http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/radiation-in-west-coast-of-north-america-could-be-10-times-higher-than-japan.htmlDilution due to swift horizontal and vertical dispersion in the vicinity of the energetic Kuroshio regime leads to a rapid decrease of radioactivity levels during the first 2 years, with a decline of near-surface peak concentrations to values around 10 Bq m−3 (based on a total input of 10 PBq). The strong lateral dispersion, related to the vigorous eddy fields in the mid-latitude western Pacific, appears significantly under-estimated in the non-eddying (0.5°) model version. (ii) The subsequent pace of dilution is strongly reduced, owing to the eastward advection of the main tracer cloud towards the much less energetic areas of the central and eastern North Pacific. (iii) The magnitude of additional peak radioactivity should drop to values comparable to the pre-Fukushima levels after 6–9 years (i.e. total peak concentrations would then have declined below twice pre-Fukushima levels).
It's worth reading the original study; the HTML version includes a link to the entire video. Also, Fig.7 sums up their predicted changes pretty clearly:Looks reasonable to me, as a representation of how substances dissipate in water. Note the order of magnitude concentrations: after 1 year, the highest concentration (center of the plume) is 1/10,000th the initial concentration and it equalizes at 1/100,000th the initial concentration.
Here's some more detail:
Thanks for the simulations.... nature could surprise us unpleasantly.
Rive,Thanks for the simulations.
As I know Cs tends to stick in the mud, and only limited amount remains free for dilution.
For long term it would mean that:
- the measurable level in the ocean might be lower than expected
- but even with lower levels in the waters every fish from around Fukushima should be checked because sporadically there will be always some fish with high levels of Cs.
I don't know about those.Why are these obvious targets not getting more intensive scrutiny? Better PR management than TEPCO?
Why should it be stored?A cattle farmer with contaminated rice straw he stores at his farm in Tome, Miyagi Prefecture, on Sept. 20
Because it is not the Soviet Union, where government can ignore its people opinion and health.No decision yet on disposal sites for contaminated waste in 5 prefecture
Why should it be stored?
You can mix the "dirty" with clean straw.
Furthermore, the straw is obviously contaminated mainly cesium.
It is necessary to feed the cattle 6 months of clean straw (after dirty)
In meat, the cesium will not.
Is there a serious shortage of straw (or storage space) in the area?Why should it be stored?
You can mix the "dirty" with clean straw.
I think you exaggerate somewhat.Because it is not the Soviet Union, where government can ignore its people opinion and health.
And if there was a fire during the retention period?Is there a serious shortage of straw (or storage space) in the area?
Looks like some unwarranted paranoia is at work.Is there a serious shortage of straw (or storage space) in the area?
Even that Cs is not all that dangerous, it should not be there. If there isn't a serious reason to let it back to the environment then it should be kept safe. Especially if it costs practically nothing.
The Japanese government will include Korean experts in an international investigatory team to check fisheries products for radioactive contamination from the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant.
In my opinion, better education is one the best things than can be done in general, not only in relation to this accident.IAEA reorients the goals of japanese government for decontamination targets: protect populations is good, but "educate" people is better (and easier... maybe?)
That would require a measure of scientific literacy beyond what current education provides.In my opinion, better education is one the best things than can be done in general, not only in relation to this accident.
In relation with radiation and accidents, it would be wonderful if people would know such facts as:
What is the typical level of natural radiation in a human body? In seawater? Which isotopes contribute to that?
What is the typical natural radiation background level? What is its typical variation?
(the knowledge of above facts would allow people to meaningfully interpret news items like "fish with 100 Bq/kg of Cs-137")
Which isotopes are most mobile after a nuclear accident?
What are their modes of decay and half-lives?
What are the measures to limit their intake?
I think you are selling the general population short here, there are very many people that would like the facts on radiation and the various ways of measuring it and reporting it.That would require a measure of scientific literacy beyond what current education provides.
Most people would be shocked to hear that there is a natural radiation background.
Moreover, the language of nuclear measurement aims at precision, not intelligibility.
A hundred anything seems large, although when measuring Bq/kg, it is about the radioactivity of granite. But people get very alarmed about anything involving radiation, probably because truth has been spun or disguised too many times under various pretexts.
At this point, neither the governments nor the industry have credibility, so there is even a reluctance to learn what are perceived to be lies. Not good for the future of the discipline, imho.