Monday, October 10, 2011

Update on Strontium-90 in Yokohama City

Additional information to what I posted on Sunday, as information is very slowly filtering through to the Internet.

195 becquerels/kg of strontium-90 was detected from the sludge on top of the apartment building in Kohoku-ku, Yokohama City, where the very high level of radioactive cesium was also detected back in mid August, though the news did not break until mid September. (See my post here.)

So in the same sludge sample, there were:

  • Cesium-134: 29,775 becquerels/kg

  • Cesium-137: 33,659 becquerels/kg

  • Strontium-90: 195 becquerels/kg

Yokohama City is supposedly conducting its own testing of the different sample from the same rooftop using the same laboratory, and the result may be announced this week.

The ratio of strontium-90 to cesium-137 in the soil samples within 80-kilometer radius from Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant varies widely from less than 0.1% to over 8% - in other words, as the Ministry of Education and Science said in its report on strontium and plutonium, there is no telling if strontium is there if there is cesium.

There is an unconfirmed piece of information on a blog by a Yokohama citizen that the city knew about radioactive strontium in the sludge as early as mid September and dismissed it because the city's radiation advisor said it was impossible to find radioactive strontium of Fukushima origin in Yokohama.

The reality seems more like this, though: Since strontium was not supposed to fly far from Fukushima, so the city bureaucrats didn't know what to do or how to respond. (from communication with the person who ordered the testing)

Yasumi Iwakami, independent journalist who broke the news yesterday, asked the Minister of Education and Science in the press conference on October 11 (in Japan) and asked about strontium in Yokohama. The minister said "Thank you for your information. We may do the testing in wider area if necessary." Other people who was watching the press conference live in USTREAM said the Minister answered "There is no report to me yet."


Anonymous said...

I knew it was from the same roof. So the ratio of Cs-137 to Sr-90 is around 172:1 or around 0.6%. Let's wait for the next sample. If the ratio is the same it would be around 290 Bq/Kg of Strontium-90.

In any case, the comparison Iwakami Yasumi did with the pre-Fukushima background is spurious. The Yokohama samples were taken from accumulated dirt near a drain that was collecting water from the whole roof. It's not the same as undisturbed soil.

Anyway, what about Strontium-89? It decays faster, but it may still be higher than Sr-90.

Anonymous said...


Strontium in England - 2000 miles away: The effective doses in May 1986 for Chernobyl radionuclides in England were: Cs-134 and Cs-137, 27 mSv; I-131, 6 mSv; Sr-90, 0.9 mSv (Smith et al. (2000). page27, Table 1.2

Yugoslavia: Distribution of Sr-89 and Sr-90 in Slovenia, Yugoslavia, after the Chernobyl accident. J. Env. Radioact. 5: 159–163. Juznic, K. & Fedina, S. (1987).

Strontium-90 decays in Beta radiation to Yttrium-90. This is a special danger for teeth-bone. (Mel’nichenko and Cheshko, 1997)

Typical Chernobyl hot spots measure tens to hundreds of meters across and have levels Yablokov & Nesterenko: Contamination through Time and Space 21 of radioactivity ten times higher than the surrounding areas
---> see DUGA3

Ref Chernobyl; Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment by Alexey V. YABLOKOV, Vassily B. NESTERENKO, Alexey V. NESTERENKO

----> fuku, still kept open and pumping.



Anonymous said...

Strontium cont:

Sr-89 Hair moss 3,500bq/kg Finland Ilus et al., 1987 p.260

Figure 3.6. Percent of newborns with birth weight less than 1,500 g from 1983 to 1992 (top curve) and a level of Sr-90 in soil (bottom curve) in Wales (Busby, 1995). Both curves spike simultaneously ... page 71.

Allergy to cow’s milk proteins was found in more children living in territories more heavily contaminated by Sr-90 than in children from less contaminated areas: 36.8 vs. 15.0% (Bandazhevsky et al., 1995; Bandazhevsky, 1999). Page 109

Milk. Lettner, H., Hubmer, A., Bossew, P. & Strebl, B. (2007). Cs-137 and Sr-90 transfer into milk in Austrian alpine agriculture. J. Env. Radioact. 98(1–2): 69–84

Each radionuclide has its own accumulation characteristics (e. g., levels of accumulation for Sr-90 are much higher than for Cs-137... p.258 The active migration of Sr-90, Cs-137, Pu, Am, and other isotopes results in bioaccumulation that will present unforeseen surprises for decades to centuries to come p.306

There are wide intraspecies variations in specific Sr-90 activity: from 2–3 up to 555 Bq/kg in fresh bilberries (Vaccinium myrtillus) in mertyllus-type pinewoods Orlov et al., 1996) p.260
The TR for Sr-90 from soil to plants is 10 to 20 times higher than the TR of Cs-137 in the same habitat and the same species (Orlov et al., 1999). p.264 ... Although Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am concentrate in the root zone of plants, p.315

In many European countries levels of I-131, Cs-134/137, Sr-90, and other radionuclides in milk, dairy products, vegetables, grains, meat, and fish increased drastically (sometimes asmuch as 1,000-fold) immediately after the catastrophe. ... average levels of incorporated Cs-137 and Sr-90 in the heavily contaminated territories of Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia did not decline, but rather increased from 1991 to 2005. p.310

GREAT BRITAIN.The peakChernobyl contamination of milk was reached in May 1986 and was up to 1,000-fold as compared with the mean values reported in 1985 for I-131 and Cs-137 and up to four times higher for Sr-90 (Jackson et al., 1987). Twenty-three years after the catastrophe, according to Great Britain’s
Ministry of Health, 369 farms in Great Britain, accounting for more than 190,000 sheep, continued to be dangerously contaminated with Chernobyl’s Cs-137 (Macalister and Carter, 2009). p.312

Cs-137 is removed from ecological food chains a hundred times more slowly than was predicted right after the catastrophe (Smith et al., 2000; and others). “Hot” particles have disintegrated much more rapidly than expected, leading to unpredictable secondary emissions from some radionuclides. Sr-90 and Am-241 are moving through the food chains much faster than predicted because they are so water soluble (Konoplya, 2006; Konoplya et al., 2006; and many others). Chernobyl radioactive contamination has adversely affected all biological aswell as nonliving components of the environment: the atmosphere, surface and ground waters, and soil. page 242

Secondary contamination of freshwater ecosystems occurs as a result of Cs-137 and Sr-90 washout by the high waters of spring p.244

those who live and will continue to live in the territories contaminated by Sr-90 and Cs-137, as it will take no fewer than 300 years for the radioactive level to decrease to background; (c) those who will live in the territories contaminated by Pu and Am, as millennia will pass before that deadly radioactivity decays; and (d) children of irradiated parents for as many as seven generations (even if they live in areas free from Chernobyl radionuclide fallout).

Ref Chernobyl; Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment by Alexey V. YABLOKOV

Anonymous said...


Strontium -Hoax does not fly :

Sand - electrical isolator and neutral. Its particle size, weight, million times bigger -than- radioactive nuclei ... the three fukumolten Reactors spewing now this invisible strontium laced death freely and/or through their 3meter/140meter artillery barrels...

When Saharan heavy sand, lifted up only by wind from african soil, creates sandstorm in Florida, after crossing atlantic - what can the higly charged nuclei do in earths magnetic fields and/or guided million megawatt radio beams? (ref. Like Duga3, Nikolaev, Komsomolsk etc 300x1500meter antennaes)

The answers from scientists can be seen in linky's above.

Anonymous said...

wow. Chernobyl was really nasty compared to Fukushima. Just imagine Finland, thousand miles away and 3,500 Bq/Kg of Strontium?

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said... wow. Chernobyl was really nasty compared to..."

eh? Read again.

- Chernobyl fallout was 1/100 of previous over 2700 atmospheric nuke tests 1950-64 (CBTO)
- Fukushima three meltdowns contain 100x (?) more plutonium, at the moment continue open - bubbling like Chernobyl under its sarchophagus...

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but you have to compare actual releases, not potential releases.

TheGoodtheBadandtheNuked said...

Yeah, but you have to compare actual releases, not potential releases.

Heheheheheh. What a crazy comment. You are funny dude. Did someone give you the lowdown on the actual releases? TEPCO? The government of Japan? Nuke industry monitors?

Anonymous said...

Of course there are estimates of total releases, by the same kind of institutions that estimated the releases after Chernobyl. Or do you think the soviets or the IAEA were less pro-nuclear in 1986 than the Japanese government or the IAEA now?

Anonymous said...

"less pro-nuclear" ... psst. Soviets based their anti-faith in marxism. He was known from papal illuminati circles as a jesuit, formed the League of the Just - and there rises the world famous social justice found on every leftie lips.

Next step.
How many catholics in IAEA. Over 100%? EU? Only 100%.

What can be more pro nuclear than G.E. which has sold (lots of $$$$) most of the reactors ... check out who theses folks are, how they support depopulation known from marx ilk and be surprised.

Lili said...

10,000 free trips to Japan for those that worry about the safety of the country.

It is a misleading article as the tickets are not immediately available-but they will be available. Let's tell all of the naysayers to stand by their words.

If Japan is safe-go. There are no excuses now.

arevamirpal::laprimavera said...

@Lili, there's nothing misleading about the article. This blog wrote about it yesterday. It is for the fiscal 2012 which starts in April 2012 in Japan.

Anonymous said...

"Of course there are estimates of total releases, by the same kind of institutions that estimated the releases after Chernobyl. Or do you think the soviets or the IAEA were less pro-nuclear in 1986 than the Japanese government or the IAEA now?"

Not less pro-pro nuke, just much better at lying, obfuscating and covering up due to 20+ years of managing radioactive "incidents". Also, TEPCO's got a convenient ocean shore at its disposal(literally).

Post a Comment