Study Author: California iodine-131 probably double or triple what we reported

Published: April 5th, 2012 at 9:03 pm ET
By

10 comments


Follow-up to: Southern California had 2,500 Bq/kg of iodine-131 in seaweed -- Over 500% higher than other tests in U.S., Canada

Title: Study Finds Radioactive Fallout in California Kelp Beds
Source: Everything Long Beach
Date:April 5, 2012

“Radioactivity is taken up by the kelp and anything that feeds on the kelp will be exposed to this also,” [California State University, Long Beach marine biology professors Steven L. Manley] continued. “Even though we detected low levels, it still got into the environment and we don’t know anything about the other radioisotopes like cesium 137, which stays around much longer than iodine. In fact, the values that we reported for iodine probably underestimate what was probably in there. It could be two to three times more because we were just sampling the surface tissue; the biomass estimates were based on canopy tissue and a lot of kelp biomass is underneath. So, probably two or three times more was in the tissue at its height. Then it enters the coastal food web and gets dispersed over a variety of organisms. I would assume it’s there. It’s not a good thing, but whether it actually has a measureable [sic] detrimental effect is beyond my expertise.” [...]

“Chris and I are pretty happy with this study,” Manley said, “because it was just one of those spur of the moment things and it panned out really well.”

Read the report here

See also: Forever: Iodine-129 "a growing radiological risk" -- 15.7 million year half-life -- Almost undetectable -- Traveled along with iodine-131 from Fukushima -- Concentrates in hotspots

Published: April 5th, 2012 at 9:03 pm ET
By

10 comments

Related Posts

  1. 40,000,000 Bq of iodine-131 in a single bed of kelp off Southern California — Amount most likely larger March 30, 2012
  2. EPA: Models show “greater potential impact” to US West Coast from rainfall containing Fukushima radioactive material — California sea water with over 10 Million pCi/m3 of iodine-131 found in sample squeezed out of seaweed September 9, 2014
  3. Scientists: California fish harmed by Fukushima radiation? Thyroids are sensitive to iodine-131 — Radioactive marterial probably accumulated in opaleye, halfmoon and senorita March 31, 2012
  4. Professor: “Reports of radiation in kelp just north of California” — Signs of Fukushima contamination expected to start “really arriving strongly” this year January 21, 2014
  5. Southern California had 2,500 Bq/kg of iodine-131 in seaweed — Over 500% higher than other tests in U.S., Canada March 30, 2012

10 comments to Study Author: California iodine-131 probably double or triple what we reported

  • CB CB

    A good video ~ With the voices of Mr. Busby, and Mr. Gunderson thought it would be better here than in General.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkIY0rb6mAA&feature=youtu.be


    Report comment

  • California Radiation Levels Climb Again
    Tuesday, April 03, 2012
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LZRQrAtsT0&feature=player_embedded
    Here's the test being done and the results shown. Rain containing 5 times normal background level of radiation means health implications for millions of Californians who collect the stuff for …

    http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2012/04/california-radiation-leveks-climb-again.html


    Report comment

    • Spectrometising

      xdrfox.
      EnviroReporter managed to fit a lot into that report of his without doing a second measurement on the collected sample to determine Radon progeny or not.
      In terms of technique, he does not have one which makes the data pretty useless. Particularly if he is offering commentary on a Radon washout.
      The feature article here shows the importance of doing a second and more test on any given sample.
      I see so many of these tests using Geiger's and pancake style detectors rendered completely useless due to the above, and what i mention again below indirectly.


      Report comment

      • Q: How many 'experts' does it take to screw in a light bulb?
        A: I don't know? Let me do a study on that and I'll get back to you in a year after a peer review is completed.

        There was no need for a second measurement. You can contact Mr. Collins directly and he can explain the specifics to you regarding Radon in Southern California.

        As far as his techniques, could you specify exactly what he is 'possibly' doing incorrectly. I am sure he would like to know.

        I believe his techniques are just fine and certainly better than none. Your attempt to discredit EnviroReporter is lame at best and I would ask you, where are your videos of testing.

        I do agree however that better equipment leads to better answers.


        Report comment

        • Spectrometising

          ChasAha
          No. Any swipe test must be tested a second time.
          I am not discrediting EnviroReporter, i am discrediting any one who thinks a single reading can be used to obtain a meaningful result with a rain swipe. He is not on his own in this malpractice. It is quite widespread..
          The method used by the researcher featured in this article involved many tests, but at least two are required. It is a gold standard.It is to sort the wheat from the chaff. It cannot be omitted, particularly with respect to rain.
          Radon is found everywhere, not just in rain in California.
          My own work is not in question.


          Report comment

  • Dr.Strangelove

    I don't want probablys give me the facts man. We need more testing in southern California especially since the intial fallout cloud to hit the U.S from fukushima slammed los angeles first.


    Report comment

    • Spectrometising

      Yes and preferably testing that can determine the isotopes, or at least some of them.

      I like that the researcher used calculation of half-life of the sample in question to get the best benefit from the apparatus in use.

      I see many owners of Geiger counter users omitting to test a sample even only a second time for changes that might indicate a Radon isotope and its progeny in rain for instance.

      Many are turning to an inexpensive form of gamma spectrometry and recently a person on Youtube i have been following for some time has also shifted to trying gamma spectrometry to get more accurate/quicker identification.

      I am certain the need for "facts" has determined this movement. In particular, the accurate identification of quite a few radioisotopes. Having a few kilos of Lead shielding also helps.

      "a simple but fully portable sound card gamma spectrometer!"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPeKkzhf2TU


      Report comment

      • Dr.Strangelove

        good comments above spectro im no expert on radiation testing but something seems wrong with enviroreporters testing. I would think he would wanna test the same item at least 3 times. Enviroreporter has some good articles on their website but their latest stuff and over emphasis on their buckyball theorys makes me start to question their work.


        Report comment