Santa Cruz Good Times

Friday
Aug 01st
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Radiation Rundown

fukushima-blogWhat we know about the current and eventual repercussions of the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant's nuclear disaster

Radiation released into the environment following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant meltdown has many people around the world worried, prompting regional groups such as S.O.S. Fukushima Response Santa Cruz to rally for international action in the ongoing cleanup process. While the prospect of increased, dangerous levels of radiation contaminating the world’s oceans is terrifying, experts say determining the immediate and long-term consequences of the disaster is difficult to estimate, and that there is not enough evidence of danger on California’s coastline to warrant mass hysteria, but that the incident demands close attention by government authorities. Here is what researchers and government officials know so far:

Some people have used hand-held radiation monitoring devices, called Geiger Counters, on California beaches and picked up radiation readings. Does that mean Fukushima’s radiation has reached the California coastline?

No. Normal levels of radiation, called “background,” vary from place to place, especially on beaches, according to Bill Keener, a public affairs official for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) San Francisco region. Radium, thorium and uranium often concentrate on beaches because waves and wind remove lighter weight particles, leaving these heavier radioactive particles behind for short amounts of time before they too are moved by wind and water. There is no reason to immediately associate changing radiation levels on the beach with radioactive contamination from Japan.

How does the EPA monitor domestic radiation levels and track whether levels may be increasing due to contamination from Fukushima?

The EPA’s RadNet system monitors radiation levels in the air throughout the U.S. constantly. They test samples of precipitation, drinking water, and milk in order to provide a baseline for the data on radiation background levels in the environment, allowing them to detect any increases due to radiological incidents.

RadNet has not found any radioactive elements associated with the damaged Japanese reactors since late 2011, according to the EPA’s website. However, according to Daniel Hirsch—a lecturer at UC Santa Cruz on nuclear policy—RadNet’s sensors are unable to detect most radioactive iodine, which is one of the two types of radiation predominantly released from the Fukushima reactors. The RadNet system pumps air through filters and then sends them to a lab in Alabama for analysis, but because radioactive iodine is a gas, it passes through the sensors, Hirsch says.

While the EPA does not monitor or sample ocean waters outside of U.S. territories, they do work with other federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to follow the Fukushima ocean leak. The state of Oregon tests drinking water, rain water and sea water for radionuclides that could be associated with Fukushima on an ongoing basis.

Is ongoing radiation leakage from the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant something to worry about?

While the Daiichi Power Plant continues to be a source of radionuclides along Japan’s coastline, the majority of the radiation levels are diluted in the ocean as they spread offshore and lose their potential to cause harm. Workers at the site of the meltdown, where they have direct exposure to the concentrated sources of radioactive materials, face a much higher risk of having health problems, according to a report by Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. For people further away from the incident, where direct exposure is not an issue, the bigger concern is potential uptake of radiation through consumption of contaminated fish.

Is seafood no longer safe to eat in California?

Radioactive isotopes originating from the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactor were found in marine animals in Japanese waters, as well as in migratory Pacific bluefin tuna, according to a report called "Evaluation of Radiation Doses And Associated Risk From The Fukushima Nuclear Accident To Marine Biota And Human Consumers of Seafood,” by the National Academies of Science (NAS). Although Pacific bluefin tuna captured off California in August 2011 did contain levels of radiation associated with the Fukushima meltdown, the concentrations were less than the amount that is often detected from naturally occurring radionuclides. Such doses, according to the report, are comparable to or less than the dose all humans routinely obtain from naturally occurring radionuclides in many food items, medical treatments, air travel, or other background sources. Hirsch says that while these levels are very low, any level of radioactivity poses some risk.

Is the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant disaster causing harm to sea life along the California coast?

Sea lions in Southern California have been sick and dying off at such an unusually high rate that, beginning in January 2013, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared an “Unusual Mortality Event,” which continues today. No link has been established at this time between the sea lions’ increased mortality rate and any potential seafood safety issues,” NOAA said in a statement. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated that because the ocean is so large and any contamination is so diluted by the time it reaches this part of the world, that there is no realistic threat and therefore no need to monitor radiation levels in fish—sea lion food—on the West Coast, according to a statement made by FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey to the Anchorage Daily News on April 16, 2011. On Jan. 16, 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that 94 percent of the anchovies and 92 percent of the sardines exported to Canada contained radioactive cesium. Some of the fish were caught in Japanese coastal waters but others were caught hundreds of miles away in the open ocean.

Is there a new wave of radioactive materials moving toward the West Coast from Japan this year?

In recent months, some news outlets have published information suggesting that a second “plume” of radioactivity is making its way across the Pacific Ocean and could be arriving along the Canadian and California coastline this year. Bill Keener, with the EPA, says there is no reason to believe a second plume is coming. “The event in March of 2011 released the accumulated gases in the reactors,” he says. “No such accumulation should be occurring today.”

What is the bigger picture on nuclear power according to Hirsch?

Hirsch believes that, while nuclear power, theoretically, is an exceedingly attractive energy source—“it does not produce a lot of global warming gas and effectively taxes the energy of the atom for human benefit”—the reality is not so sweet. He says that on the safety side of things, the threat of something going wrong at a nuclear power plant, like it did in Fukushima, is just too big of a threat. In the event of a terrorist attack, an earthquake, or an on-site accident, the stakes are just too high when working with nuclear power, he says.

He cites a parallel problem as a correlation between the spread of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, which he says has been made evident in the past year by the U.S. negotiations with Iran. Hirsch says that because of the potential for accidents, nuclear weapons proliferation, and the issue of nuclear waste—all of which pose an “existential threat to humanity”—society needs to be moving more in the direction of renewable energy sources and away from the nuclear one.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that our human institutions are not able to handle this extraordinarily dangerous [power source],” he says. “I’ve had too many decades of dealing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear power industry to have any confidence that they will regulate this technology safely. Nuclear power might be safe, but not in the hands of the human race,” he says. “We are just too prone to error.”

Comments (4)Add Comment
Retired Machinist
written by John R. Moran, March 17, 2014
From what I have read. The U,C, Collage reported a Very High Air born ratiadation shortly after the tripple Melt Downs in March 2011 all along the Califonia coast. My area Eureka Ca. had Mesurments 38,000. times above normal. Now 36 months later we have a Mass Die off of Star Fish, Sea Lions and other surface(within the first 20 ft.) Both Japan and the U.S. north west are seeing dramatic increase in Childhood Thyrod Cancer. Whats being Missed is that the Navy dumped 47,000. Barrels of radio active materials off the Farlon Island up untill 1970. I know Way WE have Radiation on the beachs. Hanford Washington Is Leaking into the Columbia River. "There is no safe level of exposure to any Radiation" N.R.C. 91% of all U.S. Nuck Power Plants Leak. This Death Pollution is being ignored by both News and Government. I ASk THIS WHEN DID WE AGREE TO KILL OUR CHILDREN AND MAKE THIS PLANET UNLIVABLE? ALL THE IRADIATION HAS HAPPEND IN MY 67 YEARS OF LIFE. Hundreds of above growned tests Three MAJOR MELT DOWN ACCIDENTS. WORLD WIDE NUC DUMPING IN TO THE SEAS. THERES NO SAFE PLACE. THIS IS EFFECTING EVERONE. I can go on but what would be the point. TELL THE TRUTH AND DO ANY THING TO STOP AND CLEAN UP THIS MESS.
...
written by Karen Clausen-Wicker, March 15, 2014
Thank you for your information re: Fukashima meltdown. Is there anywhere to read radiation level statistics throughout the U.S. and the world? Information regarding this incident is curiously lacking. Nor does the CDC have any pertinent radiation warnings. Nuclear accidents occur regularly amidst little fanfare and less public disclosure; case in point: February 5, 2014 accident at Carlsbad, New Mexico, "Waste Isolation Pilot Plank." Is it possible to determine how much radioactive material has already been stored in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, despite the admonition that it is low-level? What happens to the water from the cooling ponds where spent radioactive rods and other materials languorously, lounge after being spent? Is there the danger of evaporation returning the radioactivity to earth? So many questions, so few answers. Add my name to any information regarding this questions as well as where I might procure a map of wind and water currents which would have been the likely routes of radiation. I appreciate your efforts and support your commitment to these concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, Karen
Where do you get off writing this article?
written by Anonymous, February 21, 2014
I'm sure you either a: work for the government, or b:are getting paid off to write this non sense. You are wrong in every point you make. Radiation does NOT dilute... ever. Get your facts straight. Is seafood safe to eat? Aboslutely not. Studies show 100% of tuna caught off the coast of california had fukushima radiation... i'm sure this comment will just get deleted, but what you are spreading is wrong.
Life In The Pacific Ocean Is Dying But Nobody Is Telling US Why! Maybe It's The Radiation!
written by Ecoguy, February 20, 2014
Its pretty amazing that since the radiation from Fukushima started to pollute our air and water fish, seals and sea lions are sick and dying in droves but the so called experts won't admit that the increase in radiation could be causing these problems! Maybe when it gets to the point of glowing in the dark the experts will admit that the radiation is killing off life in the Pacific! When this time does show up it will be to late for all of us! Many feel that this day is coming soon and concerned people that have been eating fish and seafood from the Pacific Ocean are now doing radiation and heavy detox's with the mineral Clinoptilolite Zeolite that removed radiation and heavy metals from the body! For more information on this safe radiation and heavy metal detox mineral just do a search for the simple term Zeolite

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

Picture of Health

Santa Cruz just received a high ranking among California counties. But it may be hiding some of the biggest health dangers facing our area

 

In The Time of Leo: Our Creative Efforts

 

Final Cut

Cedar Street Video to close after 10 years at downtown location

 

Film, Times & Events: Week of August 1

Santa Cruz area movie theaters >
Sign up for Good Times weekly newsletter
Get the latest news, events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

Latest Comments

 

Foodie File: Maharaja

Chef Didar Singh on Royal Taj’s reincarnation as Maharaja

 

What’s the best advice your mom or dad ever gave you?

Santa Cruz | Sales Manager

 

Best of Santa Cruz County

The 2013 Santa Cruz County Readers' Poll and Critics’ Picks It’s our biggest issue of the year, and in it, your votes—more than 6,500 of them—determined the winners of The Best of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll. New to the long list of local restaurants, shops and other notables that captured your interest: Best Beer Selection, Best Locally Owned Business, Best Customer Service and Best Marijuana Dispensary. In the meantime, many readers were ever so chatty online about potential new categories. Some of the suggestions that stood out: Best Teen Program and Best Web Design/Designer. But what about: Dog Park, Church, Hotel, Local Farm, Therapist (I second that!) or Sports Bar—not to be confused with Bra. Our favorite suggestion: Best Act of Kindness—one reader noted Café Gratitude and the free meals it offered to the Santa Cruz Police Department in the aftermath of recent crimes. Perhaps some of these can be woven into next year’s ballot, so stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy the following pages and take note of our Critics’ Picks, too, beginning on page 91. A big thanks for voting—and for reading—and an even bigger congratulations to all of the winners. Enjoy.  -Greg Archer, EditorBest of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll INDEX

 

Muns Vineyard Rosé of Pinot Noir

This vivacious cherry-pink Rosé is a simply beautiful summer wine.