or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › West Coast? Iodine & Fallout Information
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

West Coast? Iodine & Fallout Information - Page 15

post #281 of 311
the half life of I131 is 8 days but it takes closer to 80 days to decay right down. ::sigh:: if it was gone after 8 days we would not be seeing rainwater on the east coast of north america now that exceeds safe drinking water reg's.

ubiquitous.....
post #282 of 311

 

 

Quote:
if it was gone after 8 days we would not be seeing rainwater on the east coast of north america now that exceeds safe drinking water reg's

OH my! I didn't read that report yet. Exceed's safety? How come CA hasn't exceeded safety? Geographically that's not making sense to me. 

 

We are just upping our intake of miso, seaweed, etc. I don't see the benefit of avoiding organic locally grown food. I am just trying to find a proper way to filter water, cheaply. 

post #283 of 311

There is a group of nuclear engineering students from Berkeley testing rainwater.  The rainwater does have higher levels than are allowed in drinking water.  No its not in the news and no, officials have not warned people to stop drinking collected rainwater, which plenty of people do on a daily basis.  

 

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/ 

post #284 of 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by moss View Post

the half life of I131 is 8 days but it takes closer to 80 days to decay right down. ::sigh:: if it was gone after 8 days we would not be seeing rainwater on the east coast of north america now that exceeds safe drinking water reg's.

ubiquitous.....



what does that mean?

 

half-life doesn't mean gone...

 

post #285 of 311

We are heading to California and the West Coast Tuesday morning.  I won't be checking this thread.  I don't and won't choose to live in fear.
 

Radiation detection device readings in Japan: http://www.rdtn.org/

 

Perspective: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

 

If you look at the closest readings to the Fukushima Plant, the readings are in microsieverts per hour.

Scroll out to make the map larger and you can see readings for the US- West Coast. 

 

 

Good-night.

 

 

Pat

 

 

 





 

 

 

 

post #286 of 311

It means that after 8 days the isotope will still hold 1/2 its initial radioactivity.  Another 8 days will half the remaining amount and so on.  It takes much longer than 8 days to decay, as the pp mentioned.  

post #287 of 311

Yes, as distance from radiation decreases its impact exponentially, living within 20 miles of a damaged nuclear plant (we live within 20 miles of TWO nuclear power plants in Charlotte, NC), is WAY different than living 5133 miles from Japan, in California.

 

"DISTANCE Radiation exposure decreases rapidly as the distance between the worker and the radiation source increases. Maximizing distance represents one the simplest and most effective methods for reducing radiation exposure to workers. For example, distance can be maximized by using long handled tools to keep radioactive materials well away from the body and storing radioactive materials as far from workers as possible.

 

The decrease in exposure from a point source of x or gamma radiation can be calculated by using the inverse square law. This law states that the amount of radiation at a given distance from a point source varies inversely with the square of the distance. For example, doubling the distance from a radiation source will reduce the dose to one-fourth of its original value, and increasing the distance by a factor of three will reduce the dose to one-ninth of its original value.

 

For example, if the dose rate at one foot from a source is 20 mR/hr, then the dose rate at two feet (twice the distance) will be 5 mR/hr."

 

Time and shielding are huge variables too. That is why people within the 20 miles of the nuclear plants are being advised to spend less time outside and to remain inside currently.

 

 

"National Radiation Map, depicting environmental radiation levels across the USA, updated in real time every minute. This is the first web site where the average citizen (or anyone in the world) can see what radiation levels are anywhere in the USA at any time." http://www.radiationnetwork.com/

 

So, at the Fukushima Health Office the reading is 3.31 microsiverts per hour. That is how many feet from the West Coast? (5133 miles x 5280 feet in a mile) = 27,102,240 feet away from the plant.

 

 

 

Pat

post #288 of 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by joybird View Post

There is a group of nuclear engineering students from Berkeley testing rainwater.  The rainwater does have higher levels than are allowed in drinking water.  No its not in the news and no, officials have not warned people to stop drinking collected rainwater, which plenty of people do on a daily basis.  

 

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/ 


I've been going here also.  They have been testing rainwater, tap water, milk and air in Berkeley and posting their results.  They also have a forum where they answer questions from the public.  They appear to tow the party line in terms of comparing the amounts being detected to things like airplane flights, etc. (which I ignore, it's apples and oranges.)  But they do post raw data so that we can make our own informed decisions.  For some reason, they haven't been updating in the last few days, not sure what that means, if anything...

 

ETA: They did post the reason for not updating in the forum: 

 

Quote:
"There is no cause for concern. We had a short delay trying to expand our detection capacity so we can test more things (food, milk, tap water, etc.) simultaneously but we're been back up and running. Results are coming soon and the preliminary measurements show low levels consistent with the previous trend. We're also short a few people this week and the weekends will be characterized by less action as everyone tries to catch up on everything they neglected during the week. We apologize for the delay but reassure you, we haven't received any pressure to stop informing, or any reason other than limited time for the delay."

 

 

post #289 of 311

Pat, unfortunately that site doesn't give information regarding radiation in the rainwater or drinking water.  They reported last night that radiation consistent with that in Japan has been detected in the rain water in MN.  Raining now.  :(

post #290 of 311

11,000 tons of contaminated water into the ocean.  disappointed.gif  

post #291 of 311

greensad.gif so sad

post #292 of 311

I live on the West Coast, about 50 miles inland.  While I don't choose to live in fear either, I am concerned and personally, I think my concern is justified.  Not necessarily that my children are going to walk outside and get immediate radiation poisoning or get cancer from what they are being exposed to right this second (which fluctuates between 30-70 cpm according to the radiation network) but that long term exposure to low levels of radiation is going to have a harmful effect on all of us.  I don't feel I am receiving information that is accurate from anyone, government or the radical groups, about what this means for us all long term because they just don't know.  Therefore, I feel it is in my family's best interest to do whatever I can to protect myself and my children.

 

Personally, I think of WuWei's post about driving killing so many people a year to think about the fact that I do what I can to ensure the safety of my family in my car but don't let it rule my life.  I am aware of the dangers, as much as I can be, and take positive steps such as using car seats longer than the government suggests might be necessary, etc.  Same goes for this situation.  I have no control over what they (almight they) are doing to stop this whole mess but I can take positive steps by feeding my family certain nutrients, etc.  If I start to feel strongly enough about the fear of nuclear radiation, I can take it to my government and ask for changes in our policy, become a force in the protest community, etc.  Again, taking positive steps. 

post #293 of 311
Dr. Helen Caldicott has a page on facebook with many well referenced factual articles about all of this. There is so much garbage online it's refreshing to see someone who knows what they're talking about, is grounded in science, and isn't on the pro-nuclear "everything is fine" spin train or the conspiracy lunatic fringe.

Get the data. Stay logical and rational.

Have also heard that epa is planning to up their definition of 'safe' radiation levels so that they can keep saying that "there is no danger to human health". greensad.gif so now we need to know what the effects of radionuclides are at what level so that we can make our own judgements on safe.

one thing that i thought was interesting on the berkeley site is that the levels of fallout can spike depending on the kind of rainfall, how hard it rains and intermittant rainfall vs steady rain.

has anyone found models of how plutonium travels? there seems to be some indicators that plutonium could have been in some of the plumes but i cant find any models of how it travels. one article i read said that scientists at simon fraser have no clue how it would travel. berkely said that they would pick up the signature of plutonium in their tests if it was there so i guess no news is good news there.
post #294 of 311

I'll look for Helen Caldicott's page.  She is the brightest one I've seen commenting on any of this.

 

As for plutonium, all I've heard is that it is very heavy and so presumably wouldn't travel too far, especially without a large projection.  This is all bad enough, but I am truly horrified by what is happening to the ocean right now.  I never thought I'd say this, but today I'm feeling like we don't deserve this planet at all.

post #295 of 311

Have family in Mammoth, and they have been advised not to fall in the snow due to the radiation http://thesheetnews.com/archives/8143 

post #296 of 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeingMe View Post

Have family in Mammoth, and they have been advised not to fall in the snow due to the radiation http://thesheetnews.com/archives/8143 



I hope you read far enough for this:

 

"And yes, the radiation story on the front page is an April Fool’s joke, in case you wish to jump to conclusions and deride it as irresponsible journalism."

 

 

post #297 of 311

This is lovely.  Since we're seeing more radiation than was anticipated, the government has decided to simply raise the threshold of what is considered 'safe'.  That should solve the problem...right?

 

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1325

post #298 of 311
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnysandiegan View Post





I hope you read far enough for this:

 

"And yes, the radiation story on the front page is an April Fool’s joke, in case you wish to jump to conclusions and deride it as irresponsible journalism."

 

 



Sadly, no I didn't.  My mother told me about it, and I took her word for it.  Guess I won't be doing that anymore.

 

post #299 of 311
fish caught 100 miles away from the reactors have unsafe levels of cesium. and that was before contaminated water was being purposefully dumped into the ocean. greensad.gif i am so sad for the pacific ocean right now.

strontium was detected in moscow. which means that it's been falling out across north america too.

it's so hard to get accurate data. scary when the govt just changes their definition of safe. that alone says to me that it is not safe. greensad.gif

i was reading a little blurb on the radiationnetwork site about how to use a geiger counter to detect radiation in food. it doesnt seem very accurate to me though and would only pick up gamma rays anyways.

the weather in japan today is blowing the plume right back over land. greensad.gifgreensad.gifgreensad.gif
post #300 of 311

I have read this too and don't understand it at all. Who are these insane people making these laws??  If they are just going to up the level of "safe" so that people won't panic, what is the point of even having such a system in place?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Women's Health
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › West Coast? Iodine & Fallout Information