Published: February 23rd, 2012 at 4:49 pm ET
|
Title: ‘Harmless’ radiation found off Japanese coast
Source: Fish Info & Services (FIS)
Author: Natalia Real
Date: Feb 24, 2012
[...] Radioactivity readings in the seawater across the track ranged from less than 3 Bq per m3 up to 4,000 Bq per m3.The maximum of these readings is about 1,000 times what could be measured in the water under normal conditions but they were about one-tenth the levels generally considered harmful, [WHOI marine chemist Ken Buesseler] noted, AP reports.
The cruise did not find these highest detections in areas sampled closest to Fukushima because swirling ocean currents formed concentrations of the radioactive compounds. At the same time, the researchers were not permitted any closer than 30km to the coast. [...]
Read the report here
Title: Cruise finds Fukushima pollution
Source: BBC News
Author: Jonathan Amos, Science correspondent
Date: Feb 22, 2012
[...] Analysis revealed elevated levels of radioactive elements that could be tied directly to releases from the nuclear power station.These included caesium-137 and caesium-134. Radioactivity readings in the seawater across the track ranged from less than three becquerels per cubic metre up to 4,000 becquerels per cubic metre.
The maximum of these readings is about a thousand times what could be measured in the water prior to the nuclear accident.
Interestingly, the cruise found these highest detections were not in areas sampled closest to Fukushima. [...]
Read the report here
Published: February 23rd, 2012 at 4:49 pm ET
|


sending...
"…. one-tenth the levels generally considered harmful…"
By which scale?
Report Comment
The guys in the business of making this type of disaster. You can trust them, don't question!
Report Comment
We can trust them… Bones has the magic meter. His meter never lies. His meter says that there is
'NO immediate threat' to human health.
Is that all there is?
Keep smilin
Take a chill
Swallow a pill
Walk on the wild side
Cause there is no place to hide
That is all there is?
Report Comment
In other matters relating to radioactive materials like, centrifuges, nuclear weapons development, yellow cake, nuclear facilities, rogue regimes trying to develop nuke weapons. Wherever this blasted table is they keep talking about (All options on the table, No options off the table), someone needs to please find it and destroy the stupid thing!
Report Comment
One tenth the levels generally considered harmful sounds better then one thousand times the level usually found. If the fish swimming in water containing one thousand times normal levels of radio-active isotopes are being eaten by tuna and salmon I wonder what the bio accumulated levels would be? Easy to say safe levels of sea water. Who drinks sea water? No one. Who eats fish? Everyone in Japan.
Report Comment
Interestingly, the cruise found these highest detections were not in areas sampled closest to Fukushima
so they are going to concrete over the seabed around daichi fukushima for no reason??
the bbc is full of shit!! enenews rocks!!
Report Comment
Well Arclight, they can't get closer then 30 km to shore. So who knows what its like say a mile out or what its like in the harbour servicing the plant. What it shows is the pattern of dispersal is not "the further away the less" model. I'm sure someone knows how radiation is disbursed in the sea with so many nuclear subs and such being owned by Russian US and others. There have been public and most likely secret accidents. The Navy doesn't ever have to divulge anything, they cite national security issues. I'm off my seafood just lately……
Report Comment
Ok, how much radiation is in the ocean, at 3 – 4000 bq/cu meter, plus the higher radiation from the plume released early on?
How many cubic meters are in the ocean?
How many of those cubic meters are contaminated with this radiation?
What figure would one use; 3, or 4000, 4 Million or something in between?
There is contamination both from the water running off of Fukushima, and from the air releases, explosions and continual radiation releases and leaks to this day..
Is anyone analyzing any of this and trying to come up with a realistic number?
(Long silence, nervous throat clearing)
I thought not…
Just checking in to make sure that everyone still agrees, that NO ONE wants to know this, so we are not going to try and figure it out.
Nothing to see here.. move on… keep smiling
Report Comment
Bioaccumulation: Why Fukushima Matters
http://news.lucaswhitefieldhixson.com/2011/04/bioaccumulation-why-fukushima-matters.html
Report Comment