Fukushima and radioactivity in sea water-HD

Link: https://kaltesonne.de/fukushima-und-die-radioaktivitaet-des-meerwassers/ Please see link above for source text in German, embedded hotlinks, and comments. The text below is in English by selecting the “translate to English” button on the top right of the link above.

Fukushima and the radioactivity of sea water May 1, 2021 from Kalte Sonne

By Hans-J. Dammschneider The natural radioactivity of sea water is 12 Becquerel / l (according to VOGT & SCHULTZ 2011). This number in itself is for every normal reader and sea traveler without ´value´ ... therefore a comparison with all things known to us and their radiation data (see Fig. 1).

You can easily see how the relations of the ionizing radiation release in our environment, in which we move around every day (as well as eat and drink), look like. It may surprise some readers, but in fact we humans are also subject to so-called atomic decay processes. Because also ´in us´ a certain amount of atomic nuclei decays per unit of time ... which can be measured as ´radiation´. The amount of decay is given (among other things) in Becquerel, the unit corresponds to one radioactive decay per second. So we don't have to believe that “radioactivity” only occurs in so-called radioactive substances (uranium, cesium, etc.). These substances ´ray´ more energetic, but nevertheless they do not differ in principle from other substances, whose atoms also

1

decay and emit extremely short-wave radiation ... and which are (cell) harmful for humans above a certain limit value.

But then that with the "limit" values is one of those things. If these were only defined scientifically, one would certainly not associate any great excitement with it. However, since radiation has increasingly also become a political issue over the decades, discussions about it are often no longer objective-scientific, but are subject to much more ´convictions´. And they are changeable: While one side still says (out of conviction) "harmless", the other already claims (and also out of conviction) "dangerous to life".

Fig.1: Radiation intensity of different substances (and places). Data from A.JUNKERT 2008 / U.BÜTTNER 2012, Nuklearforum Schweiz and others sources, values partly converted to http://www.physicoro.de)

2

Bad Gastein, Kurbereich = Bad Gastein, Austria Spa Area/Resort Fukushima Meerwassereinlasskanal Reactorblock 2 am 10.5.2011= Fukushima seawater inlet duct reactor unit 2 on May 10th, 2011 Gebiet um Kerala, Indien = region around Kerala, India Granitgestein = granite rock Meerwasser = sea water Mineralwasseergenuss/Jahr = mineral water consumption/year The creation of limit values and the determination of when something is ´dangerous´ has been narrowed more and more in the last decades. According to the German Radiation Protection Ordinance, 3.4mSv / a are currently harmless. That would be the equivalent of around 260,000 Bq ... with 80l of mineral water per year you, dear reader, have already reached the total permitted amount !?

As you can see, the regulation of the ´permissible´ amount of radiation is often not consistent. And while, for example, radiation of 5,000Bq / kg at the seawater inlet of the Fukushima power plant is said to be dangerous, a stay in the spa area of Bad Gastein with 15,000,000Bg / kg radiation exposure is actually healthy ?? !! You can only roughly calculate it, but here again the comparison to the corresponding radiation intensity in the unit of measurement "Sievert" (mSv / year), which indicates the health risks associated with handling radioactive radiation as an equivalent dose:

3

ungefahrlich = not dangerous keine Schaden = no damage gefahrlich = dangerous Again: Even our body's own cells and ´ingredients´ have a radiation potential, just like every material / object on earth! The question is never, 'whether' there is radiation, but always only 'how much' of decay takes place. In this respect, one would actually not have to go into the radioactivity of the ocean at all, were it not for the problem that many media and an often almost irresponsible reporting science unfortunately lack a good deal of seriousness on this topic.

In 2012, the employees of the GEOMAR research center in Kiel published a study on model simulations of the distribution of radioactivity in the Pacific as a result of the reactor accident in Fukushima (BEHRENS, E. et al. 2012). The images of the calculated distribution patterns, which can also be viewed on the Internet, suggest that the Fukushima disaster would have an unmistakable consequence for the entire Pacific region. In doing so, however, they forgot to state the absolute values on which the university's official pronouncements were based. These data then show less exciting: starting from a value of a maximum of 10PBq, the values in the noise were the natural ones after only two years radioactivity from the Pacific disappeared. Currently (according to K.BUESSELER, Woods Hole Oceanogr. Inst., 2015) it is max.0.0058Bq / l.

As already mentioned, the graphic of the publication suggests otherwise. The ´trick´ was that one only showed the changes in relation to the starting position.

Mathematically, this is certainly an idea, but completely irrelevant in practice. Because the limit values for water issued by the USA, for example, are 7.4Bq / l. The question remains how the authors of the publication come to the value of 10,000,000,000,000,000Bq net input. But good … . Already in the immediate vicinity of the Fukushima reactor, only around 23Bq / l were detectable in the seawater, the dilution in the ocean is just rapid and the Pacific is huge, see measurement data in http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/ results.html and compare with the table!

4

Fig. 2: Bequerel (Bq) values in the Pacific according to model simulation by the GEOMAR Center in Kiel. Most of the data calculated in the model are below the natural and measurable values of seawater. Because an amount of 2.0 Bq / m 3 (see red dashed “limit” straight line) is converted into 0.002 Bq / l ... the natural radioactivity of the sea, however, already amounts to around 12 Bq / l (see red dotted straight line). Line I = West Pacific, II = North America, III = Hawaii, IV = Baja California, V = Aleutian Islands. Attention: total graphic = logerithmic Section graphic = linear. From: BEHRENS, E. et al. 2012 as well as own research) The ´scientificness´ applied here makes the author wonder whether the intentions hidden behind it. Especially since the last sentence of the official press release of the University of Kiel reads: ´Claus Böning and his team would be very interested in direct comparison measurements. “Then we could see immediately whether we are also correct with the absolute magnitudes of the concentrations,” says Prof. Böning. Such data are currently not available for the Kiel scientists.

(Press release of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research Kiel: Fukushima Where's the radioactive water? Kiel 2012) No, such data is not available. But neither will you ever be. Because we have to clearly state: The natural radioactivity of seawater has a value of 12Bq / l, but the above potential values for the Pacific are below that ! It is only about an academic "truth" of models (!), Which in real terms and in natural data lies clearly below the already existing natural ´base load´ on site and has no practical significance, not even for marine organisms(Quotation from http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html: “This Fukushima-derived cesium is far below where one might expect any measurable risk to human health or marine life, according to international health agencies. And it is more than 1000 times lower than acceptable limits in drinking water set by US EPA.) 5

The question is: what is that supposed to mean? Substances will always spread in the water, there is no question about that. But how much it is and whether it has an effective meaning, please do not forget to state ... ´Homeopathy´ is more a matter of belief than a matter with objective effect. Is that the background to the publication of GEOMAR, which is more politically than oceanographic-scientifically motivated? And is the author 'old-fashioned' when he refers to academic rules and relies on A. von Humboldt?

Conclusion: Smoking (8.0mSv / a) is definitely more harmful than sea water ... even than that in front of the Fukushima power plant (0.065mSv / a).

Now, 10 years after the reactor accident in Fukushima, the topic of "radioactivity of sea water" is again a topical media topic. Because the Japanese operator TEPCO, which over the years has collected and safely stored all the water that was needed for cooling and decontamination, has to realize that capacities will soon be exhausted.

The problem has to be solved and Japan has decided to give the water to the Pacific.

This process will begin in about two years and it will drag on for 40 years (!). Before this, all of the water, which is already slightly polluted, should be cleaned again through a filter system so that practically all radioactive substances are removed and it will only contain traces of tritium (as well as amounts of carbon-14 that are far below the permissible limit values). The German THÜNEN Institute writes about this: “Tritium is a radionuclide that is naturally formed in large quantities and the majority of which is bound in water. The discharges from the tanks of the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant are very low in comparison. If tritium is ingested by marine organisms, it is quickly excreted. Therefore it is very unlikely that direct or indirect radiation effects on marine organisms will be detectable. ”Tritium is a nuclide of natural hydrogen and“ is built into organic material because it behaves like normal hydrogen. In the human body (...) tritium is quickly excreted (half-life of approx. 10 days) ”.

Important for our oceanographic observation: Before discharging into the ocean, the Fukushima water should then also be diluted so that it is much less contaminated with 1.5 kBq / l than the guidelines of the World Health Organization for drinking water allow or for example) the strict Swiss Radiation Protection Ordinance of June 22, 1994 (StSV, status 2005) provides for a limit value for the tritium content in drinking water of 10 kBq / l . It is therefore more than unlikely that direct or indirect radiation effects can and will occur in marine organisms.

This is a text excerpt (with current additions in April 2021) from DAMMSCHNEIDER (2015): "Ausser Sicht" ... Oceanography for sea travelers : Volume 1: Arctic Ocean (Elbe, North Sea, North Atlantic, Iceland, Greenland, Svalbard, Norway)

6

7