NPR, KQED Forum, March 10, 2014 — Dan Madigan, Stony Brook University adjunct assistant professor (at 18:45 in): The models that predict the spread across the Pacific Ocean reaching the Eastern Pacific at some certain time is pretty much totally agreed upon, as in some amount of radioactive cesium and potentially other isotopes will cross the Pacific Ocean. The question is in the amounts. […] I want to point out I’m not saying that, or suggesting that, it won’t necessarily be problematic at all. But so far, all the information that’s been put forth has suggested that — I think a lot of people don’t know — in many ways this is a unique thing to happen to the Pacific Ocean, so people weren’t sure what they’d measure. >> Full broadcast here
IdeaSphere, Public Radio Exchange, March 26, 2014 (at 8:15 in):
- Guy Rathbun, host: Speaking of the San Onofre nuclear plant, the reading for iodine-131 was much higher than what thought possible 5400 miles away from the site of the Fukushima accident.
- David Lochbaum, trained nuclear engineer and director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Nuclear Safety Project: That’s true. I think what you’re seeing is the computer models assume that radiation particles are uniformly distributed in the air or water and therefore get transported across US shores. In reality there are particles that are not broken up evenly. It’s not like sugar dissolving in water. It’s more like particles that are suspended in water, and also there’s particles in the air, that cause local hotspots or high readings — much higher than the overall plume which seems a much more homogenous or uniform mixing. The computer models are good but they don’t account for the hotspots that people sometimes detect.
Published: April 11th, 2014 at 4:20 pm ET