Fukushima radiation in Canadian waters is not a threat, scientists say

A plume of radioactive cesium from Fukushima has reached waters off British Columbia and is expected off the US coast this year. But the concentrations are much too low to be a hazard, scientists say.

Japan Pool/AP
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (in the red helmet) is briefed about radioactive water during his inspection of the tsunami-crippled nuclear power plant in Fukushima, northeastern Japan, Sept. 19, 2013.

Two forms of radioactive cesium from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster have reached the continental shelf off British Columbia, but in concentrations much too low to represent a radiological hazard, according to measurements presented Tuesday at an ocean-science conference in Honolulu.

Meanwhile, small concentrations of cesium also have been found in water samples along the West Coast of the United States. But only one of the two forms of cesium has appeared, and its concentration is no higher than it was prior to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami that led to the partial meltdowns of three of the Fukushima plant's four reactors and compromised storage pools for spent fuel.

"I'm the first person to say radioactivity can be quite dangerous – we should be concerned. But maybe not at the levels we're going to expect coming across from Japan," said Ken Buesseler, a marine scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, at a briefing Tuesday during the ocean-sciences meeting, which was organized by three marine-science organizations.

At issue are two forms of radioactive cesium: cesium 134 and cesium 137. Both are byproducts of nuclear fission from nuclear power plants as well as nuclear weapons tests. Cesium 137 is of greater concern because it has a half-life of 30 years, compared with two years for cesium 134.

The oceans have low concentrations of cesium 137, a byproduct of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s and '60s. The cesium 134 from those events decayed long ago. So when cesium 137 and cesium 134 appear together, the presence of the shorter-lived cesium isotope signals that the two came from Fukushima, explained John Smith, a chemical oceanographer at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.

The far end in a line of measuring stations extending nearly 1,000 miles west from the mouth of British Columbia's Juan de Fuca Strait detected the arrival of cesium from Fukushima in 2012. But in 2013 it was detected all along the line up to the continental shelf.

For the US West Coast and Hawaii, no cesium 134 has been detected yet, and cesium 137 remains at background levels. But based on modeling results, the US West Coast could see the leading edge of a plume of cesium from Fukushima arrive at the continental shelf this year.

Last May, reports surfaced of tuna caught off southern California that carried trace amounts of cesium from Fukushima, although the levels were below food-safety thresholds. The news went viral, fueling concerns that the arrival of cesium-bearing waters would endanger fisheries and beachgoers.

But researchers say the levels of cesium they expect to see should remain far below levels that would trigger radiological food-safety warnings. Nevertheless, they want to continue tracking the radioactivity because of the relatively high level of public concern along the West Coast.

Measurements that researchers are making should help refine model estimates of how much of the cesium will reach the coast. Dr. Buesseler and Dr. Smith cite two being used that give different answers.

For the string of measuring stations off of Canada, one model predicts a 2013 arrival for cesium 137, with levels of radioactivity reaching a peak of about 25 becquerels per cubic meter of water in 2015. One becquerel represents the decay of one cesium nucleus per second.

The other predicts a 2014 arrival with levels of radioactivity peaking around 2017 at only 2 becquerels per cubic meter of water. Either way, these levels fall well below the US Environmental Protection Agency's standards for radioactive isotopes in drinking water.

The measurements along the Canadian line show an arrival time that supports the first model, while levels of radioactivity in the water are following the trajectory predicted by the second model, noted Smith. He said he expects to learn which is the more accurate of the two based on measurements from water samples taken this month but not yet processed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Fukushima radiation in Canadian waters is not a threat, scientists say
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today