Categories

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Gov’t Map: Fukushima fallout transported directly to U.S. — Canada, Mexico avoided much of contamination after 3/11 (VIDEO)

Published: January 3rd, 2013 at 3:22 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
58 comments


Title: Measurement of Radioactive Fallout from the March 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Incident
Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in collaboration with the National Atmospheric Deposition Program
h/t Anonymous tip

Atmospheric back trajectories from sites where radioactive fallout was measured in NADP wet deposition samples. NOAA’s HYSPLIT model was used for this analysis (click to enlarge)

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collaborated with the National Atmospheric Deposition Program in an effort to monitor North American precipitation samples for the presence of nuclear fallout in response to the Japan Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station incident that occurred on March 11, 2011. [...]

The study found concentrations (activity) and fallout (deposition) of radioactive iodine and radioactive cesium in significant number of samples. Detectable quantities of Iodine-131, Cesium-137, and Cesium-134 were observed at 21% of the 167 tested locations. Concentrations of I-131 detected in 5 samples ranged from 29.6 to 1090 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Concentrations of Cs-134 detected in 23 samples ranged from 0.4 to 55 pCi/L. Concentrations of Cs-137 in 33 samples ranged from 0.70 pCi/L to 39 pCi/L.

Detections and measurable fallout from wet deposition was observed primarily at NADP sites located along the West Coast of the US, the central Rocky Mountain region and northern Great Plains, the central and upper Mississippi River Valley and eastern mountainous regions ranging from Virginia northward through Vermont. [...]

While the USGS does not assess human health risks from exposure to radioactive fallout, the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s RadNet confirms that radiation levels in the United States were far below the level of concern for human health impact. [...]

Watch the video here

Published: January 3rd, 2013 at 3:22 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
58 comments

58 comments to Gov’t Map: Fukushima fallout transported directly to U.S. — Canada, Mexico avoided much of contamination after 3/11 (VIDEO)

  • Anthony Anthony

    ** There is not to be any expected direct health impact on the US population.**


    Report comment

  • bwoodfield bwoodfield

    "United States Environmental Protection Agency’s RadNet confirms that radiation levels in the United States were far below the level of concern for human health impact."

    Kinda goes against the comments of the other article: http://enenews.com/scientists-even-the-very-lowest-levels-of-radiation-are-harmful-to-life-we-have-to-rethink-exposure-levels-from-nuclear-plants


    Report comment

    • Anthony Anthony

      I found when EPA etc stopped measuring the radiation was the most telling action. No matter what babbles thereafter. Collective info suppression and denial is a kind of survival technique.


      Report comment

      • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

        as we're likely to learn someday, Anthony, it was an 'economic' survival technique…


        Report comment

        • Time Is Short Time Is Short

          Whose 'economic' survival? The .0001%?


          Report comment

        • Anthony Anthony

          Id still rather stick with the truth of things. That video we had here earlier showing that **super hot** rock that the people were innocently – ignorantly standing beside in the yard was eye opening. Remember they said sitting on it would have delivered a fatal dosage?

          The truth is essential.


          Report comment

          • HanfordOnHeart HanfordOnHeart

            Anthony,

            I'm curious where the "super hot" rock was–do you know?

            I have dial-up, so I can't view videos…though I've been here since 3-11 (lurking, mostly).

            Thanks!


            Report comment

            • Anthony Anthony

              I know I was trying to remember myself, it was here, it was a reporter doing a followup deal on Chernobyl I thought but it was a section I believe on Fallulah (sp??) and they were walking with a dosimeter and came upon a mundane setting, put the dosimeter over a seat sized rocked and dosimeter went off the scales! Sorry but I will try to find that – it was very early on but left an impression of radiation that I think is important.


              Report comment

              • HanfordOnHeart HanfordOnHeart

                Thanks, Anthony!

                That's what's so scary about radiation; it can't be seen, smelled or tasted. When I was a kid I ate off a vintage orange Fiesta plate almost every day for years…as an adult, I found out it was glazed with uranium!


                Report comment

        • rakingmuck

          I am looking into a class action lawsuit against the IAEA. Not working alone – with world class scientists. Do I think it will be successful. Cannot say. But the noise will allow the world to see the real agenda of the IAEA.


          Report comment

          • Anthony Anthony

            I would LOVE and RESPECT scientists standing up for Truth in Science. I understand how they may have to coast to keep the peace but I want to believe what they do has integrity and adds to the collective intelligence. Lies, half lies and lies by commission do not. Scientists are too smart to allow a energy industry to strip them of professional integrity.


            Report comment

  • bwoodfield bwoodfield

    I watched the video, and from the facial movements and sound inflections, it looks like the guys is lying at the end about the health impacts. He starts talking faster, gets restless, plus that fake "smile" at the end.


    Report comment

    • Anthony Anthony

      Saw that too. I thought he was aware of two powerfully opposed sides on his topic. I thought also right after he would be sure to visit this site to collect responses.


      Report comment

    • Here was my comment on youtube, (if it's accepted), before I read your comments.

      What about the 3 core meltdowns that are continuously spewing into the atmosphere and air for almost 22 months now? No end in site.

      What are the future models?
      What about ACCUMULATION?
      Exactly, how does it spread?

      Experts always seem to 'defer' to the EPA says 'it's no concern' line. You can tell by the look on this guys face at the end he does not believe the standard EPA line either.

      Personally, I just don't believe it.

      Also, again… no mention of strontium or the rest that we know exist.


      Report comment

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      There was that guy off-camera with a gun . . .


      Report comment

  • AGreenRoad AGreenRoad

    Wonder what the EPA has to say about the Los Angeles reactor meltdown?

    NEVER HAPPENED, no radiation released?

    Radioactive Xenon Gas; Dangerous And Lung Cancer Causing Isotope; via A Green Road
    http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/radioactive-xenon-gas-dangerous-and.html

    Los Angeles Nuclear Plant Meltdown; Completely Covered Up; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/los-angeles-nuclear-plant-meltdown.html


    Report comment

  • jec jec

    The "guy" probably KNOWS he is on the blame line IF something is proven to make people sick..and remember the Italian scientists..6 yrs in jail and Manslaughter charges. It can happen here as well..So keep that video for records! The person in the video is ??


    Report comment

  • jec jec

    And oh..one more of my family members, in Washington State, just died of cancer. He was diagnosed Dec 2011, died Nov 2012. Very fast and wicked disease. So..tell me again..NO IMMEDIATE AFFECT? Really..?? Guy was a farmer..out in the rain the past two springs..all the springs of his life. He died at 64.


    Report comment

    • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

      I might add to your suspicions, jec, that unless he was an organic farmer, it's likely his additional exposure (over the last year and a half) to Fukushima contaminants exacerbated years of exposure to insidious farming chemicals (insecticides to name but one). You should have someone preserve some tissue samples and blood for future analysis…

      BTW…sorry for you lose…


      Report comment

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      I know of three people in their 60's who have died of cancer within the last year. So Cal. No history, happened fast. Not lung cancer.

      Total cancer rates are going up, along with the infant mortality rates. We'll never get a true picture from the stat keepers. It doesn't really matter – we know what lethal radiation does, from dozens of studies.

      Laugh, love, make the most of the time we have left. Help those we can, pray for those we can't.


      Report comment

  • papacares papacares

    couldn't help but think of Marty Feldman while watching this, expected Gene Wilder to pop out with Fukunstein singing, "putin on the Ritz". Never is the expected risk – always is – the unexpected – didn't he say this was being filmed almost a year after 3/11 (thus old data),a lot has happened at the FUKU site since then – but big money educated scientist doctors say no expected risk, so people in Japan very lucky, they get free radiation treatments while silly rest of world have to pay lotsa money – Igor give me more electrical power for my monster, ZAP – It's alive, It's alive (sarc intended)


    Report comment

  • norbu norbu

    These stupid f@cki%g as!holes. I have had enough with these DIPSHIT lying fools. One effect is I am getting more pissed off every time I here them say "radiation levels in the United States were far below the level of concern for human health impact". The look on his face says it all, I am full of shit. Sorry I just had speak up. Normal? My G.C. says different. There is a old saying," Our cow is dead so we don't need your bull anymore.
    N


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Radiation levels were huge. And testing of crops, water, milk, and livestock has stopped.

    Hiding the data speaks volumes. It's bad.


    Report comment

  • razzz razzz

    The guy really needs to analyze his car engine filter during the time in question and get back to us on that but that might be to 'real' for him.


    Report comment

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      He may be doing the best he can. Lots of people know the truth, but aren't in a position to talk. I know I would never want to be in a position like that – tell the truth and suffer the consequences, or keep my mouth shut and live another day.

      Not something your average worker has to deal with. I'm sure it's soul-wracking.


      Report comment

  • ShutItAllDown

    Rather karmic that the majority of the airborne pollutants got dumped on the USA, home of GE, whilst (pretty much) sparing Canada and Mexico.


    Report comment

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      The US gets the vast majority of their oil from Canada, with Mexico 2nd, coming in ahead of Saudi Arabia:

      http://www.governing.com/gov-data/energy-environment/Crude-Oil-Imports-by-Country-of-Origin-Top-10-Countries.html

      They're trying to appease their oil suppliers. It might be a problem if they realize their customer is about to go belly up and their money isn't any good. Might demand gold for payment.

      How much yen would you want right now?

      Plus the Queen of England owns about half of Canada herself. Don't want to upset that apple cart, and the US government doesn't want to upset their southern major supplier of financial market support, i.e. drug money laundering.

      Quite the pickle.


      Report comment

    • aigeezer aigeezer

      ShutItAllDown, I'm not yet convinced of that part of the claim, but for more a mundane reason, namely:

      The story presents "Atmospheric back trajectories from sites where radioactive fallout was measured". So the model is (understandably) built from points where they have measurement stations – fair enough.

      Where do they have measurement stations?

      The credits are to "U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in collaboration with the National Atmospheric Deposition Program." – nothing "international" implied.

      So, apparently the American measurement station system is in America, and (unsurprisingly) it finds results from its American locations.

      No measurement in Canada or Mexico does not necessarily mean no radiation in Canada or Mexico. "Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence."

      No measurements between arbitrary stations anywhere does not mean no radiation between those stations. The extrapolation of station data must be made with extreme care because of complex factors such as those Pu239 cited in a post stamped 7:25.

      I'd welcome an additional map showing only the locations of the measurement station sites they used. Were the measurements international or not?

      If I were seriously studying this work (I'm not), I'd want to get a detailed understanding of the methodology used to "connect the dots". Nature is rarely linear, and these dispersion patterns will be complex – tough to model.


      Report comment

      • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

        @aigeezer

        I believe if you look at a map of radnet you will see where nuclear power plants are located. They have the means of measuring radiation deposition (and I believe they have done so). As for the EPA "contractor" I don't think they even calibrated many of their "detectors".

        The government measures nothing they will tell the public in a way they can understand. Surely there is a reason? I do not believe this man.


        Report comment

        • aigeezer aigeezer

          NP, I know where the NPPs are. I don't know where the measuring stations are for this particular model that would support the claim "Fukushima fallout transported directly to U.S. — Canada, Mexico avoided much of contamination after 3/11."

          We appear to be reaching similar conclusions, but for different reasons.


          Report comment

  • gottagetoffthegrid

    Wow. What a piece of crap that dispersion model is. Where is the point-source at Fuku? All those lines should converge at Fuku.

    Junk in junk out.


    Report comment

    • Time Is Short Time Is Short

      This will work:

      "NASA Goddard's Global Modeling and Assimilation Office recently ran a simulation of the atmosphere that captured how winds whip radionuclides, such as aerosolized plutonium, around the world."
      (Edited/corrected for Enenews readers)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oRsY_UviBPE#

      The caption reads August 2006 to April 2007, but published on Nov 20, 2012. Look at the white wind of Japan, and draw your own conclusion. It doesn't take five years to run a simulation.


      Report comment

      • gottagetoffthegrid

        This link has some really good info for you west coasters, if you didn't have it already.

        The same storm that brought the huge fallout to Boisie dumped 8 inches of snow in my back yard NW of Calgary


        Report comment

    • Jebus Jebus

      I think that if you actually read the article, you would see that they reverse plotted the dispersion, from monitoring stations, using wind currents. So, logically, they would not all go to a single point source…

      Logically and effectively to the average glance, it all looks good…


      Report comment

      • gottagetoffthegrid

        It's still crap. They know the source. It should have been included even in a back calc. Some might say "especially" in a back calc.

        Listen, the only known in that model IS the source. Why omit it?

        There was lots of real time dispersion modeling done during the main event that showed/proved massive exposure along the west coast of Alaska. Why not include those actual wind tracks.

        This is just a halfassed masters thesis with lots and lots of assumptions by the look of it.


        Report comment

        • gottagetoffthegrid

          No offense intended to to you, Jebus, I'm just a little cranky today

          Happy New year.


          Report comment

        • PattieB PattieB

          That's just it… the Fuku plant IS NOT the only source! If you add the locations of all our reactors here in the USA… you get a better idea of how much THEY leak on a daily basis, and contribute to the problem! OH!… gee, now that Fuku will be blamed? We can vent any amount we wish, and get away with it! NOT that they don't vent stuff just about 24-7 from every reactor as a rule, as stuff like Tritium can't be contained in any way, regardless of contaiment breaches!


          Report comment

          • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic

            I so understand you Patti B.. I am horrified with what I am reading, not all of it ends up here… but, it sure seems the plan is to blame tepco, not technology, pretend to make safety and transparency changes, and then back to biz as usual, and I mean the biz they were up to before fukuland.. which is outrageous.. mini reactors, thorium, drones, rockets, etc, more more more.. how much can the species handle?


            Report comment

  • rakingmuck

    I will no longer allow Governments or their agencies willing and knowingly kill innocent men, women and children without at least a go at it. Whether its denial of our right to health without induced cancer by radiation, or denial of the right to not be one of the 27 million slaves on earth – I say enough.


    Report comment

  • It looks like an attempted diversion to me. Almost as if the article is saying – given that the only dangers to your health would be from ambient radiation in the air blown across from Japan, the amounts measured were low, therefore dangers to your health are low.

    Well, that's pure disinformation because there are so many more transport vectors now for a mix of isotopes that has never before existed on this earth. There are other mechanisms at work which will increase the danger: biomagnification, bioaccumulation. There's also the accumulation above us and rainouts which increases danger in some areas and not others – like the Rockies and Cascades.

    Also, the information does not come from epidemiologists or doctors.


    Report comment

  • Sol Man

    These samples were noted to be from wet deposition and (operational word) "primarily" at some various NADP sites located around the U.S., but the map included does not give the problem a good illustration. The superior map was from yesterday or a few days ago that showed fission dispersion products really everywhere in the Northern hemisphere. It is a ubiquitous as any dust; #1,2.3,4 were/are highly radioactive dust/vapor creators, and therein lies humanity's problem.


    Report comment

  • Sol Man

    Contamination has been avoided? You Tube: Fukushima radiation in Brazil.
    Here is one site.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSSyC3p9K5s


    Report comment

  • Cisco Cisco

    More of the same. The foxes are in charge of protecting the chickens, right?

    Treasure Island, San Francisco and Bayou Corne…radiation anyone?

    "DNR Shaw Group Notice of Violation for 'alarming' radiation data failures", December 26, 2012, by Deborah Dupre

    http://www.examiner.com/article/dnr-shaw-group-notice-of-violation-for-alarming-radiation-data-failures


    Report comment

  • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic

    Here is Japanese study, very interesting to read and notice where typical understanding, patterns and models did not hold up. Study completed because of need to include Tokyo in models. It occurs that more than half of the inventory hit the atmosphere and left the general area.. :(

    On average, 13% of I-131 and 22% of Cs-137 emitted from the
    FDNPP were deposited over the land of Japan in March 2011 (Table 1). About 19% of I-131 and 10% of Cs-137 were deposited over the ocean in the model domain, and 55–60% of I-131 and Cs-137 emitted from the FDNPP were transported out of the model domain. The deposition amounts in each prefecture are given in Table S1. About 8% of I-131 and 15% of Cs-137 emitted from the FDNPP were deposited over Fukushima Prefecture.

    So most of the radiation, over 50% went into the atmosphere and was deposited elsewhere :(
    http://www.nies.go.jp/shinsai/Merge-2011GL048689-pip.pdf


    Report comment

  • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic

    Much greater understanding in this one..

    "The actual severity of this episode is still uncertain, as the sensitivity tests in 20 Sect. 4.2.3 have shown that the emissions on 14–15 March are sensitive to the choice of input data for the inversion. To be matched by the model, the global data require
    much higher emissions than the Japanese data in this case. In our reference inversion the a posteriori emissions are strongly reduced compared to the first guess, due to the use of the Japanese data, but the a posteriori model still overestimates the concentrations at most Japanese stations."

    https://icanw.org/files/downloads/acpd-11-28319-2011.pdf


    Report comment

    • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic

      The FD-NPP was quickly dispersed in the entire Northern Hemisphere. Already on 15 March, a first isolated 133 5 Xe cloud reached western North America, followed by the arrival of high concentrations of both 133Xe and 137Cs on 19 March. Europe was
      first reached on 22 March by an air mass rich in 133Xe but relatively poor in 137Cs, which had been lifted in a frontal system over the North Pacific, was transported aloft
      and descended again over the North Atlantic shortly before reaching Northern Europe.
      10 Precipitation associated with the frontal lifting had removed most of the 137Cs, but the noble gas 133Xe remained in the air mass. Higher 137Cs concentrations reached Europe at the end of March. By middle of April, 133Xe was fairly uniformly distributed
      in the middle latitudes of the entire Northern Hemisphere.
      A quantitative analysis shows that 19% of the total 137Cs deposition until 20 April 15 occurred over Japanese land. Only 0.7 TBq, or 2.0% of the total deposition were received by land areas other than Japan, while the rest was deposited in the oceans.

      https://icanw.org/files/downloads/acpd-11-28319-2011.pdf


      Report comment

  • RealityControl-1984

    …. First of all, is this the first time we're seeing the ENTIRE NOAA Hysplit plume map, instead of one NOAA usually releases that stops at the middle of the Pacific Ocean?

    …. Second, Canada and Mexico did get radiation from Fukushima according to these:

    This "Zamg" plume map shows southwest & northern Canada, and western Mexico getting Fukushima radiation:
    http://www.zamg.ac.at/pict/aktuell/20110325_Reanalyse-I131-Period2.gif

    This Kyushu University plume map shows all of Canada getting Fukushima radiation:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yuUYUJwNmag

    This abstract shows "high concentrations" of radiation hit Canada:
    http://enenews.com/high-concentrations-cesium-137-hit-canada

    Page 3 of this "Journal of Environmental Radioactivity" shows Canada getting Fukushima radiation:
    http://www.happysmile.se/dokument/science_plutonium_litauen.pdf

    This Vancouver newspaper ran articles on spikes of Fukushima radiation hitting Canada:
    http://enenews.com/vancouver-paper-health-canada-detected-massive-amounts-of-radioactive-material-from-fukushima-iodine-131-spiked-above-maximum-allowed-limit-at-4-of-5-sites

    This abstract shows Radioactive Xenon-133 over Canada and Mexico:
    http://enenews.com/almost-entire-ground-level-northern-hemisphere-covered-radioactive-fission-product-after-311-study-impact-fukushima-radioxenon-releases-worldwide-xe-133-background-be-investigated-graphic


    Report comment