days. Claiming that cesium-137 will travel up the �food chain� like mercury and other heavy metals do is simply wrong.

8. One test in California found that 15 out of 15 bluefin tuna were contaminated with radiation from [bleep].

Again, the article ignores the fact that they found low-levels of cesium. From the source:

Low levels of radioactive cesium from Japan�s [bleep] Daiichi nuclear accident turned up in fish caught off California in 2011, researchers reported Monday.

The bluefin spawn off Japan, and many migrate across the Pacific Ocean. Tissue samples taken from 15 bluefin caught in August, five months after the meltdowns at [bleep] Daiichi, all contained reactor byproducts cesium-134 and cesium-137 at levels that produced radiation about 3% higher than natural background sources

source

9. Back in 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada�

There are important health issues associate with seafood caught near the power plant. Because of that, Japan has since suspended fishing activities near [bleep] and established an exclusion zone.

10. Canadian authorities are finding extremely high levels of nuclear radiation in certain fish samples�

The source for this is talking about fish from Japan, not Canada, although the author makes it sound like he�s talking about fish caught in Canada. Points 9 and 10 are actually the same point.

11. Some experts believe that we could see very high levels of cancer along the west coast just from people eating contaminated fish�

The science says otherwise:

The additional dose from [bleep] radionuclides to humans consuming tainted PBFT in the United States was calculated to be 0.9 and 4.7 μSv for average consumers and subsistence fishermen, respectively. Such doses are comparable to, or less than, the dose all humans routinely obtain from naturally occurring radionuclides in many food items, medical treatments, air travel, or other background sources. Although uncertainties remain regarding the assessment of cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation to humans, the dose received from PBFT consumption by subsistence fishermen can be estimated to result in two additional fatal cancer cases per 10,000,000 similarly exposed people.

source

Points that lacks sufficient context to be informative

13. An EU-funded study concluded that [bleep] released up to 210 quadrillion becquerels of cesium-137 into the atmosphere.

Ok, but how much is that? Is that a lot? Is that a dangerous amount? The total radiation from [bleep] is currently estimated to be about 5.5% of that released by Chernobyl.

14. Atmospheric radiation from [bleep] reached the west coast of the United States within a few days back in 2011.

When we measured that radiation in 2011, it was found to be too low to have any effect.

15. At this point, 300 tons of contaminated water is pouring into the Pacific Ocean from [bleep] every single day.

The mass of water in an olympic swimming pool is 2500 tons. At this rate, it would take more than 8 days for that contaminated water to fill an olympic swimming pool. The Pacific ocean is significantly larger.

16. A senior researcher of marine chemistry at the Japan Meteorological Agency�s Meteorological Research Institute says that �30 billion becquerels of radioactive cesium and 30 billion becquerels of radioactive strontium� are being released into the Pacific Ocean from [bleep] every single day.

Again, the article gives us no indication of whether those numbers are meaningful? Is that a lot?

17. According to Tepco, a total of somewhere between 20 trillion and 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium have gotten into the Pacific Ocean since the [bleep] disaster first began.

What does that mean? Where is the context. Just throwing out big numbers without providing any sort of explanation is nothing but scaremongering.

19. It has been estimated that up to 100 times as much nuclear radiation has been released into the ocean from [bleep] than was released during the entire Chernobyl disaster.

[bleep] is on the coast. Chernobyl was in the middle of the Ukraine. Of course there was more radiation released into the ocean by [bleep]. That doesn�t change the fact that the total radiation released by [bleep] is about 5.5% of that released by the Chernobyl disaster.

24. The Iodine-131, Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 that are constantly coming from [bleep] are going to affect the health of those living the the northern hemisphere for a very, very long time. Just consider what Harvey Wasserman had to say about this�

There are no scientific studies cited by this source. Harvey Wasserman is an anti-nuclear activist. There�s nothing inherently problematic about that, and I�m sure he�s got some interesting ideas to discuss, but I need to see the data backing up these (very vague) claims and the data is not provided.

Points that have nothing to do with the premise of the article, AKA non-sequitors

These next 6 points have plenty of issues, but the most pressing of which is that they have nothing to do with the US West Coast or how it is currently being fried by radiation from [bleep]. As they are non-sequitors, they do not warrant further analysis here.

12. BBC News recently reported that radiation levels around [bleep] are �18 times higher� than previously believed.

18. According to a professor at Tokyo University, 3 gigabecquerels of cesium-137 are flowing into the port at [bleep] Daiichi every single day.

21. It is being projected that significant levels of cesium-137 will reach every corner of the Pacific Ocean by the year 2020.

26. A study conducted last year came to the conclusion that radiation from the [bleep] nuclear disaster could negatively affect human life along the west coast of North America from Mexico to Alaska �for decades�.

27. According to the Wall Street Journal, it is being projected that the cleanup of [bleep] could take up to 40 years to complete.

28. Yale Professor Charles Perrow is warning that if the cleanup of [bleep] is not handled with 100% precision that humanity could be threatened �for thousands of years��

Points that are just, plain wrong

22. It is being projected that the entire Pacific Ocean will soon �have cesium levels 5 to 10 times higher� than what we witnessed during the era of heavy atomic bomb testing in the Pacific many decades ago.

It is not easy to find direct comparisons between nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, which makes me think this factoid was invented whole cloth. The closest I can find are comparisons in �units-Hiroshima�. In the Pacific, Castle Bravo alone had a 1000 times greater yield than Hiroshima. And Castle Bravo was only one of over 100 high yield nuclear weapons tests conducted by the United States. An additional 193 test were conducted by France in Polynesia. The most liberal sources I can find, place [bleep] at somewhere around 4000 Hiroshimas. That�s high, but it�s nowhere near the claim of 5 to 10 times higher than the Pacific nuclear weapons testing era.

23. The immense amounts of nuclear radiation getting into the water in the Pacific Ocean has caused environmental activist Joe Martino to issue the following warning: �Your days of eating Pacific Ocean fish are over.�

Actually, Gary Stamper said that. And Gary Stamper�s claims were completely debunked.

25. According to a recent Planet Infowars report, the California coastline is being transformed into �a dead zone��

No. Just no. Planet InfoWars? No.

I have been to the California Coast, recently. It does not look anything like this bizarre article describes.

Conclusion

The [bleep] Daiichi nuclear disaster was an unparalleled environmental catastrophe and we will be seeing fallout from it for years to come. I honestly cannot think of any reason to fabricate a bunch of paranoid talking points to make it seem worse. Thousands of people were displaced from their home, many of them permanently. Contaminated waste was, and still is, being dumped into the water surround the plant. The energy infrastructure of an entire nation was compromised. Do we really need to blame [bleep] on a viral outbreak in British Columbia, too?

To put things in perspective, the [bleep] disaster released approximately one ten-thousandth of the total radiation produce by the world�s coal power plants annually. That number will either be reassuring or terrifying, but, really, it should be both.

There is another reason why articles like this are so compelling, particularly to those in rich, developed countries. It gives us the ability to blame the �foreign other� for our own environmental crises. It�s not our fault that salmon stocks are collapsing, it�s the Japanese! We aren�t the ones driving polar bears and marine mammal moralities, [bleep] did it! The West Coast of the United States is being fried. It�s being fried by over-fishing, agricultural run-off, runaway development, and a host of other issues, but it�s not being fried by [bleep], and articles that promote that fallacious argument are distracting us from the dominant causes of environmental degradation on our coasts: Us.

I just shake my head ..

So much double speak and intentional hype to motivate people to believe in conclusion based on emotional angst and hidden agendas.

Sad thing is I just do not have the time to educate every idiot and save them from their own gullibility. People need to have a sense of personal responsibility. including what your respond too and how.

I am amazed how much most people complain about Pol and News people being dishonest, but then they turn around and swallow the cr*p they feed them with out a moment of rational thought or careful consideration.

Time for me to chill and call it day.

Or you could make radiationnetwork.com/ your home page if you enjoy worrying about things you don't need to worry about. Real time maps of radiation counts. Or http://jciv.iidj.net/map/ if you have a particular interest in Japan.

Not sure anyone's listening Pete. Of course Doc's post the other day weren't about ocean contamination, it was about that 89 tons of fissile material left in the plant that nobody is sure about.

Birdwatcher

There is a better than fair chance that will emphatically bite us on the arse.

You know... IF there is ever a REAL disaster that threatens mankind, the [bleep] in the media and all the left or right wing nutjobs will have the information so screwed up that by the time we sort out what the truth is, we will all be toast anyway.

That's reassuring to hear.

So why aren't we just seeing the people starting to rebuild and move back in if its so in control?

So I guess we can forget about everybody in California going sterile, huh?

LOL that's a problem? They are all catching the gay anyway.

But what i would like to know is:What impact will this have on night fishing?Better or no?

I hope they get this stopped and cleaned up.