Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds chief engineer, Nov. 26, 2013 (at 3:15 in): [It's] really a mixed blessing […] What saved Japan was that the wind was blowing out to sea. Now I said it’s a mixed blessing because the contamination is heading to the West Coast of the United States. >> Watch the Fairewinds video here
CBC interview with Jay Cullen, associate professor and marine chemist at University of Victoria’s school of earth & ocean sciences, Nov. 20, 2013 (at 8:15 in): I think we could definitely have more monitoring. I know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — the Institute of Ocean Science –- [the lion-p?] program which is a time series program that monitors the chemistry and biology of the North Pacific that’s headed up by Maria Robert. They’re making measurements of these Fukushima-source radionuclides offshore, and they’re starting to detect the presence of the plume of radioactivity. Again these elements, the concentrations are really quite low compared to natural* radionuclides, but it is making its way towards our coast. But I do think it would be prudent to monitor both precipitation and what’s going on in the oceans, especially over the next couple of years. 1: for what we can learn about how the oceans are operating; and 2: to really – again — put these risks into perspective. I think that the public’s perceived risk, especially when it comes to radioactivity in the environment, is sometimes way out of line with what the actual risks are.
Prof. Cullen, Nov. 21, 2013: “The natural level of radioactivity on average in the oceans is about 13 Bq/L.” (or 13,000 Bq/m3)
(Note: Fish bio-concentrate cesium-137 at a rate of 100 times the level found in the surrounding water. For seals and sea lions it’s up to 1,000 times. Source: IAEA
Published: November 27th, 2013 at 1:36 am ET