On May 8th 2011 the United States Department of Energy detected airborne Neptunium -239 in the wake of what was wildly reported on the blogosphere as a "Fire" at Fukushima. The Neptunium 239 was detected approximately 40 miles west-south-west of Fukushima at a rest area on the Tohoku Expy near Niita (see map below)
View Larger Map
Below is a video of the widely reported May 8th "Fire" at Fukushima Daiichi.
The DOE's airborne detection was made from approximately 38 cubic feet of air filtered through a carbon air filter. The Np-239 concentration was measured 1.49E-08 uCi/mL. Neptunium 239 quickly decays into Plutonium 239.
The source data may be found at US DOE/NNSA Response to 2011 Fukushima Incident: Radiological Air Samples
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://enenews.com/just-in-govt-report-kansas-detected-iodine-131-in-grass-at-over-2000-pcikg-attributed-to-fukushima-around-700-higher-than-highest-levels-reported-by-uc-berekely
ReplyDeleteSounds similar to previous reports, but this time samples from Kansas grass.
I hope you guys have managed the thunder storms around St. Louis alright. Good Luck.
I am an avid follower of your blog and videos.
ReplyDeleteI cannot understand the lack of action at Fukushima and wonder whether it is truly the case that there exists no major international cooperation to address this mega-disaster.
I am also distressed and frustrated by the lack of concern among people I speak to about the disaster--even when I provide seemingly indisputable data to people trained to "respect" data (i.e., academics).
I feel as if our very lives are at stake in areas most directly impacted (Japan and under jet stream) across the long term given there seems to be no plan for halting and/or containing the ongoing fission and radiation.
:(
More specifically, a recent study publicized at Enenews found that every 10 millisieverts of radiation for cardiac patients (from imaging) led to a 3% increase in cancer rates within 5 years.
I know that no simple conversions exist but wonder whether there is any reliable formula for translating beta CPM to microsieverts?
(and yes I understand the greatest threat is from internal emitters)
Thank you so much for all of your work...
I'm no expert, but watching AntiProtons videos had left somewhat of an impression on me.
ReplyDeleteSince they have preliminarily identified the element, they can reference the energy emitted (in KeV or MeV) by that isotope from a reference guide. Then the proper conversion to sieverts is possible.
Unless you KNOW WHAT "IT" IS, the sieverts conversion will be inacurate. Most GM counters which read sievers are calibrated by a Cs137 source, but the sieverts detected from I131 will be different than reality if the instrument is calibrated for Cs137.
CPM is far more accurate because it does not require any calibration, or conversion factors. One "count" is 1 ionizing event detected, the only factor involved is efficiency of the GM tube being used. For example if you know your GM tube is 60% efficient, then if it detects 10 counts, that can be divided by the efficiency factor, (10/.6=16.6) so 16 counts in reality..
The problem with just using CPM's is that you can't compare one Geiger Counter's CPM readings to those of another Geiger Counter unless you know the geometry of the Geiger tube and its sensitivity. So CPM (by itself) is basically worthless if your trying to compare another person's reading to your own.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if the data is given in mR/hr it is possible to compare readings between different Geiger counters because they are usually referenced to the same standard (usually Cs-137)
The whole CPM argument seems sort of stupid if you think of it in terms of "measuring sticks" ie rulers.
The measurement ticks on a metric ruler are calibrated to a bar of platinum-iridium, sort of like mR/Hr is calibrated to Cesium 137.
Based on the CPM argument other's make, it would be the equivalent of saying you shouldn't report the length of something in meters unless you are specifically measuring bars of platinum-iridium; and, that it would be better if every one just used what ever unstandardized measurement stick they had on hand, and only mentioned how many tick marks were crossed on that unstandardized measurement stick.
There is a downside of using mR/hr or Sv/hr, and it is if someone who does not understand the equipment they are using is trying to make dosage calculation they are not competent to make in the first place.
In short reporting mR/Hr or Sv/Hr is more useful for most people.
Majia's Blog, The standard reaction to most probabilistic threats to one's individual existence is to do nothing and hope that things don't get worse.
ReplyDeleteIt's a theory that basically explains how over 100 million innocent civilians,in the last century, functionally and incrementally allowed themselves to be slaughtered by their own governments in "legal" genocidal police actions (see http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf )
While the situation in Fukushima is a different kind of threat, the threat response is typically the same. In fact, it actually possible to analyze the threat responses statistically.
With respect to converting CPM's to Sv/Hr see my comment above. If you are actually trying to calculate a dosage to a human, its not necessarily simple math; nor is the dosage model necessarily a good one that describes health effects.
However if your just looking to make simple comparisons between Geiger counters, on the INSPECTOR a reading of roughly 3500 CPM would display a reading of 1mR/hr or 10 microSv/hr. Other Geiger counters would have different ratios based on the geometry/efficiency of their Geiger tubes and the circuitry used to output the reading.