Published: February 17th, 2012 at 12:55 pm ET
|
Title: Prefecture related negative trace strontium, and the Fukushima nuclear power plant in the municipality
Source: Ibaraki Shimbun
Date: Feb 17, 2012
Google Translation
“Do the effects of nuclear testing” also detect plutonium
Prefecture on October 16, the results of the inspection of radioactive materials of soil were collected in the municipality 16 from August to October last year, were detected plutonium and radioactive strontium in trace amounts in the prefecture, the measurement results of the past was conducted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and either announced in the range associated with a nuclear accident in Fukushima, and was not observed.
Control Division of Nuclear Safety prefecture, the half-life as short as 50 days approximately, from that strontium 89 that support the relationship between the accident was not detected at the point of all “Do not influence, such as nuclear testing in the past” guess.
SOURCE: Ibaraki Shimbun
That “there is no health effect” and. Survey, 38 municipalities out of the county soil samples were collected for measuring the concentration of radioactive cesium, etc., carried out in 16 municipalities selected from the tendency of regional balance and radiation monitoring.
Nuclide analysis was performed of radioactive strontium and plutonium using the same soil sample in the prefecture environmental radiation monitoring center.
3 Kitaibaraki city, Takahagi, according to the zone of 80 km Hitachiota primary ministry has investigated the same. As a result of the measurement, (half-life of about 29 years) strontium-90 will detect the 290 to 54 municipalities in 10 becquerel per square meter.
(About the same year 6600) 240 detects the same 15 to 1.3 Becquerel cities and towns and 11 in total (about 24,000 years the same) of plutonium 239.
Strontium and plutonium 238 89 (the same year about 88) was below the detection limit at the point of all. The survey was carried out in environmental radioactivity levels in all prefectures from 1999 to 2008 the ministry, a small amount of radioactive strontium and plutonium can be seen the impact of nuclear testing has been detected in many places.
Measurement results in the prefecture is less than the detection limit ~ 2.1 becquerel becquerel same same 950-72, plutonium 238, 90-20 Becquerel was the same total concentration of strontium-90 plutonium is 239,240.
The results of this study because it was within the range of the measurement results of any past, Division said, “strontium deposition due to nuclear accident, the plutonium could not be confirmed and”.
Serious health effects is a concern strontium and plutonium enters the body. Had been seen for iodine and cesium and heavier than, and not scatter far, voice worried about flying in the prefecture, seek the measure had increased.
Read the report here
See also:
- 15 Bq/m² of plutonium-239 and -240 in Minamisoma (MAP)
- 3 different types of plutonium detected around Fukushima nuclear plant
- "Deplorable": Plutonium detected at 5 locations -- "Unknown which reactor plutonium came from"
- More plutonium found in Fukushima Daiichi soil - Detected in four samples
- TEPCO: Plutonium levels at 3.5 pCi/kg found in soil .5 km from reactor
- Private testing finds high concentration of Plutonium in soil over 30 miles from Fukushima -- "Very high radiation that is very different to what the gov't released"
- Plutonium-238, 239, 240 detected at Fukushima playground on August 15 -- TEPCO admits they consider it to be from triple meltdown
Published: February 17th, 2012 at 12:55 pm ET
|
sending...
#Fukushima Japan Newspaper: Plutonium and strontium in Ibaraki — Up to 15 becquerels per square meter of Pu-239-240 http://tinyurl.com/7vzmwew
Report Comment
Hey Whoopie,
If you click the tweet button at the top of post, Twitter shortens the enenews.com URL automatically once posted.
You can confirm this by clicking the tweet button and seeing that there are '4' characters left. Using your tweet above, there is also '4' characters left.
Fyi, I think that the problem with most posts is not the URL, but the length of the post's title.
I am trying to find a good way to truncate the title, but nothing is working out just right yet. For now, the title just has to be tweaked a little by the retweeter.
Report Comment
OK thanks for clarification.
Report Comment
[REMOVED: Off-topic]
Report Comment
Admin:
The tinyURL Whoopie posted seems goofed
http://tinyurl.com/7vzmwew
It simply redirects back to enenews
Report Comment
I expect a "flood" of new measurements as TEPCO and the Gov't. struggles with the now widely acknowledged radioactive contamination throughout Northern Japan!
Unless the Japanese people demand independent testing it is a guaranteed that official testing will downplay all results because of the Political implications!
+
We are now are being ruled by those in Nuclear Denial*; instead of by Leaders that demand an end to the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster RISK that Nuclear poses to mankind! The nuclear industry is fighting tooth and nail to maintain it's market share; yet NOW Solar (of all flavors) is far less costly to construct, faster to construct and carries with it N☢ Nuclear radioactive baggage that can kill a Countries economy and or those living nearby!
Ask The Japanese!
*Nuclear Denial
http://is.gd/XPjMd0
The illogical belief that Nature cannot destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365!
Remember Nature does not follow design basis calculations or even engineering RISK formulas…
Report Comment
Hi CaptD – I do not have the link on my phone but there is an excellent blog on denial and cranks.
Report Comment
Cool
I bet many of the Nuclear Pro's are members!
Report Comment
Cap'nD, I think you're right about the fight to protect market share at all cost.
"Circle the wagons, boys!"
Report Comment
FEBRUARY 17, 2012
Guttenfelder’s Fukushima: Contemplating a Future Without Us
By Michael Shaw
http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2012/02/guttenfelder-fukushima-and-the-crushing-humility/
Report Comment
New radiation limits confuse farmers
Nobuhiko Harada and Takahiro Matsumoto / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writers
Farmers in Fukushima Prefecture have had differing reactions to the new limits introduced by the health ministry on radioactive cesium in food.
"I wonder whether the radioactive cesium level will be lower than the new limits even if I grow rice after decontamination," Takayoshi Sakurai said with a sigh. "I feel the government has introduced the new limits to keep Fukushima from distributing food."
Sakurai, 65, has five hectares of paddy fields in Minami-Soma, which has been forced to give up rice planting this year.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120217006258.htm
Report Comment
Why we must phase out nuclear power
The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy can and does have disastrous consequences
Caroline Lucas, Rebecca Harms, and Dany Cohn-Bendit
guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 16.40 GMT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/17/phase-out-nuclear-power
Report Comment
****Now, the proposed electricity market reform is set to rig the energy market in favour of nuclear – with the introduction of a carbon price floor likely to result in huge windfall handouts of around £50m a year to existing nuclear generators.****
Report Comment
Wow check out the MegaShill from England in comments section of this article:
*JezJez
17 February 2012 5:05PM
"Fukushima showed us that nuclear remains a high risk technology. " You are being disingenious here, again, might it be worth pointing out for the umpteenth time that a major earthquake occurred followed up by a pretty spectacular wave. The latter, you may care to recall, killed upwards of 20 000 people. I do not however recall any recommendation that people stop living by the sea.
Fukushima may be unstable but it still has not killed anyone. In fact how are those chaps that entered in the immediate aftermath doing? Tchernobyl happened because of human error and even now people do not seem to agree on just how many people died or will die. Nuclear for the moment is doing a good job at keeping the lights on while also keeping emissions low.
"The hidden costs of nuclear – such as waste disposal, insurance and decommissioning – are also huge, and it is the public that ends up footing the bill."
So, what cost the planet? The public foots the bill because it is aware that there a benefits to having reliable energy on tap. You say there are subsidies, but you would doubtless complain if they were a profitable operation.**
Report Comment
Most toxic substance known to man.
Good luck cleaning this up.
Real-Life Horror story. I still can't believe it sometimes.
Much love to all.
Peace. No nukes.
Report Comment
0.1 MICROGRAM of plutonium will give an overdose to 1 person. How much is 15 to 1.3 Becquerel?
Report Comment
LINK TV, Oct. 21 — Dr. Helen Caldicott appeared on the LINK TV program Earth Focus to discuss the Fukushima crisis and other nuclear issues. http://www.linktv.org/video/6986/dr-helen-caldicott-on-fukushima-and-the-perils-of-nuclear-power
Caldicott received her medical degree from the University of Adelaide Medical School. In 1977 she joined the staff of the Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Boston, and taught pediatrics at the Harvard Medical School from 1977 to 1978. She worked to establish the group International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. -Wikipedia
[Rough Transcript of Video By Dr. Caldicott]
The problem with plutonium studies is that they did not seem to focus on ANY children. According to Dr Caldicott, children are 20 TIMES more sensitive to radiation than adults. This makes all of the studies on adults worthless, because none of the adult studies can be applied to children or babies, much less a fetus.
According to Dr. Caldicott, in a normal fetus a tiny particle of plutonium can lodge in the brain while it is developing. In a fetus, plutonium can and WILL destroy the genetic material that will develop into the right brain for example.
Plutonium is extremely teratogenasis, meaning it has severe and negative effects on eggs, sperm and developing fetuses.
For this reason, pro nuclear industry supporters will NEVER show studies about how plutonium affects a human fetus, babies or children, because it would be too bad for their public relations campaign.
According to Dr Caldicott MD, plutonium has an affinity for the testicles in men, and lodges next to the sperm production area of the male reproductive system, destroying or damaging the genetic structure of the sperm, which then produces defective human babies. Plutonium is mutagenetic.
She reports it can take up to twenty generations for recessive genetic tendencies to express themselves
Report Comment
Bq measures disintegrations per second, so it doesn't measure weight or volume. Apples and oranges?
Here's something from Wikipedia that explains it better than I can:
"The becquerel (symbol Bq) (pronounced: 'be-kə-rel) is the SI-derived unit of radioactivity. One Bq is defined as the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second. The Bq unit is therefore equivalent to an inverse second, s−1. The becquerel is named for Henri Becquerel, who shared a Nobel Prize with Pierre and Marie Curie in 1903 for their work in discovering radioactivity."
Report Comment
All the sources I've seen quote 1 microgram as an ultimate fatal dose. [Sorry no links.]
I don't understand "bequerels per sq m"; perhaps it's a mistake.
I understand "bequerels per kg"; perhaps they mean that.
Report Comment
Here is a link
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiation/dir/mstreet/commeet/meet7/brief7/tab_g/br7g
In 1944, J. Robert Oppenheimer concluded: Interpretation of Dr. Hamilton's data on rats in terms of humans indicates that 50-100 micrograms of plutonium[3.3-6.6 uCi Pu-239] in the skeletal system is the lethal dose. Calculations of the dangerous dose of plutonium in lung tissue leads to answers between 0.5-5.0 micrograms [.033-.33 uCi of Pu-239] depending on the assumptions which have been made. [Oppenheimer to Hempelman, August 16, 1944]
However, Robley Evans had concluded by 1944 that data
extrapolated from rats to humans was unreliable because rats could
tolerate higher rates of radium than humans. (R. Evans, Amer J
Roentgen and Rad Ther LII, October 1944) Evans subsequently focused on retrospective studies of radium dial painters.3.txt
So if the fatal doses are lower, how much lower are they?
And what dose will cause the genetic damage of a sperm or egg, and cause lifelong suffering or death of a fetus, baby or later on in life from some genetic disease (pick one of 2,600).
So the dose that will kill an adult male in the prime of life is different from what will cause disabling genetic damage in an egg, sperm, fetus or baby. A child is also much more sensitive.
To have a full discussion about the dangers of plutonium, we need to look at all of these areas..
Ignoring all but adult male nuclear workers when it comes to plutonium is definitely NOT scientific.
Report Comment
As far as I remember the sources, they referred to 1 microgram of aerosol inhaled into the lung, producing later lung cancer. Typical time 15-20 years.
Report Comment
I think the "per square meter" part usually refers to parts measured in cubic meters (volume) of air. That is, Bq per cubic meter of air. I think i may also have seen it in reference to cubic volumes of soil. Am not sure how that's actually measured, though. Maybe using a probe?
Maybe someone else can expand on this?
Report Comment
Please, remember that plutonium is no harmful to your health as far as you are not there.
Report Comment
Japanese College Students' Protest "Stop Calling Murder A Science!"/京大生御用学者に抗議
Please click on "cc" button if you don't see the English subtitles./字幕は「cc」をクリックすれば消えます。
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImagF4DNlI4
Report Comment
There aren't precise, hard and fast rules, for x amt. of plutonium over y years will result in cancer.
There are no safe doses of any of the radionuclides. Results vary in different individuals.
Heavy doses of radionuclides can result in almost immediate cancer, often leukemia, as I recall.
Report Comment
People exposed to heavy doses of radionuclides die right away, within a week or two, and they die absolutely horrible deaths.
Report Comment
Thank you Jebus AWESOME VIDEO~!~ So very very proud of them. That link is the mirrored site with the CC. But I do not believe they will see any comments there, So I commented at the original site. All info below the video too. Original https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eLc5MaptqM&feature
~Please Share~
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/11/kyoto-university-students-stop-calling.html
And found in the comments. I have many other Fukushima-related videos with English subtitles which haven't been posted on this blog. If you're interested, please subscribe to my channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/tokyobrowntabby
Report Comment
As far as I understand all of these videos are Close Captioned. Press cc for English subtitles, bottom Right on the video.
Children's Opinion Poll "Fukushima Nuclear Crisis Seen through the Eyes of Children" Series
1 of 3 https://www.youtube.com/user/tokyobrowntabby#p/u/2/IRra9bqolO8
Report Comment
Thank you very much for the link! Very interesting videos!
Report Comment
In principle, using the Atomic Energy Control Board's (AECB) regulatory limits, we can calculate that 0.1 micrograms of plutonium can overdose one person while noting that maximum safe exposure limits is placed at 0.56 micrograms maximum full body exposure and 0.25 micrograms for lung exposure. "Experiments with beagle dogs suggest that about 27 millionths of a gram of insoluble plutonium would be sufficient to cause lung cancer in an adult human being with virtual certainty, with significant risks probably associated with far lower doses," report International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031823_Japan_radiation.html
According to the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) 0.1 grams would overdose one million people, one gram, ten million people, 100 grams, one billion people and 600 grams, six billion people. http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html
Report Comment
mesanwhile, back at the ranche[es}
http://www.helium.com/items/564723-radioactive-material-in-military-weapons-effects-on-soldiers-and-the-environment
Report Comment
mesanwhile, back at the ranch[es}
http://www.helium.com/items/564723-radioactive-material-in-military-weapons-effects-on-soldiers-and-the-environment
Report Comment
jes sayin'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D4GRBke6ac
Report Comment
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/18/plutonium-troubled-reactors-spent-fuel-pools/
There are 3,400 tons of fuel in seven spent fuel pools within the six-reactor plant…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel
About 1% of the mass is 239Pu and 240Pu resulting from conversion of 238U…
http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html
If there is a serious accident involving
120 grams of plutonium (in the form of MOX),
how many civilian overdoses could, in principle, result?
if NONE of the plute
is safely contained
there is a potential for
one billion two hundred million
civilian overdoses
if 90 percent of it
is safely contained
there is a potential for
one hundred and twenty million
civilian overdoses
if 99.9 percent of it
is safely contained
there is a potential for
one hundred and twenty thousand
civilian overdoses
if 99.999 percent of it
is safely contained
there is a potential for
one thousand two hundred
civilian overdoses
Report Comment
The mox fuel rods contain 7% pu as fuel, and this is U3.
The uranium rods contain a much lower % of pu as fission product, not fuel, and this is in the other units.
I think it is necessary to take these 2 forms into account when estimating the total pu at Daiichi.
It would also be helpful to know how much is in the reactors and how much in the pools [including the common pool].
Report Comment
I don't trust anything coming out of Faux News.
Report Comment