Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Total Radiation Inventory at Fukushima

A pro-radiation shrill (Aptly name Cyril) has been attacking Nukepro throughout the blogophere.   She states in her comment below----
Less than 0.01 kg of Sr-90 was released. This will convert to less than 0.01 kg of Y-90 which will convert to the same amount of stable zirconium, which is non toxic.
 So I had to do some calcs to convert Bq to grams, she says 10 grams (.01 kG) of Strontium was released.    Hmmm that seems a bit low to me.   Oh I see....about half of the inventory of Fukushima was exploded and aerosolized into the atmosphere, over 3000 lbs of Strontium, but the shrill shill states that less than half an ounce of Strontium got out, ever.

Right, and they detected Strontium in Hawaii milk (they do have cows in Hawaii) before the DOH was told to implement the BP playbook to "protect" our Japanese friends and the nuke cartel.

Hilarious, they reported the Strontium 89!   As a way to say....hey it only has a half life of 55 days, no problem, in 2 years it will be all gone.     Funny how the radiation cartel just refuses to even talk about strontium 90, half life around 30 years.       

And they found 145Bq/kG south of Tokyo, story here

At the bottom of this post is a discussion of radiation releases from various sources over the course of the "nuclear age", from ENENEWS.

A while back I spent about half a day to gather information and do some calculations.    Surprisingly, the NRC provided the data I needed directly to me.    That was sure useful of them.   

Here are the net results.      Truly an astounding amount of radiations at Fukushima.   Well, was at Fukushima, they "gifted" much of it to the world.  

Bq        Bq/M3
7.15E+18    Sr 90     10.83
7.15E+18    Y 90     10.83
2.38E+18    Zr 95     3.61
5.34E+18    Nb 95     8.09
1.87E+19    Ru 106     28.36
1.87E+19    Rh106     28.36
9.23E+18    Cs134     13.99
9.60E+18    Cs137     14.55
9.08E+18    Ba 137m     13.76
3.51E+19    Ce144     53.20
3.51E+19    Pr144     53.20
9.93E+18    Pm147     15.05
1.13E+19    Pu241     17.15
1.79E+20    Total of Major Isotopes    270.98

Arizonan, you may wish to look at the following and check out the radioactive waste discharged into the ocean:
The following comes from the above wikipedia link:
The countries involved — listed in order of total contributions measured in TBq (TBq=1012 Becquerel) — were the USSR, the UK, Switzerland, the US, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, Russia, New Zealand, Germany, Italy and South Korea. Together, they dumped a total of 85,100 TBq (85.1x1015Bq) of radioactive waste at over 100 ocean sites, as measured in initial radioactivity at the time of dump.
For comparison:
magnitude of radiation
Global fallout of nuclear weapon tests — 2,566,087x1015Bq.[4]
1986 Chernobyl disaster total release — 12,060x1015Bq.[5]
2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, estimated total aerial release — 11,346x1015Bq.[6]
Fukishima Daiichi nuclear plant cooling water dumped (leaked) to the sea — TEPCO estimate 4.7x1015Bq, Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission estimate 15x1015Bq,[7] French Nuclear Safety Committee estimate 27x1015Bq.[8]
Naturally occurring Potassium 40 in all oceans — 14,000,000x1015Bq.[9]
One container (net 400kg) of vitrified high-level radioactive waste has an average radioactivity of 4x1015Bq (Max 45x1015Bq).
However, I do wonder where the US was storing their waste; I would have thought they would have had a similar amount to Britain and possibly the Soviet Union.

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Science and Governments have been purchased, Global Warming proven false

The latest Conca shill push is for "more radiation" and now its "listen to us because we call ourselves scientists". A few comments from a reader at Forbes are below. I think he nails the issues nicely. Go visit the article at Forbes too and leave a comment.

 Also to keep this "science" thing in context, bear in mind the number of scientists who continue to lie about "global warming". Nukepro settled that issue once and for all. There has been no warming for the last 17 years. Here is the proof using real data.

Visit the Conca Shill here

Finally the reader comments, spot on, but I wonder if he is being sarc with "great faith in Obama".....
  • Terry Trent 1 day ago
    Correcting earlier comment:
    You have got to be kidding me!? The single largest practitioners of junk science in the United States or you could just as easily call them liars and con men, are the members at the highest levels of our Public Health System. Mainly ATSDR and EPA. Although EPA has a few competent scientists who know that following the mandates of ATSDR is wrong, but will not speak up. Can not speak up under threat of firing.
    You don’t believe me? From past History look up Tuskegee Alabama syphilis epidemic for historical context. Look up Libby Montana for 50 years of abuse currently under way. Still not convinced? Have a health professional help you out with mesothelioma death rates in Jefferson Parrish Louisiana…10 times larger than Libby Montana from a similar environmental epidemic. No Public Health Emergency there even at 10 times the first and largest ever declared. OK so you are hugely skeptical? Contact Dr. Marc Shencker at UC Davis epidemiology and ask for death rates in Amador, Tulomne and El Dorado Counties California from environmental Tremolite. So what? Look up the dates of first publications of Libby Montana problems, and Metsovo Greece Metsovo Lung published in the US by Stavros Constantopoulis and Arthur M. Langer.
    Still don’t get it? Try this on for size. Real Estate is the most valuable asset to Unites States local government, the most valuable asset to business on par, throughout the US. The government would clear the path to moving housing tracks on top of active volcanoes if people could not see it for themselves. These agencies ATSDR, EPA, State EPA, local Health Departments,although some are making the common scientific mistake of following those they think are smarter than themselves, but most are not, “task themselves”, emphasis added, to fake testing, skew test results and otherwise obscure important information that individuals should have, all in the name of “not panicking the people”. All of these Public Health Agencies work directly or indirectly for the President of the United States.
    Although I have great faith in Obama..there is a huge gap that has existed long before he entered office, between the Presidency and his scientific minions. He or they as the case has been, are the very last to know what their scientists are doing.
    • Called-out comment
  • Hmmm. Well I thought my words were overly aggressive. Not seeing the defensiveness other than the whole position of standing in front of public health scientists, who succumb to a political “story” is of course defending. It is defending the integrity of science, the well being of humans, the entity of family and friends. Each of the scientists I refer to manipulate what is presented to the public, from the starting point of falsifying testing procedures to adjusting data to conform to that story. If proven wrong publicly,they become embarrassed for brief periods before realizing that there are so few people who understand or care, on any given subject, that they may easily revert to their original or nearly their original story, usually until they retire and are safely away from the controversy they may have left behind.
    Obama has no earthly idea at all. He has no adviser who would know ether. Neither did George Bush. Hillary knew very well what I was speaking of and acted upon what I gave her to the best of her ability. She took Cheney down on the subject for 7 years. He did not get what he wanted in year one, until the last year of Bush’s presidency. Then Bush from the presidential podium of State of teh Nation gave him precisely what he wanted…a way for companies across the nation to avoid the entire liability of what they had done…especially Haliburton…but certainly many others.
    These people/scientists I speak of act outside our government in a way. They do not report to anyone in the White House other than the office of Budget Management…..who controls the executive agencies by purse strings…not by policy. Well I should accurately say, not by overseen policy. They invent as they go along…in a way inventing good news by adjusting science, so they do not have to report bad news to their boss. Their boss being the President.
    On a very positive note….where you do find the scientists who do not succumb to politically motivated government dogma/stories,”the good guys” is in academia. Not everyone mind you, but a bunch. Those who have been in the trenches their entire careers, fighting, quietly, methodically, brilliantly against the corruption of our entire construct of science….partially to no avail. I refer you to Dr. Bruce Case who will no more like the way I presented the above than you do….but who will substantively not disagree much. (He will not be shy about letting me know). Who has maintained an aggressive but somewhat positive and brilliantly subtle approach throughout his long career. These “good guys”struggle directly with scientist who have “sold out”, but their real battle is with government…it is a struggle almost 99% of government has no idea is even going on.
    Finally, I will leave you with what amounts to more than an anecdote. Our EPA, meaning the full force of our Federal governments legal ability, took WR Grace to a Jury trial on criminal charges regarding what happened in Libby Montana. Long story of course, all of it relating to enormous incompetency within government scientists, but their was one newspaper man named David Latham, who summed up the acquittal of WR Grace beautifully at the end of the trial with one sentence. Not certain I am quoting it word for word but you will get the idea. “EPA can not convict someone who they have always been in partnership with”. Therein lies almost all of the problem as it pertains to scientists being politically controlled.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

CS134 /CS137 Ratio and Food Chain in Alaska - Dangerous Levels of Radioactivity

Lichens in Alaska were tested in June 2011 and had extremely high levels of both Cesium 134 and Cesium 137.    Around 6000 to 8000 pCi/ kg.

And the ratio of 134 to 137 was around .8.     What that means is that all of this cesium is directly attributed to Fukushima.

Here is the full report you can download, its big

Alaska 2011 Radiation in Food Sources Report 300 pages

Here is how it works.     CS137 has a half life of 30 years, CS134 has half life of 2 years.    So if the radiation was from 4 years ago, the CS would fall to around 25% of where it started.

It just so happens that the 137 and 134 quantities are about a 1 to 1 ratio at the beginning, with some variance based on the degree of fuel burnup.   Color chart below shows actual test results for Fuku.   The ratio was about .85.

The actual ratio measured in the lichens was right around .80 on average.   So all of this is due to Fukushima

Got it?    The lowest level of the food chain is highly contaminated.   That was 2011, they are not planning on testing again until 2016.   Does that make any sense?

Friday, August 1, 2014

Bringing it Home, Understanding Cesium Deposition at Fukushima and Stirred Up Dust

I like doing this type of calculations that "Bring it Home"

Some others at ENENEWS have gotten good at it. With all the big numbers, scientific notation, various ways of expressing radiation units that the pro-radiation stakeholders use to confuse people....well it's nice when something is presented in an easy to wrap your head around way.

OLDFOOL Since a trillionth of a gram of Cs-137 emits over 3.2 becquerel, a gram of Cs-137 would emit over 3.2 trillion becquerels. So if they are saying that all the dust they created released no more than 4 trillion becquerels, they are implying they only stirred up 1.25 grams of Cs-137 in the dust. I cannot imagine any construction project at that site only stirring up 1.25 grams of Cs-137 in the dust. Most construction projects stir up several kilograms of dust. It would not be pure Cs-137 of course. But it would be more than 1.25 grams. Somebody has made a mistake in their math.

 Securitize July 17, 2014 at 10:04 pm · Reply A Becquerel indicates, on average, an amount of radiation where one radioactive “decay” event occurs each second. 37 billion becequerels are in one curie, or 37 billion disintegrations per second.

Potassium 40 exists in bananas and other fruits and is very weakly radioactive, 71 ten-millionTHs of a curie pure gram. By contrast, cesium 137 has 88 curies per gram. Indeed Cs 137 and Sr 90 emit 10-20 million times more radioactivity than comparable amounts of potassium 40.

Cesium 137 is a significant portion of the long-lasting radioactive isotopes emitted during a nuclear meltdown or other accident. The amount of cesium 137 deposited per square kilometer can thus be used to determine whether that land is fit for human habitation. The lands around the Chernobyl and Fukushima reactors are considered completely uninhabitable for decades based on ~10 curies per square km, or if you like ~25 curies per square mile.

Thus, slightly more than 1/3 of ONE GRAM of cesium 137, deposited across a square mile of land as a smoke or gas, is enough to render that land uninhabitable for decades. Contamination of ~10 curies per square km, ~25 curies per square mile, or ~1/3 of a gram of Cs 137 per sq mi, renders the area unfit for raising crops or livestock. For comparison, dozens of nuclear power plants in the US hold fuel rods containing more than 100 million curies of Cs 137. Remember that just 100 curies can render 1 sq mi uninhabitable.


Global Warming, Real Information from the NukePro

This was fairly hard to find this data and parse in into a format that made some sense.    Check out the charts and drop a comment.

PS I need to create a new BOX account to allow file sharing.     When I can do this, I will provide a link so that you can download my complete spreadsheet of temperature data, and you can verify it yourself.    Maybe even do some more advanced number crunching, or correlate them to nuke bomb testing and sunspots.    Have at it!     For now if you need the file, email me, and I will send it to you.

Bottom line, Global Warming has certainly occurred since 1880, but temperatures go in cycles, and "we" (meaning humans including scientists) do not understand them.   There is a lot of complex stuff that affects weather, and yours truly strongly believes that sunspots and other sun magnetic and electric effects and as also related to cosmic ray blocking are WAY more important than CO2 from fossil fuel burning.     Most of the Egg Head scientists don't even understand solar spots and are crappy at predicting cycles, and befuddled when there academia programmed minds can't operate to understand a process when it conflicts with their "training".

Bottom line---there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING over the past 17 years.    Isn't that an "inconvenient truth" for those who wish to transfer wealth via Cap and Trade type acts.    Also pretty inconveneint for those who wish to promote a dying nuclear energy field by stating that it can help reduce global warming.

Fact, we are seeing some more extreme weather months in the last 17 years, BUT the standard deviation is actually going down, see the chart.       What does it mean?

Simple.    Those in the boomer and post boomer generations have lived through a period of incredible weather stability.    In the far known and measured past, weather has been more extreme.   Just that fact alone helps the huge economic expansion of post WW2.     We had it good.     Now we are getting a few extreme spikes.  It will be hotter and colder, dryer and wetter going forward.     But global temperature has stalled out, and a reversal is likely.

Another big thing that is barely on most peoples radar is the earths magnetic pole shift, I can't deal with that one today, but realize it could be a massive effect on earth weather.

Check out the charts and drop a comment.

A reader at this site contributed a link to his own work, which proves that global warming is a scam, and that CO2 IS NOT a driver for upward temperatures.     He is a real engineer with a background similar to mine.    He has put real science to what is "know on a gut level".

And a frequent commenter here, Dud added in

No chart for sunspot activity?
Rectified, if you like -->

Quote: "One of the possible explanations for a link between sunspots and weather is via cosmic rays. It is accepted that cosmic rays play a part in cloud formation by encouraging the nucleation of water droplets. It is also accepted that there is a negative correlation between sunspots and cosmic rays. Figure 5 demonstrates this link."

And amazingly, on Aug 1, 2014 when I published my proof that Global Warming is a scam, Suspicious Observers had a short comment on their daily video, and the statement that "there has been no warming for 17 years" and a link to a long video that goes deep into Global Warming scam.   I haven't watched it yet, but here it is.


Thursday, July 17, 2014

Nuclear Safety, It Was All a Lie, a great song in video by Japanese Musician (Kazuyoshi Saito) Translated by Miki Tani

NRC admits Husky doses from Chernobyl on other countries

Like this stuff?

Cancer Trends Over Time, Rocketing Upward Coincident With Nuclear Technology

Cancer trends over time Anecdotal evidence implies that in 1900 only 3% to 6% of people got cancer. Better record keeping starting around 1945 shows that cancer deaths have gone up 500%. And since we are more successful at treating cancer, the mean the rate of cancer has gone up more than 500%, maybe 700%. You can download this document. Funny how cancer started rocketing up in the same year that nuclear bombs were dropped.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Low Quality Troll Invades ENENEWS

The latest paid troll attack comes from MF or Moe Foe.

Spewing hatred, swearing all the time, ripping people a new one.    This self professed seasoned radiation expert apparently doesn't even have a workstation computer or laptop, he just does it all on a phone.    

hmmmm......that doesn't seem quite right.   

The troll is harping on Conca's latest crime against humanity, hoping to increase radiation by 100 to 200 TIMES (not percent) in terms of nuke plant releases.      He left this picture at Forbe's Conca post.  

He laughs at experiments in which sick people were unwittingly given doses of plutonium to "see what happens", and he exclaims "they didn't die instantly!" therefore Plutonium is not as bad as other things.     The arrogance, the pyschopathy.    

At least the last dedicated troll attack was a, LOL, "high quality troll".    Eventually they all lose their luster.

Other trolls have been IP logged from Oak Ridge National Labs spewing insults at the NukePro website.

And some trolls just got to troll away.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Documentary on Aging Nukes

Contributed by Cisco

For the story of how we got to this point with nuclear power generation, how the industry operates, and the real story of about its safety.

"The series had a profound impact. The stories ran on more than 85 front pages, played prominently on leading websites, and generated thousands of social networking shares and tweets. It also set off a raft of newspaper editorials and a few government investigations. The series also drew praise from many of the scientists and engineers who understand the issues best."

stock…you should have a link on your site to this remarkable piece of investigative reporting. A must read for the uninitiated and a good reread for the rest of us.
Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of

Industry and government officials defend their actions, and insist that no chances are being taken. But the AP investigation found that with billions of dollars and 19 percent of America's electricity supply at stake, a cozy relationship prevails between the industry and its regulator, the NRC.

Records show a recurring pattern: Reactor parts or systems fall out of compliance.......

Monday, June 2, 2014

If Possible, Control Your Food Environment, Produce it Yourself

I been 14 hours a day ramping up my own food production systems to supply ALL the food for my family and dogs. So far so good, looks great.

Multiple reasons:

  1. Cali drought means food cost way up
  2. Fed printing means food cost way up
  3. Radiation control of inputs
  4. GMO avoidance
  5. Money savings — if you buy at store, first you earn money, then pay taxes, then pay for food with the piddling amount left over, then pay sales taxes on the food.
  6. Better taste and quality
  7. Somewhat fun and rewarding
  8. One important step away from feeding the NWO insanity
  9. Ill post some pictures at Nukepro in a week or so
  10. Pesticide Avoidance
  11. Shit Hit the Fan Security

Gather knowledge, experience, and don't forget TOOLS and EQUIPMENT now.   When SHTF these will become very dear.  

Get a greenhouse to mitigate climate change  effects on your production

Back to WORK!

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Nuke Visual Combat -- Bama Knows Nutting!

LOL I asked William Banzai of Zero Hedge fame to create some visual combat to help educate people on WIPP, and after a string of comments, this was a result.

Whether you like Obama or not, I think it's hilarious.

WIPP Dirty Bombs
Fukushima (sheesh wasnt that over a long time ago)
Civil Right (sheesh, wasn't that over a long time ago)

Sunday, May 18, 2014

The Radiation Still to go into WIPP can Contaminate the Entire Planet

I did some calculation to "bring it home" —just the amount of "low level" waste they want to still put into WIPP, is enough to, if spread evenly among all humans, animals, fish, plankton, plants of all sorts, to bring the entire world up to 70 Bq/lb.
And animals at 30 Bq/lb start having severe health problems

Note that even thought the Remote Handled Waste is only 4% of the waste by volume, it is 3/7th of the total radioactivity.

Per the former WIPP lab manager, James Conca, they have stuff in WIPP way hotter than anything at Hanford, 7 Curies per liter.   That is enough to bring 1,000,000,000 Costco size chickens up to 200 Bq/lb.    

Again, severe damage is done to animals at 30 Bq/lb.      You can't sell any animals over 100 Bq/lb as food even though they are being "diluted" by other food.  

I read a whole WIPP report, they are brutal to read. But amazing truths jump out at you. They pretend that WIPP is only for Transuranics (Plutonium and higher) but it is not, they are stashing a hundred different isotopes in there, including some old favorites like Cesium and Strontium!
In the report they state the future incoming radiation inventory, its 9.81E16 Bq, add 16 zeros.
If you take all of the living things on earth and calculate total mass and divide the Bq by that you get
70 Bq per lb. Into every living thing on earth
Just what is planned to go into WIPP is enought to contaminate every thing on earth to very dangerous levels.

Total bio mass on earth
700 Billion Tons
2000 lbs per ton
1400000 Billion pounds
1,400,000,000,000,000 pounds of biomass on earth
Total Curies of ONLY the remote handled waste intended for WIPP
1.15E+06 RH Activity Only
3.70E+10 bq per Curie
4.26E+16 Bq for Remote Handled Only to enter WIPP in the future
30 Bq per Lb of every living thing on earth (for only the RH Remote Handled Waste)

Total Curies to enter WIPP in future, Remote Handled and Contact Handled
2.65E+06 RH and CH Activity
3.70E+10 bq per Curie
9.81E+16 Bq for RH and CH WIPP in the future
70 Bq per Lb of every living thing on earth  (for the remote and contact handled)

Source Data

Damage Documented from low dose 1mSv and Background Radiation Sources

The absence of the WHO (UN World Health Organization) is remarkable in these statements. Especially since human health is their primary responsibility.

The WHO did issue a report regarding the negative health effects:

Increased cancer risks for affected children in the region between 4% (solid cancers), 7% for leukemia, 70% for thyroid cancers.

That organizations such as IAEA & UNSCEAR, whose members have substantial interest in more nuclear declare that Fukushima doesn’t harm human health, says little.

Research after Chernobyl clearly showed that extra levels of only 1mSv/year harm next generations already substantial:

Here is one example from that report from Chernobyl using a vast amount of data over a long period of time.  CLP is Cleft Lip.    

In Bavaria, from October 1986 to December 1990, the CLP frequency increased by 9.5% (p = 0.10) relative to the trend as computed from the remaining years. The association of CLP rates with fallout on a district level is reflected by a significant relative risk (RR) per kBq/m 2 of RR=1.008 (p = 0.03). A synoptic analysis of the Bavarian data and the GDR data restricted to the overlapping time window from 1984 to 1989 discloses a simultaneous significant jump of the CLP prevalence by 8.6% (p = 0.02) after 1986. The presumption of a long-term increase of CLP after exposure to Chernobyl fallout is corroborated by the analysis of the Bavarian congenital malformation data [13].

These from an ENENEWer

These may (or may not be) helpful:
Environmental Radiation Factsheet
Radioactivity in Nature

Thanks, MS: there's much baseline, survey and assumptions information in these two resources that I didn't have. The difference between the NCRP-95 (1987) and NCRP-160 (2006) documents was particularly interesting. Average annual exposure nearly doubles.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Dandelions, an Excellent Health Aid, Liver Aid, Heavy Metal Detox--Look at this huge field of Dandelions!

UPDATE: (PS Dandelions are a great Mercury and Radioactive Heavy Metal Chelator)
We had an awesome meal last night based on Dandelions.    We spent around 10 minutes picking the best of the best leaves.

Miso Soup --- Fantastic!    No bitterness, and a mild tanginess, this ain't your grandma's Miso Soup, or maybe it is.

Dandelion Tempura --- fantastic, fried with a little flour, taste great with or without salt.    We also fried some complete plant, leaves and flower, and those were even better.    We did not use any root.

Butter fried Dandelion, was still pretty bitter, but the dogs loved it.

Fresh leaf, just washed, too bitter to be enjoyable, but this is late in  the season, the younger leaves do make good salad accompaniments. 

As I surveyed thousands of dandelions in my front yard, I thought a little research would be good.    I had heard they are good to eat, and make tea from.

Instead, I find that perhaps they are an incredibly convenient way to help remove heavy metals, and esp. radioactive heavy metals from the body, without going to the fairly dangerous DMSA and EDTA chelation therapies.  Dandelions are also directly beneficial to the liver.

Don't curse those dandelions!  Instead, use them as a nice Spring Detox!

According to the USDA Bulletin #8, "Composition of Foods" (Haytowitz and Matthews 1984), dandelions rank in the top 4 green vegetables in overall nutritional value

Do your own Google search.    You might be amazed.

Don't eat Dandelion that has had herbicide applied to it, double check.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Does the Average Person Need to Worry About Genetic Damage and Fallout from Fukushima

The Answer is YES

This is from ENENEWS.  Its an example of the superior work that they do in bringing truth to the forefront, whilst so many other organization profit from covering up the truth, or bending the truth to their own twisted purposes.

Visit them, tell em "stock" sent you

And drop a comment here at the Nuke Pro blog
And sign up as a follower

Hi ftlt, regarding your points about the time frame for genetic changes and oceanic transport of Fukushima radionuclides:
1) "There is time needed to cause genetic changes"
>> It appears the scientists conclude the genetic changes took place "suddenly" after something "virtually unheard of" in that part of the world appeared in 2011 and then retreated. From the SF Chronicle article: "a species of phytoplankton virtually unheard of in this part of the world… Its modus operandi… is to suddenly appear… then retreat into tiny invasion-of-the-body-snatcher-type pods until ocean conditions are ripe for another rampage."
2) "Would the ocean current have had time to impact California coast"
>> In 2011, the California coast was impacted by fallout transported through the air and then the subsequent run-off, not contamination transported by ocean currents.
*40,000,000 Bq of iodine-131 in a single bed of kelp off California in March 2011
*California kelp had 2,500 Bq/kg of iodine-131 in seaweed in March 2011
*Kelp Study Author: California iodine-131 probably double or triple what we reported
*Ocean water collected near the coast of Santa Barbara County on on March 22, 2011 had 14.7 Bq/m³ of cesium-134 and -137.
*Sr. Scientist: Most shocking thing is how US gov’t was “very concerned” about Fukushima radiation hitting West Coast and affecting Americans — Public told that everything fine (VIDEO)
*U. of California Dean: We detected “far more than I expected” of Fukushima radioactive sulfur in March 2011 — “Unprecedented increase” reported
Many more reports from those early days here:

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Alaska Radiation Increased from Fukushima the Same Amount as a Direct Nuclear Bomb Test on Alaska

The Alaska nuclide test report Stock pointed out is very informative, and I urge people to read the whole thing, and to find out more about the monitoring that has been being done there since 1965. Amchitka was the site of several underground nuclear tests; the neighboring island of Adak is used as a “control” to which nuclide levels can be compared.
More info here:
Report link:
Brief fact sheet:
The 2011 monitoring season came 3 months after the start of the Fukushima disaster. As the report notes (section 9.0):

“The results imply that Dolly Varden, rockweed, and to a lesser extent, Irish lord appear to contain a significant cesium isotope signature from Fukushima Dai-ichi. ……

… Observations of Fukushima-derived fallout impacting on this region are supported by findings of elevated levels of 134Cs (and 137Cs) in lichen and soil collected from both the Adak and Amchitka regions.”

So there’s no doubt that Fukushima nuclides made it to the Aleutians, and yes, they also made it to CA and elsewhere. The important question is “In what concentrations?” And, “How can we find out how much we got, and where it is?” The Amchitka tests focus on lichen because it’s one of the greatest biological concentrators of Cs. The levels in lichen are regularly hundreds or thousands of times higher than what’s found in the soil beneath them. Amazing creatures, and somewhat like mushrooms in this regard. In arctic regions, species like reindeer feed on the lichen, which contributes to high contamination levels in their flesh which persists for decades. It’s worth pointing out, however, that caribou in northern Canada, for instance, show eye-openingly high levels of internal contamination from natural radionuclides as well, particularly Po210, and people who have relied on them as a food source for centuries had high internal contamination themselves even before the nuclear era because of it.

They tested fish, seaweed, and other marine species caught off Amchitka and Adak for Cs137, Am241, U234, 235, and 238, and Pu239 and 240at the same time, and came up with less than 1 Bq/kg of Cs in the highest sample, which was mussels. Table 15 shows that samples from the Irish Sea are much higher, up to around 11 Bq/kg. All this is just for context
I agree that there are good reasons to do more monitoring right about now, and not wait until 2016. And no good reason not to do more testing in CA as well.

Anyway, we’ve established that Fukushima contamination was clearly detectable in Alaskan lichen in the sumer of 2011. But how did that compare to before the Fukushima disaster? A look at table 40 (it’s posted on the website Stock linked to) gives a very good idea:

In table 40: Cs137 in lichen

1970-71 Clam lake range 8000-27000 pCi/kg (300-1000 Bq/kg) (stock --after three massive atomic bombs were set off on the island)
1971-79 Clam lake range 1500-67000 pCi/kg (55-2479 Bq/kg) (stock --after the three atomic bombs were set off on this island, the radiation in lichens tripled after the first initial dosing, and then lasted for a decade)

1997 Amchitka range 64-74 pCi/kg (2.3-2.7 Bq/kg)
2011 Amchitka range 1890-7120 pCi/kg (70-263 Bq/kg) (stock--after Fukushima)

STOCK--So Fukushima, 2000 miles away caused a radiation level about 1/4 of what three direct atomic bombs would do at ground zero.   Look at the blue highlights above.   Think about that now.)  

The point being that while Cs levels in 2011 had increased compared to 1997 due to Fukushima, they were still lower than anytime between 1970-79, due to nuclear testing.  (Stock --due to direct bombing of the island the tests were conducted on, not at all a fair comparison!)

Stock Here-- This reviewer is kind of pretending that the high rates at Clam lake  are due to overall world wide nuclear testing "fallout".    Clam lake is in the Anchitka Island which was not receiving just worldwide nuclear fallout, but was the actual site of several direct nuclear bomb tests.  

Here is some background

Amchitka Island sits at the midway point on the great arc of Alaska's Aleutian Islands, less than 900 miles across the Bering Sea from the coast of Russia. Amchitka, a spongy landscape of maritime tundra, is one of the most southerly of the Aleutians. The island's relatively temperate climate has made it one of the Arctic's most valuable bird sanctuaries, a critical staging ground for more than 100 migratory species, as well as home to walruses, sea otters and sea lions. Off the coast of Amchitka is a thriving fishery of salmon, pollock, haddock and halibut.
  All of these values were recognized early on. In 1913, Amchitka was designated as a national wildlife refuge by President William Howard Taft. But these ecological wonders were swept aside in the early '60s when the Pentagon and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) went on the lookout for a new place to blow up H-bombs. Thirty years ago, Amchitka was the site of three large underground nuclear tests, including the most powerful nuclear explosion ever detonated by the United States.

Back to the Review

And this is one of the points: outside of the most contaminated parts of Fukushima itself, the fallout from this disaster was much less than that from the nuclear testing period. (stock here---from the nuke testing of 3 bombs on one island, including the largest nuke bomb ever set off by the USA, and they are comparing that to contamination from the Fukushima over 2000 miles away--stock out) That doesn’t make it alright, and we’re not saying bomb test fallout was ok either. In fact as a society we’re still trying to understand what the health effects from testing were.

From our point of view, as a group of people very committed to characterizing and measuring the contamination in order to help people make well-informed decisions regarding their health and well-being, the more we understand about how this compares with past radioactive releases and their effects, the better our decisions and choices will be.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

NASA explains how we missed 100 nuke plants melting down in 2012, by 2 days

Nuke Pro has been promoting the idea that we have to harden our electrical grid, or risk the annihilation of the human species. Yes, it really is that bad. And get rid of nuke.

Friday, April 25, 2014

How to Calculate Total Fission Inventory in used Fuel (Thank you to NRC for helping)

NRC responding to a question on the NRC blog

This helps to answer my questions on total inventory of radiation at Fukushima. That will present a worst case scenario of release.

stock: I have reviewed and this is a great resource.    I asked a further question related to MOX which I think will show much worse ending product of spent fuel due to more neutrons flying around and a hotter burn rate.   Will advise if I obtain data.

now, a good estimate of total radiation inventory at Fukushima may be calculated.    I will do so, busy on spring projects, it may take a while.  

I was asked to respond to your question.
The NRC does not track the isotopic inventory in each spent fuel assembly at nuclear power plants. The following is a link to a public document titled “Characteristics of Potential Repository Wastes”:

It contains physical, isotopic, and thermal characteristics of all type of commercial spent nuclear fuel assemblies. For example, in the middle of Table 2.4.13 on Page 2.4.17, the most dominant (i.e., >1%) isotopes, in terms of curies/Metric Tons of Initial Heavy Metal (MTIHM), for a typical Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) spent fuel assembly enriched up to 4.42%, burned up to 40,000 MWD/MTIHM, and cooled for 10 years are shown. These numbers are still valid to date. The number for each isotope should be multiplied by 0.45 MTIHM/assembly, which is a typical number for a PWR assembly, in order to obtain the isotopic inventory in a single PWR fuel assembly.
Maureen Conley