USGS: Los Angeles area had highest cesium deposition in US after Fukushima

Published: February 23rd, 2012 at 8:08 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
48 comments


Title: Fission Products in National Atmospheric Deposition Program—Wet Deposition Samples Prior to and Following the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant Incident, March 8–April 5, 2011
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Authors: By Gregory A. Wetherbee, Timothy M. Debey, Mark A. Nilles, Christopher M.B. Lehmann, and David A. Gay
Date: Feb. 21, 2012

[...] Cs-134 activities were quantified for 23 samples from Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. The Cs-134 ranged from 0.40 to 55 pCi/L, and deposition values ranged from 0.47 to 180 Bq/m2. Cs-134 values reported for all but one site (CO90 near Nederland, Colo.) have substantial error because they were manually estimated from the gamma-ray spectra. Cs-137 activities were quantified for 33 samples from Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnessota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. These samples ranged from 0.70 pCi/L to 39 pCi/L, and calculated deposition values ranged from 0.78 to 240 Bq/m2. Cs-134 and Cs-137 activities were not adjusted for decay to date of sample collection because radioactive decay during the 2-month period between collection and analysis was negligible for these isotopes. [...]

286 Bq/m2 of radioactive cesium was deposited by April 5 according to the monitoring station 20 miles east of Los Angeles (See CA42)

Title: Fukushima Daiichi
Source: Ornage County Register
Author: Pat Brennan
Date: Feb 22, 2012

[...] Computer models show air flow from the Pacific over the monitoring station, in a remote area near Ontario.

“That was a place where the air masses seemed to converge, and come right across Southern California,” said study author Greg Wetherbee, a chemist who works with the National Atmospheric Deposition Program at the U.S. Geological Survey. “And it happened to rain.” [...]

Read the report here

Published: February 23rd, 2012 at 8:08 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
48 comments

Related Posts

  1. Los Angeles-area Meltdown: Cesium-137 still up to 1,000 times higher than standard — Plutonium also detected — Located between Chatsworth and Simi Valley March 6, 2012
  2. Air Filter Friday: Radioactivity at 300% of normal background in Los Angeles-area dust — 350 CPM in St. Louis-area Ionic Breeze (VIDEOS) November 18, 2011
  3. New EPA data shows iodine-131 in Los Angeles tap water — Still no testing for radioactive cesium April 21, 2011
  4. Report: Peaches in Los Angeles-area found with radiation at more than double site background levels July 12, 2011
  5. L.A. Daily News: Casino to be built on site of nuclear reactor meltdown just miles from Los Angeles? Was up to 240 times Three Mile Island — Cesium-137 still up to 1,000 times over limit April 8, 2012

48 comments to USGS: Los Angeles area had highest cesium deposition in US after Fukushima

  • ion jean ion jean

    These numbers are a good illustration of the Jet Stream effects and fallout deposition…

    You'll notice NY has higher readings than some places much farther west…I would like to see all the states readings on this chart.

    Also, the time delay (mar-feb of the next year) did not allow me to mitigate for my 2011 gardening year; could they have produced these reults any more slowly than this??

    Too little too late…seems to be an ongoing theme for everything the U.S. Governcorp does!


    Report comment

    • ion jean ion jean

      "Have substantial error because they were manually…"

      The entire Nuclear Family thrives on substantial error, why make mention of it???


      Report comment

    • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

      @ion jean

      I am wondering why they did not show the results for Florida since I believe fallout was higher here than in California at that time.

      As to how slow the federal government is in publishing anything which would have been of real value if published in a timely way, all agencies of the feds dealing with the problems caused by Fukushima are culpable. None have benefited the public. I see no reason why we should fund incompetence or malfeasance.


      Report comment

      • Mack Mack

        That's right NP.

        "Melbourne, Florida had highest iodine-131 reading of any CTBTO monitoring station in the world from March 22-23"

        http://enenews.com/florida-highest-iodine-131-reading-ctbto-monitoring-station-world-march-22-23-charts

        And since Fukushima, Florida has had record-breaking heat; people complaining of sulfur odors; and "whopping increases in pneumonia cases" –> a 400% increase in pneumonia in kids in one area!

        http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/december/354647/Number-of-pneumonia-cases-in-children-spike?cid=rss


        Report comment

        • Bobby1

          NADP didn't collect samples from Florida.

          Table 1 shows the Fukushima maximum I-131 deposition in the US was higher than Chernobyl anywhere except Sweden. Of course, that is only through April 5. I'm sure there has been many times that amount deposited since then.


          Report comment

          • Mack Mack

            Interesting to note:

            The EPA did not test in many of the places the USGS tested. And the USGS shows radiation tested from March 15-29, but the EPA often doesn't show any rad-detection until April.

            Examples:

            * 3/15 – 3/29 – WASHNGTON – IODINE-131

            EPA = 125 + 36.6 = 161.6 pCi/l
            USGS = 1,090 pCi/l

            (USGS found almost 7 times more Iodine-131? could be from different storms, etc?)

            * 3/15-3/29 – COLORADO – IODINE-131

            EPA = No results until 4/4/11
            USGS = 464 pCi/l

            * 3/15-3/29 – ARKANSAS – CESIUM-137

            EPA = No results for Arkansas
            USGS = 8.6, 7.6, and 26 pCi/l

            * 3/15-3/29 – CALIFORNIA – CESIUM-137

            EPA = ND (non-detect) until 4/14
            USGS = 39, 9.3, 3.0, 3.4 pCi/l

            * 3/15-3/25 – ILLINOIS – CESIUM-137

            EPA = No results for Illinois
            USGS = 15, 2.6 pCi/l

            * 3/15-3/2 – MISSOURI – CESIUM-137

            EPA = No results for Missouri
            USGS = 9.2, .8 pCi/l

            * 3/15-3/29 – TENNESSEE – CESIUM-137

            EPA = ND (non-detect)
            USGS = 11 pCi/l

            * 3/15-3/29 – VIRGINIA – CESIUM-137

            EPA = ND (non-detect)
            USGS = 13 pCi/l

            ==================================================
            If anyone wants to compare for themselves:
            http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1277/report/OF11-1277.pdf
            http://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/


            Report comment

            • Mack Mack

              typo: all the dates should be 3/15-3/29


              Report comment

              • Mack Mack

                A few more observations on the USGS report:

                ** NY had more Cesium-134 than 2 areas tested in Washington

                NY 1.8
                WA 1.3, 1.4

                So, all of that distance-will-cause-dilution we hear about is not entirely true.

                ** CO had more Iodine-131 than CA

                CO 464
                CA 185 and 53


                Report comment

                • Mack Mack

                  Found an interview with 2 researchers involved in the USGS report where they say:

                  "Thus, impact of the Fukushima disaster agreed well with our predictions, namely that the radiation entered the upper atmosphere, was transported across the Pacific Ocean, and was deposited to the U.S. in rain and snow."

                  Really?

                  Then why wasn't a warning given to stay out of the rain and snow?

                  They relied on the EPA.

                  "According to the U.S. EPA, the short-term exposure of the U.S. population is unlikely to have any significant health impact."

                  "Significant" health impact? What does that mean exactly?

                  http://illinois.edu/lb/article/72/60144


                  Report comment

                • Mack Mack

                  And how is exposure to a radiation like cesium-137 which lasts for hundreds of years considered "short-term exposure" ?


                  Report comment

  • So our potatoes are HOT HOT HOT !


    Report comment

  • Sickputer

    SP: So it took a full year for five USGS employees to run all the rain samples and warn the public and actually it was not a warning…they said this:

    “Gamma-ray spectra for naturally occurring gamma-emitting isotopes were obtained as part of this study, but these spectral components were not quantified for this report. Health risk assessments and comparison of measured activities to water-quality or health-related standards are beyond the scope of this report. This report provides no interpretation with respect to atmospheric transport processes.”

    —From the USBS report http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1277

    SP: You issued no early notice in the spring, summer, fall, or winter of 2011, but now issue this report which has no mention of strontium or plutonium particles?

    SP: Yet you call your response "quickly"?

    "In response to the incident, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), lead agency within the National Atmospheric Deposition Program4 (NADP), collaborated with NADP personnel to quickly develop sampling and analysis plans and quality assurance protocols to monitor the radioactive fallout over North America."

    SP: You say you provide no interpretation, but that is not the slant of your PR folks who gave their opinion to the newspapers:

    "A new study shows that tiny amounts of radioactive material from the Japanese nuclear disaster a year ago fell with rain and snow across the nation" ….While the detected amounts posed no health threat,…"

    http://sciencedude.ocregister.com/2012/02/22/japan-fallout-tiny-but-most-fell-on-socal/168348/

    SP: You only had two detector systems for analysis in the entire country?

    "Samples were analyzed by USGS at the National Reactor Facility at the Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colo., using gamma spectrometry with high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector systems. Because there were only two detectors available……"

    SP: I do not believe your information any more than I trust Radnet.


    Report comment

  • or-well

    Relentless lying, spin, distortion, cover-up…by hundreds, thousands of people given access to Media, touted as "authoritative"…
    I believe it will take a Fuku in a densely populated part of USA to wake people up…
    but then, will it be labelled an "attack", a news Blackout imposed, martial law declared ?
    Would the rest of the country, let alone the world, even know…
    I have no doubt that IF it happened, some would seek to use it to their advantage…
    Could they, or is the country too wired for such a huge coverup?
    I wonder, given their success in keeping the truth of nuclear so sidelined for so long.


    Report comment

  • americancommntr

    The government is staffed by damn liars who deny their neighbors warning and put them all at risk.

    It's too bad the government is corrupt, and the law enforcement agencies are not allowed to do anything about it.

    One of the biggest shocks in reality has to be the Fed owner who dies, goes to Hades, and no longer has any money, assets, or power, while demons rip him to pieces, he struggles for breath, and watches his imperishable and fully dead 'body' endure temperatures at which it should instantly vaporize, all while craving even one drop of water.


    Report comment

  • InfoPest InfoPest

    Time to start looking around LA for hot spots.


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    EPA had this on their site shortly following the disaster … "To-date, levels recorded at this monitor have been thousands of times below any conservative level of concern."


    Report comment

  • whoarewe

    It should be apparent that you can't just talked about nuclear power without expanding that to fossil-based energy consumption. You can't talk about that outside of the framework of out-of-control population growth, which is in tandem with the extreme wealth/income disparity (an inverse pyramid). This extremely unstable and unsustainable structure can only be "glued" together by the fiat currencies, which allow the shadowy governments to kick the can down the road. But the use of fiat currency makes entropy in the system worldwide accelerate so much… There are only 67 years after the WWII…You see, homo sapiens are at the end of rope now.

    This is how you connect the dots. Of course, GMO should be part of that BS.

    They are in the quicksand now. The entropy is so high that the more they try to fight, the faster they sink.

    The destination and destiny have already been determined. The process has already started. Homo Sapiens have alway struggled with this question: Is such a thing as coincidence or randomness? They rush to conclusions that there are many, too many to be counted. But they fail miserably to recognize their "sample size". Are they in a position to draw any valid conclusion based on data for a month, a year, a decade, or…?

    Zoom back for a second. The only way you can defeat this CLOSED system AKA ponzi scheme is to leave the system. Localized economy is part of the solution. Collectively, you need to covert your fiat currency to GOLD. That takes away their "tool".

    Zoom out, look around the world, there is no REAL output increase. Nominal growth including the so-called "market" is met with the "inflation". The REAL interest rate is decidedly NEGATIVE.

    This is highly condensed information meant for readers who have already known the quicksand we are in. If you are one of them, then I suggest you to look at this number. Is one unit of US fiat currency worth 1/1800 ounce of GOLD? The end is NOT near. It…


    Report comment

  • Kevin Kevin

    From Time Magazine, just in "Time" to quell concern that may arise from recent findings as these.

    Falldown: Radioactive Fallout From Fukushima Posed Little Threat to the USfrom Google Alerts – Fukushima by TIME (blog)
    By Bryan Walsh | @bryanrwalsh | February 22, 2012 | + Nearly a year after the Japanese tsunami and subsequent meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant, the good news is that the risk from radiation doesn't seem to be as high as many initially feared.


    Report comment

  • Alice Alice

    "….and it happened to rain…."

    That's the crux of the matter, isn't it?

    IF it hadn't rained, we would have been out of the woods.

    What we need is to put a tarp over all of Los Angeles.


    Report comment

  • Well at least you Americans got some sort of report even though it was late. I'm unaware of any similar Canadian report so I guess living here in BC I can extrapolate data between Portland and Alaska. But really, what do we know? Even if I my circumstances were such that I could move away it seems we don't even know based on US data if there is a hot spot in say Montana or even New York state. All we here is everything is OK. Yet there is no angry editorial in a mainstream newspaper questioning how Japan can have the audacity to call the melt through mess a cold shut down. Most people here know but to edify any new comers, cold shut down is a term for a functioning nuclear reactor which has had nuclear reaction shut down in the normal manner and the cooling system has lowered temperature such that cooling system water is below I believe 90 degrees celcius. Not to mean that since the core has melted through in a non functioning train wreck of a useless nuclear reactor and that the cooling system isn't even touching the melted core, of which no one knows or is willing to reveal the location or condition of said core, such that really no one knows or is willing to state why the temperature of the cooling system water is below 90 degrees celsius……. They are allowing all Japanese food imports into the country trusting a government that will use such double speak and it appears mainstream media and government are coining the term cold shut down. The biggest lie told in my lifetime…. If I get cancer down the road, or my poor little children, there will be no investigation just like there was no investigation done for those who got cancer from bomb testing in the fifties. We can just try to live as healthy as we can and stay out of the rain…..

    God Bless


    Report comment

    • StPaulScout StPaulScout

      Know this. Radioactive shit fell all along your west coast and western inland areas. If you beleive there are 'safe levels' of radiation you need to find out how much fell and where. If you think there are no such safe levels, I would get the hell out of there if you can. If not, buy some sort of detector and hope for the best cause you are truly on your own, the governments of North America have failed in their duties and don't appear to care.


      Report comment

      • James2

        If you were in the northern hemisphere in the first 2 weeks after the explosion of #3 the plutonium cloud passed you by.

        It's been 12 months. In another 6 months we'll find out who the first round of plutonium lottery winners are.


        Report comment

        • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

          There have been (and probably by now) over 70,000+ extra deaths in America alone already.


          Report comment

          • CB CB

            How did you come to this conclusion? Still births, Thyroid Cancers, Pneumonia deaths, Flu Deaths, Auto Immunity like deaths, etc? Or just an educated guess? Have you been tallying finds?


            Report comment

          • James2

            The report from a few months ago said 125,000 as I recall and that was for the first few months. I'd guess the number is closer to half a million now.

            But that was not from the plutonium. That magic hasn't happened yet. Well it's happening, but we can't see it yet.

            The cancer onset from plutonium starts in about 18 months.


            Report comment

            • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

              Worldwide James? CB, I was referring the population adjusted numbers comparing 2010 to 2011 from the 122 cities that report mortality rates to the CDC. Bobby1 compiled and released a nifty pdf several times last year pointing this out.

              http://freepdfhosting.com/ccafb5715d.pdf


              Report comment

              • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

                If interested in that, check these out:

                http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html

                The Notifiable Diseases and Mortality Tables, usually the last page. Check out Jacksonville, Houston and then take a look prior to June. Then, look at the west coast cities 2010 compared to now and it will appear that numbers are deducted somehow on select problem cities in the south/east as if they're compensating for higher numbers in the west. If that's too much trouble, on the anomalies thread you can see some breakdowns where I checked obituaries and actually counted, mapped, and compared each person to a category. There is definitely some reporting problems for certain cities but nevertheless, a lot of extra death already:(


                Report comment

              • HoTaters HoTaters

                Would you please provide a reference for your PDF? I haven't seen it but am interested, thanks.

                Also interested in mapping some of this, so if you'd be open to sharing the data, I'd like to talk about this further. (GIS mapping.)


                Report comment

                • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

                  Hi…I'm sorry I'm not sure what reference you mean? Bobby's pdf has references at the end, the data coming from the MMWRs, along with an explanation of his method.

                  I did not make a pdf but posted the final results of what I looked at on the anomalies thread (some is spread out quite a bit). I also used MMWRs and compared (in 3 of 4 cases) 2 weeks from '10 to '11 that with whatever newspaper covered that area to see if I could find the actual names for the numbers. I do have the text files of the obituaries, papers, dates etc and I'm more than happy to share. Some were a bit difficult to determine from lack of information but those were noted. (and I found the thread, page 5 about 1/2 way down starts with Reading http://enenews.com/forum-possible-fukushima-related-anomalies-deformations-yellow-rain-metallic-taste-mouth/comment-page-5)

                  I am very interested in mapping it! I wanted to get some help too to maybe adopt a city to keep counts, particularly for 2012 since as I referred to earlier, 2010 to 2011 is weird and a clean comparison for this year needs to be made, then work back through 11 and then 10. I just got sooo busy and can't for a few more months. So you work with GIS mapping?


                  Report comment

            • James2

              I apologize. I believe my memory is wrong.

              I can only find Bobby's page – which reports 53,000 From April to December.

              And the published medical report that showed 14,000 in the first 14 weeks.

              The thread on that one is here:

              http://enenews.com/happening-now-medical-journal-article-says-14000-u-s-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-fallout-streaming-audio-available-at-4pm

              I'm not sure where 125,000 got stuck in my mind – but I should have looked before I typed. My numbers above are incorrect.


              Report comment

              • LetThemEatYellowCake LetThemEatYellowCake

                Maybe a mental adjustment that's probably true? Some of those cities, Houston for example, the numbers are "good" between the reports in the newspapers versus the numbers the city reported to the CDC. But then the infamous but comes to play when looking at previous years and the actual map of the city. Numbers are much higher and from the map, the majority of the hospitals now are outside of the city limits. Deaths are reported at the location of death sooo it appears some changed their geographical reporting parameters. It appears Houston used to include their metro and now doesn't. All cities have varying parameters in previous years too so each one has to be checked. I checked Reading, Jacksonville, Boise and Houston but haven't had time to check for more.


                Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    Credit to stock for this link of the final EPA rad #'s for Fukushima in the U.S.:

    http://www.epa.gov/japan011/docs/rert/radnet-cart-filter-final.pdf


    Report comment

  • pg

    This sounds like BS to me. Ive been watching the fallout patterns day by day hour by hour at times and there are dozens of places that got hit harder. This would seem to me more lies. It appears someone is trying to evacuate Southern California. Someone as in the UN. They did the same thing in the gulf with the oil spill,..which failed. They are bombing LA with high altitude chemical spraying from jet liners, crazy laws, IRS attacks, taxes, and more. The line of work I am in I can test to the fact that thousands of professions such as doctors and dentists have already left for the East coast. Not all but many. Riverside industrial is a ghost town as are many other Socal areas.

    Pay attention to details, things aren't always what they seem.


    Report comment