Rain with 20,000,000 particles of radioactive iodine-131 per liter fell on US during post-Fukushima peak (VIDEO)

Published: September 19th, 2012 at 2:17 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
37 comments


According to the video below featuring by Simon Fraser University’s Kris Starosta, a rainwater sample measured in the Vancouver area had levels of radioactive iodine-131 at 10 becquerels/liter [Bq/l], which corresponds to 10^7 particles of I-131 per liter of water [10^7 = 10,000,000].

The post-Fukushima peak for I-131 in the U.S. appears to have been in the San Francisco Bay Area, where levels reached 19.85 Bq/l.

An I-131 level of 19.85 Bq/l detected in the Bay Area rain sample is equivalent to 19,850,000 particles of I-131 per liter.

~At 3:30 in

Watch the video here

Published: September 19th, 2012 at 2:17 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
37 comments

Related Posts

  1. Official Data: Lettuce from US West Coast nearly topped Chernobyl contamination limit; ‘Most dangerous’ alpha radiation also detected — TV: Fukushima poses “significant health risks” to areas thousands of kilometers away (VIDEO) September 29, 2014
  2. Radioactive particles from Fukushima found in Massachusetts rain — “25 times less risky than it would need to be in order to cause any health concerns” (VIDEOS) March 28, 2011
  3. Bloomberg: ‘Highly radioactive’ leak at Fukushima Unit 3 — NHK: Melted fuel coolant thought to be flowing from containment vessel for ‘unknown reason’ — 24 Million Bq/liter of strontium, other beta emitters (VIDEO) January 20, 2014
  4. Cesium 137 Detected in Virginia Rain: “I have said from the beginning that there is Fukushima fallout in the rain water” — Can’t be detected with geiger counter (VIDEO) June 24, 2012
  5. NHK Top Story: New highly radioactive leak at Fukushima — Believed to be draining into Pacific Ocean — 200,000 Bq/liter of strontium and other beta-ray emitters (VIDEO) October 2, 2013

37 comments to Rain with 20,000,000 particles of radioactive iodine-131 per liter fell on US during post-Fukushima peak (VIDEO)

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue

    I knew it was bad but….another beyond words moment.


    Report comment

    • This video is another of those dismissive nuke community presentations –and I'm concerned that those rainfall bq/L figures are presented here as a count of individual atoms(?) –which are then called "particles". (I also have problems with the nebulous concept of "particles" –as in: "we've inhaled X number of particles today". I wonder if my N95 filters here even meaningfully seine such particles out of the air.)

      Anyways: the big issues for me are things like: rainfall gets into cows and the FDA allows up to 170 bq/kg (which is about a liter of milk) to be sold –!– (and I think that's for just the I-131 alone), versus 0.11 bq/L for drinking water. (Every time I compare those numbers I think: "must have made a mistake somewhere".) I've read that we allow up to 1000 bq/kg in fish (versus 100 bq/kg in Japan) (not that anyone's testing our fisheries anyway).

      My point: we need to get someone who is expert and who we trust to —at least be the lead commenter here (as needed) when (um) large numbers and scary assertions start being tossed around (including mine) –since we've got plenty enough to worry about as it is.

      I need to read everyone's comments, and then maybe come back to this in the morning.

      We could also use a 2nd opinion on Mr. Potr's disturbing rainfall numbers. There's bad history and a huge mound of radioactive wastes near St. Louis. Makes me wonder just what's blowing around.

      > http://www.scoutingny.com/?p=2358

      Craig


      Report comment

      • HoTaters HoTaters

        Do N-95 filters trap sub-micronic particles? If not, probably not.

        One has to use pretty sophisticated filtering to get that kind of particle.

        We're probably talking about an Israeli Home Defense Force level of protection against radiological and biological weapons,to trap or "seine" particles that small.

        What say you, nuke industry experts? Joy? Stock? Anyone care to chime in here?


        Report comment

  • Anthony Anthony

    Right now any sort of apology from the Nuclear Industry, however mundane, would be considered highly appropriate to the people and customers of their services.


    Report comment

    • SnorkY2K

      No attorney for a firm even 1/5000th the size of the nuclear companies would let a company apologize since even an admission of part of the guilt could yield them their maximum 75 million dollar fine that a company is liable for in a nuclear accident


      Report comment

  • timebomb

    how many liters of rain fell
    probably a lot


    Report comment

    • ion jean ion jean

      It matters over time for tho the levels are greatly diminished since explosions occurred, radioisotopes get stuck in the upper atmosphere and stratosphere and then trickle down over the next months and years…where exactly, well our govt didn't test effectively, but the 30 to 60 N Latitude will sift it and concentrate it to that band of the Northern US…yes San Fran got hit hard initially, but expect setttling to occur with the heavy precipitation of the Great Lakes, Northern plains, N New England etc. Eastward through Scandinavia, etc.

      Hey, thiS is the REAL NEWS, not the theatre crap smeared before our eyes by Controlling GlobAl Interests!

      I go back to my thought that we need to Re-educate the young Americans…kids love truth and naturally sense the lies and spin…we need to nurture that spirit of truth in our families and communities…how?


      Report comment

  • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

    so if they're talking I-131, it's likely an vast array of other isotopes were also coming down? Are they able to extrapolate the type and extent of hot particles from this sampling? I'm not versed in the nuances of this science, but this seems an incredibly large dose…


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    It's important to have scientists like Kris Starosta measuring and reporting what shows to be vast amounts of radiation from the Daiichi nuclear disaster.


    Report comment

  • jec jec

    Makes a person wonder if the smoke from the Washington State fires (evergreen forest in the Cascade Mountains) or other forsst fires in the Western USA are dangerously loaded with radioactive contamination.


    Report comment

    • That seems reasonable to me, though I've seen no appreciable rise in gamma here — and we have been THICK with smoke from the Pole Creek fire, which area was right under the path of the center of the southern plume as shown on a recent graph. Range has been .10 to .19 mcSv most days, fwiw.


      Report comment

    • NO DOUBT about the radioactive fires

      I found a bunch of research documenting how radiation contamination from Chernobyl was at risk of being released into the atmosphere by the massive fires last year

      Everyone on the west has been contaminated many times over now

      Let us just hope that the effects of these levels of contamination unfold across generations rather than within ours so that we can try and make interventions that mitigate genomic instability

      Though… our children's children may never forgive us


      Report comment

  • Thanks to Simon Fraser University’s Kris Starosta for the research!

    We need scholarship to help document the scope of this tragedy.

    I believe that change cannot occur without this type of scholarship.

    Thanks to admin. for unpacking the significance of the measurement.

    Keep in mind everyone that the radiation contamination from precipitation is ONGOING as contamination in the ocean gets incorporated into the WATER CYCLE.

    Shills will tell you that the uranium and plutonium will sink in the ocean.

    However, I've found evidence that LEAD does not sink and gets incorporated from the ocean into precipitation.

    I've written a short essay with documentation suggesting how fukushima contamination is going to end up in our precipitation via the water cycle

    http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/compromised-oceans-mean-compromised.html

    No doubt Fukushima's many isotopes are still raining down on us.

    That would explain why we may have radiation spikes in areas hit by storms not directly under jet stream.

    And don't tell me that all spikes in geiger detections from precipitation are from radon.

    Potrblog has DOCUMENTED long half-life detections.

    What's in the air is in the ocean;

    and what is in the ocean will be in the air.

    Bio-magnification of it all will occur across time in the species at the top of the food chain.


    Report comment

    • moonshellblue moonshellblue

      My son was attending college at Mont Alto PA and went for a run in the rain which my chemist spouse and I told him not to do, but so much for parenting, anyway his skin burned and he had digestive troubles, took a shower right away. So he listened a little as we told him to shower ASAP. This was about a week after the meltdowns. You'd think he would know better as he is quite bright, a pre-med student with exceptional grades now at Penn State. I just don't understand why some people cannot wrap their heads around simple instructions like using rain gear perhaps it was just parental defiance. I know my spouse always protects himself from rain, etc. It's a simple thing to do and I think it is a necessity these days especially for young children.


      Report comment

      • I think people just cannot get it that "stuff comes down in the rain" from thousands of miles away because it is so counter-intuitive, despite considerable research documenting that air pollution circulates globally…


        Report comment

        • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

          not that they don't "get it" majia. I think most are so conditioned by authoritarianism, they're reluctant to use common sense. DHS had to issue a public service message, instructing people that they should stock-up on food and water for use in emergencies. Only a 'zombie' would not have already done so, after what was witnessed in Katrina's aftermath…


          Report comment

      • wfs wfs

        I have also experienced a burning rain. Really it was more of a mist that burned. I am in Pittsburgh Pa and this was just after the triple meltdown. I was in the yard with my two kids age 5 and 7. They had just gotten home from school and wanted to play in the yard some. I obliged thinking to myself, well.. its not raining so they wont get exposed as much to the radiation. We were only outside for a few minutes. I did not notice the burning. My son said daddy why is the rain burning my skin and a wave of horror overtook me as I suddenly felt a subtle burning sensation on my skin. I ran the kids inside. I wish I would have thought to shower them off immediately but I think I was just like a deer in the headlights. I had just exposed my loved ones to a plutonium cloud and was not thinking clearly. I have always wondered what would have caused the burning and imagined that maybe it was all of the fracking wells spewing all sorts of diesel and other fumes into the air. I read later that the mist carries the finest hot particles and is more dangerous than actual rain. We live on a ridge which is north facing on the south side of the Allegheny river. I am also an expectant father any day now. I am so worried and I have to hide my concerns. I have managed to keep my wife away from west coast vegetables, all japanese sourced foods, mushroooms and the like. When I told my wife about the burning mist and she literally laughed at me thinking I am paranoid. so sad its almost unbearable


        Report comment

    • HoTaters HoTaters

      Hi Majia, great job, thanks. Would you please do one favor for posterity? Would you please document the year along with the date?

      That is, for September 5, can you document it as "September 5, 2012" if it's this current year you're writing about? It will really be helpful when we are going through the archives and reading older posts at your blog site. It helps keep things in perspective, thanks. -HT-


      Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    Dr. Starosta is a Nuclear Physicist.

    That explains why he compared the peak amount of 400 Bq/kg of Iodine-131 in BC dried-seawood to radiation in bananas, brazil nuts, etc.

    And he compared the peak amount of 16 Bq/l of Iodine-131 in BC rainwater to potassium-40, and even compared it to Radon releases from a coal plant, and medical doses.

    He also:

    * Claims radiation in BC from Chernobyl was ten times higher than Fukushima.

    * Says 34 local milk samples from 4/1 to 6/7 were all below 2 Bq/kg for I-131, Cs-134, Cs-137.

    * Says no significant impact on environment in BC.


    Report comment

    • Mack

      Many academic studies attempt to trivialize fukushima contamination levels using Chernobyl levels after presenting data evidencing contamination.

      The milk studies all depend upon whether the milk is "raw" or pasteurized when Iodine-131 is at issue.

      There are lots of other ways to manipulate data on contamination in food, milk, and water to trivialize findings.

      I say ignore the comparisons to Chernobyl and focus instead on the data presented in the research because we need data to prove that contamination is present.

      If the data are compromised then disregard the study's conclusions…

      The Chernobyl comparisons make me utterly insane also but I realize that without data published in peer reviewed science journals there will be no way to demand accountability


      Report comment

  • CB CB

    Thanks ENENews and commentators for painting the picture. You really are unsung heros in my book. 40% of coworkers sick here with lumps, skin infections, and rashes. One co worker died of pneumonia. What's next?


    Report comment

  • Ten Becquerels per litre is what Japan will or has put in plce as a limit on drinking water. But as others above mention, what number of isotopes are you testing for, leads to the more ambiguous unknown, how much total radiation does a sample of water contain? So buddy tested 10 becquerels of iodine 131. There would also have to be a significant amount of cesium components and a smaller amount of a myriad number of isotopes. So I think you could at least add a percentage of iodine results to guestimate actual total amount of becquerels found. Thus, Vancouver was getting 20? and San Fran was getting nearly 40? becquerels of radiation per litre of rain water. Then what percentage of that have long half lives?

    These learned scholarly types sure do leave a lot to question.


    Report comment

    • harengus_acidophilus

      What's in the water?

      If you look at the various fission products of U235, you will find only 3-4% I131. But the other 96-97% aren't harmless. Hundreds of isotopes with different ways of decay. Very nasty.

      Nuclear industry will say "Yes, but Iodine is so volatile – the other isotopes don't travel so far."

      Sh**! Hey industry! Remember the blasts!
      Vaporized matter will travel all around the globe.

      Just saying…

      h.


      Report comment

  • patb2009

    11 Bq/L

    bad for babies and kids, not so bad for adults


    Report comment

  • harengus_acidophilus

    Is it really the proper way?

    We have a contamination level of of 10 Bq/l.

    But the headline speaks about a big number… 20 millions.

    To much emotional atracction instead of scientific information.

    Should we really use this kind of "eye catcher"?

    I'm not sure…

    h.


    Report comment

    • timebomb

      Genius that is the point

      The measurements have always been given in becquerels

      Now we finally hear about the measurement in particles and you complain

      Try listenening to Gundersen discuss hot 'particles'


      Report comment

      • harengus_acidophilus

        "complain"…?

        Once upon a time I've had heared an interesting sentence:
        "If you use the methods of the enemy – you will be an enemy too"

        If we use "big values" to get atraction –
        THEY will say: fearmongering.

        This is my concern.

        h.


        Report comment

  • Sol Man

    This evening I had one of the most unique mutations from the garden. I can only assume that it was a mutation as I do not know what else would cause it. In preparing tomatoes I sliced into one that had a smaller fruit growing inside of the larger one. I photographed other oddities, but I was too quick with the knife and slow in thought to capture this one.


    Report comment

  • vital1 vital1

    Accept no increase in radioactive contamination in your food or milk. Their risks models where based on 1950 and 60s studies based on Physics models, and not Biology or cell dynamics. Modern research exposes this fraud.

    Bequerels are just to way to get you used to the idea that some poison is OK in your food supply. They just increase what are the so called safe Bequerel levels at will to suite their needs. If the levels get to high they just don't test, or don't report the level.


    Report comment

  • vital1 vital1

    Correction to post above; Becquerels are just a way


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.