Santa Cruz Good Times

Wednesday
Jul 30th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

The Fukushima Fallout

news fukushimaHas the truth about radiation arriving on the California coast been muddled amidst mounting concern?

When the Japanese coastline where the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant sits was pummeled with a massive tsunami and earthquake in March 2011, three of the site’s nuclear reactors melted down. Unprecedented quantities of radioactive materials—coolant, mostly—began seeping into the Pacific Ocean.

Almost three years later, that radioactive contamination is the source of widespread concern around the world, including in Santa Cruz County.

“The Fukushima disaster was just horrendous,” says Daniel Hirsch, a lecturer on nuclear policy at UC Santa Cruz. “We’ve never had a nuclear accident before that released this amount [of radiation] into the sea.”

Hirsch, who has followed the Daiichi disaster’s developments closely, says that it is not yet clear what effects radiation from Fukushima could have on the California coast. The most immediate issues, he says, have to do with a lack of government monitoring and response, and the confusion that ensues when untrained citizens take it upon themselves to test for radiation.

In recent months, a number of area residents have attempted to gather their own data on the levels of radioactivity in coastal waters using handheld meters called Geiger counters. One Half Moon Bay resident, who made a video of the device picking up elevated radioactive readings on a beach and posted it to YouTube in December, prompted the California Department of Public Health (CDHP) to assess the danger. A subsequent report declared that the readings came from Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) that were unrelated to the Fukushima incident.

On Friday,  Jan. 10, the CDHP Radiologic Health Branch issued a statement that there are no public health risks at California beaches due to radiation originating from Fukushima.

According to the EPA, their air monitoring data, which is gathered using the agency’s national RadNet radiation-monitoring system, has not shown any radioactive elements associated with the damaged Japanese reactors since late 2011, “and even then, the levels found were very low—always well below any level of public health concern.”

EPA Press Officer David Yogi relayed the statement in an email to Good Times, adding, “With respect to the local beach monitoring by Geiger counters, background radiation varies from place to place and is often quite variable, especially on a beach.”

However, Hirsch expresses concern that the EPA has not monitored domestic radiation levels to an adequate degree, citing news in April 2012 that a number of the RadNet sensors—25 of the total 124—were out of operation at the time of the meltdown. The lapse was met with a scolding from the U.S. Office of the Inspector General, who Forbes magazine says described the EPA’s system as “vulnerable and managed with less urgency and priority than it deserves.”

news1-2Members of the new group Save Our Surfers, which is an outpost of Fukushima Response Bay Area, met on Saturday, Feb. 15 to work on creating educational materials about the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown.“The EPA has fallen on the job with any serious post-Fukushima monitoring,” Hirsch says.

Following the disaster, Hirsch says the EPA refrained from deploying mobile radiation sensors and was very slow to publish data indicating higher than normal levels of radioactive iodine in rainwater throughout the United States.

“[It is] very troubling,” he says. “Much of the monitoring just didn't happen.”

Hirsch says this failure on the government’s part has led to the flood of citizens taking matters into their own hands. This poses a problem because these handheld devices do not provide the necessary context of a radiation source’s signal, he says.

“There’s a vacuum that’s been created by the government agencies doing a very poor job at monitoring, so you end up having people using digital equipment they don’t entirely understand and don’t really show what you want to look for, and getting results that scare people,” Hirsch says.

To get the appropriate data, Hirsch says scientists need to test samples in areas where the normal, or “background,” level of radiation is known, and use equipment that can determine what kinds of radiation are registering. He would want to know if the monitor is picking up cesium-137—one of the most abundant and hazardous radioactive isotopes released from Fukushima—or something that occurs naturally in the sand, like radium.

Meanwhile, many are still concerned about the ways radiation from Japan may have already, and could continue to, harm the environment.

In January, Robin Brune organized the local Meetup.com group Save Our Surfers (S.O.S.), a new chapter of the regional group Fukushima Response Bay Area. There are currently 10 to 15 members, she says.

The group’s aims are to educate themselves on the issues, compile educational materials, build community support, and bring attention to the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown. Eventually, Brune says, they plan to appeal for political action, starting with local government.

“If our local governments take action, hopefully we can build some strength,” she says. “We want them to join in that voice” pushing for an international response.

“This is a huge nuclear accident that is impacting our entire ecosystem,” Brune goes on. “It is an ongoing disaster and we don’t think there are sufficient resources [being designated to addressing it].”

S.O.S. is currently fundraising to send local water samples to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts for radiation tests. However, if possible, she says they hope to get the testing done locally instead of sending it the approximate 2,600 miles across the country.

For his part, Hirsch would like to see the EPA send water samples to their labs where their “radiological fingerprint” can be tested, which—if cesium were detected—would allow scientists to know whether it originated from nuclear weapons testing fallout from decades past, or if it came more recently from Fukushima.

Additionally, Hirsch says he is worried about the EPA’s heightened standards for permissible radiation levels, which were revised in April of last year. The new guidelines for radiological incidents make cleanup standards much more lax. “This would, in effect, increase a longstanding one-in-10,000-person cancer rate to a rate of one-in-23 persons exposed over a 30-year period,” according to an April 8 press release from the national alliance Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

“They’ve tried to relax these permissible levels over the last year in a very controversial fashion,” Hirsch says. “They’re trying to reassure people that there’s no problem, and now people are going out with handheld Geiger counters, and the truth is getting lost, but the truth is subtle.”

Hirsch says that the danger that radiation quantities pose are significant even at tiny margins. With the standards even lower, there could be significant health effects even though radiation levels are below the government’s permissible level.

“There is no threshold below which there is no harm caused by radiation,” he says. “The theory is called the ‘linear no-threshold model,’ which means risk increases linearly with the dose. Small amounts of radioactivity produce small increases in cancer risk; larger amounts produce larger degrees of cancer risk.”

On Feb. 5, the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) of Japan provided the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with an update on radiation levels near the meltdown site, which are being monitored by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). This is the same organization that was managing the power plant’s operation at the time of the meltdown and admitted—more than a year after the disaster—that they had “failed to take stronger measures to prevent disasters for fear of inviting lawsuits or protests against its nuclear plants,” as was reported in the New York Times on Oct. 12, 2012.

In the update, Japan’s NRA stated that the concentrations of all radionuclides were “relatively stable” from Jan. 27 through Feb. 2, though Brune says she is concerned that TEPCO is permitted to run lead on the cleanup and monitoring efforts. She says the United Nations should be involved.

Brune, whose husband surfs, says surfing and an appreciation for the ocean defines Santa Cruz’s identity as a city. She asks herself if, due to radiation contamination, there could come a day when being in the ocean is no longer safe.

“I feel that if this isn’t stopped, if this radioactive material continues to pour into our oceans unchecked, there will be a time when it’s not safe,” she says. 

“Radioactivity is invisible,” Brune continues, “but our concerns are not. We need to cry out. There are so many issues facing us, but I think this one needs to move to the frontburner.” 


S.O.S. Fukushima Response Santa Cruz (which is online at meetup.com/SOSFRSC) will hold its next meeting on Saturday, March 1.

For a detailed breakdown of what researchers and government officials know about the current and eventual repercussions of the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant's nuclear disaster, check out this blog: Radiation Rundown

Comments (6)Add Comment
Coastal Management Coordinator, Surfrider Foundation
written by Rick Wilson, February 25, 2014
Surfrider Foundation has written an article which evaluates radiation threats from Fukushima based on available science:
http://www.beachapedia.org/Rad...Fukushima
Updated news
written by Once a journalism teacher, February 23, 2014
This article misses big chunks of the story. Dan Haifley covered this for the Sentinel on 2/14/14; http://www.santacruzsentinel.c...inel.com/.

He identifies the Woods Hole project as well as a second one, Kelp Watch. And the Woods Hole project isn't just projected; it's underway, per a 1/28/14 story: http://www.whoi.edu/news-relea...e-release. On 1/28/14, they had already posted results from the Point Reyes and La Jolla sites: http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html. It would be nice to have local results, but ours can't be that much different from Pt. Reyes.

There's a lesson here about journalism: Hirsch is really great but you can't pivot so much of an article on one source without looking more broadly at the resources that are out there. And you don't want to produce a story that appears to ignore a story on the same topic by the local daily...

CBET
written by Norman Frazier, February 21, 2014
Stear manure, within hours of the explosion at Fukushima the CTBTO was getting real time readings of the radiation from bouys deployed in the Pacific to monitor test band treaties. The government of manycountries knew this was to bad to publish and the USA removed radiation stations in Alaska.
If you are waiting for an official source to tell you the truth you are as good as dead.
Citizen
written by Dan Parkison, February 19, 2014
If you want the truthful News on Fukushima....go to enenews,com It is a fabulous website that aggregates hundreds of sources of News. And you won't get the "feel good" News from Google
Concern is understandable, but ...
written by Eric Johnson, February 19, 2014
Ecoguy Says Don't Ever Trust TEPCO Or The Japanese Government That Lets Them Continue!
written by Ecoguy, February 19, 2014
Folks! DON'T TRUST ANYTHING THAT TEPCO SAYS OR DOES! TEPCO has proven they can NEVER be trusted and they're continuing negligence and ongoing lies prove this fact! TEPCO new that their reactor generators were not located high enough to survive a Tsunami because they where told to move them to roof level years before the disaster struck, yet they did nothing to protect the power plant! TEPCO out and out lied about the levels of radiation coming from the melted down reactors and then admitted under pressure that the radiation levels were over 5 times higher then they reported! When an American internet company that sells the highest quality medical grade detox mineral called Zeolite offered TEPCO and the JAPANESE Government a full shipping container load to them both for 100 Percent FREE so they could safely remove radiation and heavy metals from thousands and thousands of people both TEPCO and the Japanese Government both REFUSED THE FREE ZEOLITE! Now TEPCO continues to dump millions of gallons of radioactive waste into the Pacific Ocean every single day to contaminate fish, ocean life and humans! When will this stop? ANSWER---It wont stop until an international coalition of nuclear and health experts take over to get this ongoing disaster under control to save our planet ASAP!

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

Mars Enters Scorpio: The Nine Tests

Over the years I’ve mentioned the nine tests of Mars and Scorpio. The tests are given to everyone—unawakened, beginning to awaken, and the awakened. The purpose is to test our strength, courage, ability to adapt, discriminate and have discernment. To see if we are deceived by illusion or are “warriors triumphant, emerging from the battle.”

 

Final Cut

Cedar Street Video to close after 10 years at downtown location

 

Film, Times & Events: Week of July 25

Santa Cruz area movie theaters >

 

The Maestra Returns

Cabrillo Festival’s Marin Alsop is back to ‘rock the boat of tradition’
Sign up for Good Times weekly newsletter
Get the latest news, events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

Latest Comments

 

Time is Ripe

Local fruit harvests hit markets, Storrs Winery celebrates ‘Best White’, and a salt fix from heaven

 

I remember Santa Cruz when…

Santa Cruz | Librarian

 

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

 

Hunter Hill Cabernet Sauvignon

Smooth with soft tannins, this velvety crimson Cabernet Sauvignon 2011 is delicious and very drinkable.