Actually, I start with 13 Bq/M3 and end up with 10.7 Bq/kG in porpoises.
So the rule of thumb is that it almost an equal quantity for higher echelon animals
For plants, the conversion is "about half"
And of course, the Bq/kG is for the whole animal, whereas rads congregate in specific organs, etc. 10.7 in the whole animal could be 50 Bq/kG in the heart….a proven danger level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually radiation in water is measured in Bq/Meter Cubed, or Bq/L
The meter cubed number is 1000 times larger than the L based unit, because there are 1000 Liters per Meter Cubed.
Scientists use a "concentration factor" to express how various animals /plants on the food chain bioaccumulate various toxins.
CF=Concentration Factor= Bq/kg Wet Weight divided by Bq/Liter of Seawater
Manipulating this equation (multiply both sides by Bq/L) gives
Bq/kG Wet Weight = CF * Bq/L
or
Bq/kG Wet Weight = CF *Bq/M3 (Meter Cubed)/ 1000
from the Charts Below, a good rule of thumb is to take wet weight and divide by 5 for fish, divide by 8 for plants to get dry weight.
Usually it is Dry Weight Bq/kG reported in flora and fauna because you can't measure the radiation until you remove the water first.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Most Important Formulas Then Become
Bq/kG Dry Weight = CF * Bq/L * 5 (Animals)
Bq/kG Dry Weight = CF * Bq/L * 8 (Plants)
or
Bq/kG Dry Weight = CF * Bq/M3 (Meter Cubed)* 5 (Animals) /1000
Bq/kG Dry Weight = CF * Bq/M3 (Meter Cubed)* 8 (Plants) /1000
the CF Concentration Factor is what we need to get from scientific studies, per the below, its around 10 for krill, around 165 for porpoises
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Calculation, using CS-137 at 13 Bq/M3 per Kenny Boy Buessler in 2015
Porpoise
165 * 13 *5 /1000 = 10.7 Bq/kG
stock here---now you folks can easily deal with bioaccumulation issues.
This study from 2003 shows significant Concentration Factors even when in a "dilute solution" of CS-137
The contents of (137)Cs in the different organisms were generally low (<1 Bq kg(-1) wet weight), but a marked bioaccumulation was apparent: The concentration of (137)Cs was about 10-fold higher in the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena, representing the upper level of the food web, than in the amphipod Themisto sp., representing the lower level of the food web. The Concentration Factors (CF=Bq kg(-1) wet weight/Bq l(-1) seawater) increased from 10+/-3 for a mixed sample of krill and amphipods to 165+/-5 for harbour porpoises.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12527234
Plenty of studies of bioaccumulation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16154620
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10507144
Here is one source on conversion of wet weight to dry weight
Here is one from Amchitka and Kiska
Here is a 2011 summer report from DOE on Amchitka
https://app.box.com/s/rt4g13nxvqyljfqxmdxt
They set off 3 bombs on Amchitka (after open air testing was stopped)
Per oldster, selenium in diet can reduce retained mercury in fishes
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202565g?src=recsys&journalCode=esthag&
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goddard sure is getting a lot of exposure. Its not helping the anti nuke cause. With his well done videos and seemingly good science, Goddard 'debunks' Caldicott and Busby and Mangano. The LNT model is not good, the science not inclusive. Its very convincing to look at charts like that. But for example, the bystander effect can kill 50 times as many cells as those which received an actual radiation track exposure. Its very complex. Busby reveals another effect, the 'Secondary Photoelectron Effect Theory'.
There is genomic instability which is not seen in dose response graphs. Goddard's well done videos show us what we are up against. Linear thinking, linear logic, wrong logic….
yes stock. I have been meaning to follow up in two ways. Somewhere there is a mother trove of bioaccumulation data, a large paper. Secondly, there is a paper from Buesseler et al that shows bioaccumulation measurements for plankton. It appears much less than I expected. The problem is that even with the bioaccumulation, it isnt enough to account for the massive die off which is being seen. We've discussed that the dead stuff falls to the bottom leaving an apparently cleaner water and less contaminated plankton that take their place. But the total path must be very complicated. I used the analogy that you cant shoot somebody and expect the damage to remain isolated to the bullet wound…even though the tissues far away would remain clinically free from damage. Bioaccumulation is one factor, but the form of the fallout is another. A large percent is in the form of alloyed nano particles, giving point source radiation and heavy metals in a form that can lodge deep in lung and body tissue. Im sure there are other factors never considered. Water has a way of forming information loaded super molecules surrounding everything. One cant isolate a biomolecule or any molecule from the water around it which is forming a kind of liquid crystal with changes in the hydrogen bond angle. Such a thing is theorized to underlie homeopathic remedies. Science is not smart enough to understand homeopathy but it works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
stock
The models suggests that in 30 years, Cesium 137 levels in the whales will exceed the Canadian guideline of 1,000 becquerels per kilogram for consumption of seafood by humans — 10 times the Japanese guideline.
Steady State Bioaccumulation Model: “Concentrations of 137Cs predicted in the male killer whale were approximately three orders of magnitude higher relative to its major prey, Chinook salmon, and > 13,000 times higher compared to phytoplankton.”
Authors: Prof. Frank Gobas, Simon Fraser Univ.; Prof. Juan Alava, SFU
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233869698_Modeling_the_Bioaccumulation_Potential_of_Cesium_137_in_a_Marine_Food_Web_of_the_Northwest_Pacific_Canada
http://www.npsag.org/upload/reports/00-004/00-004%20Castle%20Meeting%202011%2009%20-%20Paper.pdf
paper estimates at least 220,000,000 kg of sea life will die.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stock here: what is amazing is how much is actually known, compared to the low quality lies that are apparently good enough to sway not only the masses, but some otherwise "smart" people.
Ever wonder what's with the IAEA supposed kindly interest in toxic algae blooms?
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1729_web.pdf
Guest article: selective biomagnification of metals and radionuclides in marine food chains.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Newsletters/MEL_NL_03-1.pdf
Pg 2.
Thanks again Stock. A few tidbits, perhaps relevant. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00349252 Think it was Jebus the other day on ENE linked to this. "Temperature effects on accumulation and retention of radionuclides in the sea star, Asterias forbesi: implications for contaminated northern waters"
ReplyDeleteAlso, perhaps not as relevant in sea water, but some studies show that an organism that has sufficient key minerals, magnesium and selenium are examples, can more easily discard some heavy metals - perhaps some or even many artificial radioactive materials?? "Dietary Selenium Reduces Retention of Methyl Mercury in Freshwater Fish" from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202565g?src=recsys&journalCode=esthag
And this: "Marine fish are usually about 100 times lower in cesium-137 than are freshwater fish because potassium, which is more abundant in seawater, blocks uptake of cesium by marine organisms."
Also the monumental Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Environment found great variation within same species in the same area. In other words, there are unknowns, and 'serendipities.'
Indeed, isn't it nice of those animals and plants to be filtering the radiation out of the ocean so that Kenny Boy can't find much. How altruistic.
DeleteSo when are you going to pick up that Nobel Prize again? Try RESRAD. There is a reason Busby is on the outs. Youll figure it out why.
ReplyDeleteShutting down nuke will be enough glory for me, no Nobel prize needed. Sociopaths really like those, I don't need it.
DeleteYoull never shutdown what is right for the planet. Even all nuclear accidents source term and bioaccumulation pales in comparison to natural radiation which contains a tremendous amount of radon. You need better analysis. This work you put out is of the quality similar to a million chickens dosed at wipp. Look I know you mean well, yet its the blind leading the blind. Your work, sadly, is without merit and not ready for prime time. You just cant oversimplify your way to a false conclusion. The back of the envelope approach is not good enough. Overconservatisms that propagate huge individual uncertainties lead to unreasonable and unrealistic results. Improve your methods or be saddled with knowing you're doing it wrong.
DeleteActually Loose Kuke, seeing that no one else in the world has ever done an easy to work with bioaccumulation model, I think what I have created here is elegant and beautiful in it's applicability and simplicity.
DeleteSure it can be refined. I had one thought to integrate the "cleaning effect" on the ocean water by the life forms. Not exactly sure how I would do this, would need decent estimates of different types of life forms, their CF, and then time would have to be worked into it, since the source term is an ongoing input into the system.
Maybe Ill apply for that Nobel prize after I complete that. LOL
Thank You Sir, Good Report As You May Know, I Had Colon Surgery This Year, Thyroid Surgery When I Was 10... Bioaccumulation I Understand Fully. The Severity Of Our Situation.... Right Down To The Electron Having Worked With Cathode-Ray Tube.. I'm Very Familiar With Ionizing Radiation We Are In Trouble. A Technologist All My Life ...
ReplyDeleteThe Fix IT Of Crappy Engineering.......Sadly.. It Is Not The Last One .....
Take Care All
Yep, half of the USA dose is now from "medical treatment" how sick is that?
Delete