Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
Behavioral research shows that facts often don't help to dispel fears, but I wanted to post this anyway.
West Coast radiation from Fukushima disaster poses no risk, experts say
by Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times, 1/12/14
Radiation detected off the U.S. West Coast from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan has declined since the 2011 tsunami disaster and never approached levels that could pose a risk to human health, seafood or wildlife, scientists say.
Experts have been trying to dispel worries stemming from a burst of online videos and blog posts in recent months that contend radiation from Fukushima is contaminating beaches and seafood and harming sea creatures across the Pacific. Those assertions are false and the concerns largely unfounded, scientists and government officials said last week, because Fukushima radionuclides in ocean water and marine life are at trace levels and declining — so low that they are trivial compared with what already exists in nature. "There is no public health risk at California beaches due to radioactivity related to events at Fukushima," the California Department of Public Health said in a statement.
Concentrations of radioactive cesium from the nuclear plant that were detected in the tissue of bluefin tuna, which migrate from waters near Japan across the Pacific to the coast of California and Mexico, were very low to begin with and have been falling since 2011, said Nicholas Fisher, a professor of marine science at Stony Brook University. "The dose is measurable but it's extremely low," said Fisher, an expert on marine radioactivity. Even at its worst in the months after the disaster, the dose of radioactivity that Fisher's lab found in tuna caught off California was far lower than what people are exposed to from medical X-rays or eating bananas or other potassium-rich foods, which contain naturally occurring radioactive isotopes.
The latest concerns are mostly driven by online videos, blogs and social media — including a post titled "28 Signs That the West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima." A video posted on YouTube last month shows an unidentified man with a Geiger counter detecting elevated radiation levels on a beach in Half Moon Bay, south of San Francisco, and has received more than 650,000 views. The California Department of Public Health sent inspectors to the beach shown in the video, and their tests found similarly elevated radiation levels. But their analysis indicates they are naturally occurring — probably from minerals in the sand — and not associated with Fukushima.
Kim Martini, an oceanographer at the University of Washington, noticed a surge in outrageous worries about radiation in Seattle last fall, including people who were afraid to go to the beach and stopped eating seafood. "Every single environmental issue was being blamed on Fukushima," she said. "And I thought there's no way that can be true." Since then she and other scientists have been posting information on the blog Deep Sea News, with posts including "Is the sea floor littered with dead animals due to radiation? No."
The magnitude 9.0 earthquake off Japan on March 11, 2011, triggered a series of tsunamis that crippled the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, releasing radiation into the ocean and atmosphere. Studies show that leaks from the facility continue to send radionuclides into the sea. But they dilute quickly in ocean water, scientists say. Once those contaminants disperse across the Pacific Ocean and reach the West Coast, their concentration will be many thousands of times lower and not of concern, according to an online FAQ by Ken Buesseler, a marine scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. "This is not to say that we should not be concerned about additional sources of radioactivity in the ocean above the natural sources, but at the levels expected even short distances from Japan, the Pacific will be safe for boating, swimming, etc.," Buesseler wrote.
State and federal agencies boosted radiation monitoring after the 2011 disaster but returned to normal after data showed the slightly elevated levels in air and milk were declining. They have detected only trace amounts of radiation from Fukushima, well below what would be a public health concern.
For now, those observations have not quelled the conspiracy theories. The Southern California environmental group Heal the Bay has fielded such a swell of alarmist calls, emails and Facebook inquires that its staff posted an online Q&A. "We understand why people are concerned," said Matthew King, a spokesman for the group. "Many staffers are surfers and in the water each week, and many love to eat seafood and sushi, so it's only human nature to be a bit worried. But like everything else we do, we are guided by the best available science."
Fisher, the marine scientist, thinks one factor behind those worries is the public's poor grasp of how radiation works. "I think it's fear of the unknown," said Martini, the Seattle oceanographer. "Radiation is kind of scary. You don't really see it and you can't detect it using your normal senses. There are consequences of this disaster but the problem is really only in Japan."
https://www.latimes.com/science/la-m...#ixzz2qT4mzf34
More info here
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: “FAQ: Radiation from Fukushima.”
https://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=833...3622&cid=94989
and here
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: “Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood.)
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2...34110.full.pdf
Re: Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
I was standing in front of the canned cat food aisle at Target last night when a couple walked up to buy some cat food. The guy suggested a seafood variety and his friend said, "No. I'm not buying any seafood for the cat. It's got radiation from Fukushima."
Ron
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by peggykarp:
Behavioral research shows that facts often don't help to dispel fears, but I wanted to post this anyway.
West Coast radiation from Fukushima disaster poses no risk, experts say
by Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times, 1/12/14
Re: Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
Study finds Fukushima radioactivity in tuna off Oregon, Washington
Source: Reuters - Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:22 PMAuthor: Reuters
https://www.trust.org/item/20140429222303-zff17
But then there's this one –
Federal Government Finds Harmful Contaminants In Columbia River Fish
April 29, 2014 | OPB
https://earthfix.opb.org/water/article/federal-government-finds-harmful-contaminants-in-c/
Both came from Above the Fold, daily environmental news
https://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/
Brings to mind Vonnegut's Ice-nine. We're all connected all the time.
Re: Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by steph:
Good to know there are scientists out there being vigilant about this.
From what I read from the real experts about radioactivity it's all about the levels.
I noticed this paragraph in the linked article:
"But authors of the Oregon State University study say the levels are so small you would have to consume more than 700,000 pounds of the fish with the highest radioactive level to match the amount of radiation the average person is annually exposed to in everyday life through cosmic rays, the air, the ground, X-rays and other sources."
So if I were to eat a pound of that fish with the highest levels of radioactivity I'll be getting 1 / 700,000 of what I'm already receiving in a year. Good to know.
Scott
Re: Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
If only this were true. I do not understand why you are selectively picking the most upbeat information among the massive amount of really disturbing scientific concern about the public health impacts of Fukushima..
Please do read read Enenews.com
« SF Chronicle: “Unbelievable hordes” of fish near California coast; Most birds, sea lions, dolphins, whales anywhere — Expert: ‘Off the charts’ pelican population “highly unusual… could reflect breeding failures elsewhere”; “Abnormal ocean conditions” to blame?
AP: “This town is dead”… Locals feel Fukushima plant could explode any minute; Yearly ‘safe’ radiation levels exceeded “in a matter of a few hours” — TV: “Fukushima evacuees complain of health problems”; Nearly 70% of households affected »
“Prestigious group of international scientists” interested in risk to West Coast from Fukushima radioactive plume — “Major concern for public health of coastal communities” — Bioaccumulation potential in region must be understood
|
Published: April 30th, 2014 at 11:33 pm ET
By ENENews
|
Georgia Straight (Vancouver Weekly), Apr. 30, 2014: The lack of available information about Fukushima-associated radiation risks in the Pacific Ocean and for North America’s Pacific Northwest region has caught the attention of a prestigious group of international scientists. The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)—which represents about 5,500 chemists, biologists, and toxicologists from more than 100 countries—is hosting a session on Fukushima’s continuing radioactive legacy during its 35th annual North American meeting, to be held in Vancouver this fall. [...]
Release from Juan Jose Alava, Simon Fraser University faculty of environment adjunct professor and session co-chair, Apr. 25, 2014: “[The rationale behind the session is to] stress the need to conduct lines of research and monitoring aimed to understand baseline data and bioaccumulation potential of radionuclides and radiation risks in the region [...] [There's a] lack of knowledge and data from regional governments regarding potential risks of Fukushima-associated radiation in the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Ocean [...] [There's been] scant attention and lack of radiation monitoring… by the Governments of Canada and United States [...] [Possible contamination of coastal and ocean food webs through bioaccumulation are] issues of major concern for the public health of coastal communities [...] [First Nations that rely on seafood are] particularly vulnerable.”
See also: Professors: Seafood off N. American coast predicted to exceed gov't radioactivity limit -- "High priority looming threat" to global ocean from Fukushima releases -- Radiation levels 'well above' 1,000 Bq/kg according to model
And: Researchers predict west coast killer whales will exceed 1,000 Bq/kg of radioactive cesium -- Over 10 times gov't limit in Japan -- Concern about harm to humans, sea life -- Expert: People eating large amounts of fish may have levels similar to whales
Re: Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by artur:
I do not understand why you are selectively picking the most upbeat information among the massive amount of really disturbing scientific concern about the public health impacts of Fukushima..
I'm sure the attempt to personalize this discussion by calling out an unidentified "you" can't possibly refer to me as I've never made comments about the public health impacts of Fukushima other than to say it's a horrific tragedy for those living near the accident. (Besides, I couldn't imagine anyone in this forum attacking someone personally for a position they never took.)
I've been concerned with accurate radiation measurements along the West Coast and what those measurements tell us about what is actually going on. We don't know for sure what will happen in the future (I certainly don't) and that is why more monitoring is a really good thing.
The AP article linked ("This town is dead") is about a town in Japan 6 miles from the accident site, where it remains a terrible tragedy, certainly including public health impacts.
The SF Chronicle article linked ("Unbelievable hordes") is about a highly above normal amount of sea life along the California coast, but it does not mention Fukushima or radiation at all. However, it does mention El Nino and global warming as potential causes that scientists think might explain the changes described in the article.
The other three linked articles address some predictions of potential problems but none of them say there is currently a problem along the West Coast from Fukushima radiation in food sources etc. Of course, any potential problems should be of concern and that is why having accurate data is so important.
And that's what I am advocating for -- having accurate information. There has been a lot of false, fear-based information going around about radiation danger along the West Coast from Fukushima that just isn't true (false claims about what is here now, not just about what might come). We should be selectively picking for factual data and not selectively picking for either "upbeat" or "disturbing" information.
An example of selectivity is posting a link that says "Study finds Fukushima radioactivity in Tuna off Oregon, Washington" but failing to include the fact that if one eats a whole pound of the most radioactive contaminated tuna one receives only 1/700,000 of the amount of radioactivity one receives in a year naturally by just being alive.
If indeed there has been or is currently any significant existing public health impacts for people living on the West Coast from radiation from Fukishima then someone should post that data here on this forum. Maybe there is some, I just haven't seen any.
Scott
Re: Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:
I couldn't imagine anyone in this forum attacking someone personally for a position they never took.
:biglaugh:
Quote:
If indeed there has been or is currently any significant existing public health impacts for people living on the West Coast from radiation from Fukushima then someone should post that data here on this forum. Maybe there is some, I just haven't seen any.
Before I started reading this thread (occasionally, not every link), I was leaning toward thinking there was an extreme and immediate threat to those of us on the West Coast from Fukushima radiation. Ironically, the more I've followed the links posted by those who are trying to convince us of that threat, the less I'm agreeing with them. Are people not reading through the articles they themselves are posting to see what they're really saying, or do they just have trouble understanding what they read, or what?
Re: Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
There is no safe amount of cesium 137 to ingest. I am no longer eating anything from the Pacific Ocean. I am also not eating anything from the Gulf Of Mexico. I avoid eating all heavy metals from all sources especially lead and mercury. I do not eat GMOs or pesticides. I don't know if this will give me a longer or healthier life but I am doing my best to stay healthy. So far this is proving to be a good decision.
Emerald
Re: Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by EmeraldMatra:
There is no safe amount of cesium 137 to ingest. I am no longer eating anything from the Pacific Ocean. I am also not eating anything from the Gulf Of Mexico.
Well, I suppose that couldn't hurt. But if we are going to go there then there is no safe level of just living. We're all going to die.
With the effects of radiation, how radiation damages biological tissue is measured in sieverts (Sv). Some types of radiation are more damaging than others, but that is accounted for in the measurements of sieverts.
As one of the scientists who authored the fish study pointed out, the amount of biologically damaging radiation received from the cesium 137 from ingesting the most contaminated albacore for a whole year is about the same amount of damaging radiation received from the potassium-40 radiation received by sleeping next to a partner for 40 days. It is that infinitesimal. (I suspect the mercury in the albacore is far more dangerous.)
https://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archi...shima-albacore
Now I suppose one can technically say there is no safe amount. But then also there is no safe amount to just existing.
Here is a handy chart that illustrates levels of radiation in sieverts.
Scott
https://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-.../radiation.png
See chart at full size here.
Re: Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
Even the phonetics involved with the pronunciation of the word "Fukushima" are seemingly insulting expletives that might be suggestive of a payback for Hiroshima, in the plot-line of a South Park, episode...
However, regardless of what could be regarded as a real potential threat, or not, to our beloved Western Pacific Coast line, and the abundant sea life, and fragile eco-structure thereof. The media is going to continue to have a field day, with continued claims of health threat risks, and dooms day projections, along with prolonged rants and ecological banter, from any pseudo scientific environmentalist with a Geiger counter.
It just makes for good sensationalism, and that's what sells, unfortunately or not...
What I hope is that all the scare tactics are ultimately unfounded and false. Hopefully this tragedy can and will lead to the abatement, reduction, and rendering of nuclear power plants as being obsolete due to their ultimate lack of safety. There are other means of obtaining power, and those alternative techniques can and should be implemented and proliferated by all means.
It's always a sad day to see any environmental nightmare...
It seems we were all bracing for the absolute worst scenario when there were forecasts that nuclear tides from Japan, would render all the seafood in the Pacific Ocean inedible by the year 2014. So it is surely great news to discover that the radiation levels of say a salmon, will hopefully be no greater than that of a banana, or a bag of peanuts, for that matter.
Ultimately I hope that this Fukushima, incident raises such a monumental level of awareness that this type of catastrophe will be a sheer impossibility in the future. I mean come on folks, let this be a warning, and let's do something about it. There's certainly no room for such mistakes in our world. We should count our blessings, before we can inevitably only count curses.
Re: Dispelling fears of radiation from Fukushima
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by artur:
I'll selectively pick these two. Both of these beautifully illustrate the kind of fallacies that call the critical judgement of the poster in question. Sorry that sounds more personal than I quite intend - but when a couple of the links are to such flawed evidence, I don't know why I should bother to look at any of the others; when evidence is posted it implies it's being endorsed and these don't deserve an endorsement.
The first, about the hordes of fish, seems to be of the form: "Hey, something weird is going on. Something else weird happened a while ago. They sure might be related! So more bad stuff might happen too!"
And the other is equally irrelevant - or at least, there's no attempt at drawing a plausible connection. We're a bit farther than those towns, with a bit more water in between.
Ok, I did look at the others too. They seem to be more sober and measured (and directly address the local issues). But I share Dixon's question - is the real problem that we're not acting scared enough? I don't see any arguments claiming "nothing to see here".
