From "Elevated airborne beta levels in Pacific/West Coast US States and trends in hypothyroidism among newborns after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown", by Joseph J. Mangano, Janette D. Sherman, page 3 (link):
A national study conducted by the National Geological Survey examined concentrations of wet depositions of fission-produced isotopes in soil at sites across the US, for several radioisotopes, between March 15 and April 5, 2011. Results showed that for I-131, the highest depositions, in becquerels per cubic meter, occurred in northwest Oregon (5100), central California (1610), northern Colorado (833), coastal California (211), and western Washington (60.4). No other station recorded concentrations above 13. Similar results were observed for Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 [42]. All the cited locations are on or near the Pacific coast, with the exception of Colorado, in the western US.
Cubic meter??? That would be indeed catastrophic.
However, from "Wet Deposition of Fission-Product Isotopes to North America from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Incident, March 2011" by USGS, as cited by the authors (link):
Variable amounts of 131I, 134Cs, or 137Cs were measured at approximately 21% of sampled NADP sites distributed widely across the contiguous United States and Alaska. Calculated 1- to 2-week individual radionuclide deposition fluxes ranged from 0.47 to 5100 Becquerels per square meter during the sampling period.
It was "square meter".
Open file report by USGS: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1277/
Table 2 on pages 17 and 18 of the USGS report shows I-131, Cs-134, Cs-137 deposition. Many places have only Cs-137 detected, some places with I-131 and Cs-137, some with I-131 and Cs-134. For locations that have both Cs-134 and Cs-137, the ratio is mostly not in line with those of Fukushima-origin (Cs-134:Cs-137=1:1 to =1:1.2).
(Click to enlarge.)
1,090 picocurie is 40.33 becquerels. 40.33 becquerels/liter was calculated into 5,100 becquerels/square meter, with the conversion factor of about 126.
30-Day free trial by following the link.
Tokyo Time
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
11 comments:
I have not had time to study the issue but when I saw Mangano speak at the Caldicott conference he did not make a big deal about the levels of infants affected, except that on the West coast it was a worry. But recently RT and others were carrying a story saying 1/3rd of children in California suffer from thyroid problems from Fuku radiation. This was outlandish misreporting, even according to the Mangano report. I for one do not support hyping stories just to create fear and confusion, or in order to get more hits on the internet.
Conference Highlights Fukushima Consequences
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/conference-highlights-fukushima.html
Not important, but "cited" not "sited".
Anon at the top, they are in the business of not getting more hits but making money off the disaster.
Someone inserted this bogus study into wiki entry.
No idea what to make of this study anymore. I guess they based their entire analysis on the 'cubic meter' theory?
RT is a shock and awe news service, they simply get a kick out of kicking their enemies (US, Europe, Japan) when they're down.
A lovely puzzle, Becquerels per square meters or cubic meters. How thick is the square meter ? One micron, a few centimeters ?
Phiphi.
if they still counted the congenital hyperthyroidism increase with blood tests and the actual air levels were lower,, that would then show the same increased incidence of CH for a lesser dose..?? now that would be catastrophic.. europe would have one tenth the effect according to Criirad april 2011
thats still alot of european children too! imo
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=28599
and a bit OT but i thought i might run it by you all!
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/07/update-and-clarification-on-japanese-deep-sea-waste-dumps/
Phiphi,
I am not 100% sure but if I recall correctly a radioactive square meter is 5cm thick.
Meaning that, to estimate the deposition on a surface after the fact, a 5cm deep sample of soil is taken. (Sounds pretty arbitrary to me but still.)
On the other hand, deposition in a specific location can be measured by collecting the fallout with a proper instrument (a sort of pan), in this case a square meter has zero thickness, as it should be.
Beppe
P.S. The document posted mentions wet deposition; needless to say, deposition of radioactive fallout may occour when it does not rain as well.
Beppe
Phiphi and Beppe, to calculate the amount of radioactive material per square meter (Bq/m2), the multiplier is different if the soil is taken 5cm deep or 15cm deep, or more, or less, and expressed in Bq/kg.
If the sample is taken to the depth of 5cm, the multiplier to convert Bq/kg into Bq/m2 is about 65, provided that the soil density is about 1.3g/cm3. If the depth is 15cm (like Ministry of Agriculture did for the Fukushima rice paddies), the multiplier is about 195 by calculation. Ministry of Agriculture used 150, which is more or less in line with USGS numbers.
The authors of this paper, inadvertently, are saying the soil sample taken up to 100cm deep had 5100 Bq. Multiplier would be extremely large (1300) to convert the number into Bq/m2 for standard comparison.
My post last year about how to calculate Bq/kg into Bq/m2, when people were freaking out multiplying "black dust" in Minami Soma by 65: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2012/05/minami-somas-black-dust-with-over-10.html
Think of a box
Thank you, Beppe and admin
Phiphi.
Post a Comment