A good report on bioaccumulation, I will summarize when I can, bottom line....causes increases of 1000's of times.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1016/ML101600579.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This chart is from Woods Hole. I annotated it, since their description of different rates of plutonium absorption was verbal and very hard to track, seems intentionally so.
Then I tried to come up with actual radiation measurements in the water and the animal life. The link below has decent water data, and some limited fish and ocean biota.
==============================
This report from Woods Hole Oceangraphic Institute is interesting to read. Of course they always end with "Further research is needed", LOL as giving them more money is their prime objective.
Interesting though....rather then doing testing on Marine Life, they do a lot of testing on water and they do modeling of ocean flows, and it seems a prime objective is to calculate the "source term" of what came out of Fukushima. This Source Term is an estimate of what and how many radionuclides left the buildings. Is seems odd but I guess that is what scientists do....calculate things.
But since they are in the ocean on a boat equipped with advanced radiation analysis equipment, and the ability to catch fish. It sure seems like my prime focus would be to test the fish! And the bait crops.
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/03/27/1120794109.DCSupplemental/pnas.201120794SI.pdf#nameddest=SF1
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5984.full#F1
The above is the main article. You need to do quite a bit of bouncing around to get to the meat of that data.
Chart below shows that contaminated water does not mix vertically much. The radiation stays in the top 300 feet primarily. It stays where 95% of the fish and critters stay. It stays where it can do the most damage.
Finally, the bogeyman that no one wishes to speak of. Strontium. Strontium goes into bones and becomes a permanent part of the food chain.
This article states that the Strontium can be present in same levels or more, than the Cesium.
Radiostrontium in the western North Pacific: characteristics, behavior, and the Fukushima impact.
Abstract
The
impact of the Fukushima-derived radiostrontium ((90)Sr and (89)Sr) on
the western North Pacific Ocean has not been well established, although
(90)Sr concentrations recorded in surface seawater offshore of the
damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant were in some areas
comparable to or even higher than (as those in December 2011 with 400
kBq m(-3)(90)Sr) the (137)Cs levels. The total amount of (90)Sr released
to the marine environment in the form of highly radioactive wastewater
could reach about 1 PBq. Long-term series (1960-2010) of (90)Sr
concentration measurements in subtropical surface waters of the western
North Pacific indicated that its concentration has been decreasing
gradually with a half-life of 14 y. The pre-Fukushima (90)Sr levels in
surface waters, including coastal waters near Fukushima, were estimated
to be 1 Bq m(-3). To better assess the impact of about 4-5 orders of
magnitude increased radiostrontium levels on the marine environment,
more detail measurements in seawater and biota of the western North
Pacific are required.
- PMID:
- 22873743
- [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also know this from our work on estimating the overall source term of all the nuke waste at Fukushima. The strontium is about equal to the cesium.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Finally a link to some prior work I had done on the bioaccumulation, aka biomagnification on sea life in Alaska. Alaska was hit particularly hard by the Fukushima fallout, in fact, Fukushima increased the radiation in sea life the same way a direct nuclear bomb test did at point blank range.
Wrap your head around that.
From Alaska 2011 June
The soil and lichens have VERY high radioactivity. 6000 Bq /kG! 30 Bq/kG is dangerous to animals and above 100 Bq/kG said animals cannot be sold.
Here is the full report you can download. This is an extensive and quite scientific bio-assay of the Alaska waters in June 2011. They don't plan on going back until 2016.
So this survey is only 3 months after Fukushima, the opportutnity to bio-accumulate didn't have much time. 3.5 years later, results would be interesting
https://app.box.com/s/rt4g13nxvqyljfqxmdxt
For your reference pico is 10E-12, or one trillionth
pCi is one trillionth of a Curie
A Curie is a relatively large amount of radiation
One Curie = 3.7E10 Bq
“…* Uranium-234 — 3.854 pCi/kg Dolly Varden
* Uranium-234 — 5.312 pCi/kg Goose Egg no shell
* Uranium-234 — 3.466 Ci/kg Gull egg
* Uranium-234 — 4.96 pCi/kg Chiton
* Uranium-234 — 9.344 pCi/kg Dragon Kelp
* Uranium-234 — 7.885 pCi/kg Rockweed
* Uranium-234 — 4.906 pCi/kg Greenling
* Uranium-234 — 2.304 pCi/kg Halibut
* Uranium-234 — 58.721 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue
* Uranium-234 — 8.86 pCi/kg Irish Lord
* Uranium-234 — 7.127 pCi/kg Octopus
* Uranium-234 — 4.976 pCi/kg Pacific Cod
* Uranium-234 — 4.644 pCi/kg Rockfish
* Uranium-234 — 3.032 pCi/kg Reindeer Lichen
* Uranium-234 — 3.906 pCi/kg Sea Urchin
* Plutonium-239 — .039 pCi/kg Dolly Varden
* Plutonium-239 — .186 pCi/kg Goose Egg no shell
* Plutonium-239 — .104 pCi/kg Gull egg
* Plutonium-239 — .298 pCi/kg Chiton
* Plutonium-239 — .093 pCi/kg Dragon Kelp
* Plutonium-239 — .084 pCi/kg Rockweed
* Plutonium-239 — .379 pCi/kg Greeling
* Plutonium-239 — .038 pCi/kg Halibut
* Plutonium-239 — 4.194 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue
* Plutonium-239 — .378 pCi/kg Irish Lord
* Plutonium-239 — .036 pCi/kg Octopus
* Plutonium-239 — .05 pCi/kg Pacific Cod
* Plutonium-239 — .279 pCi/kg Rockfish
* Plutonium-239 — .152 pCi/kg Reindeer Lichen
* Plutonium-239 — .195 pCi/kg Sea Urchin
* Plutonium-240 — .039 pCi/kg Dolly Varden
* Plutonium-240 — .106 pCi/kg Goose Egg no shell
* Plutonium-240 — .069 pCi/kg Gull egg
* Plutonium-240 — .149 pCi/kg Chiton
* Plutonium-240 — .037 pCi/kg Dragon Kelp
* Plutonium-240 — .02 pCi/kg Rockweed
* Plutonium-240 — .189 pCi/kg Greeling
* Plutonium-240 — .012 pCi/kg Halibut
* Plutonium-240 — 2.097 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue
* Plutonium-240 — .189 pCi/kg Irish Lord
* Plutonium-240 — .021 pCi/kg Octopus
* Plutonium-240 — .015 pCi/kg Pacific Cod
* Plutonium-240 — .139 pCi/kg Rockfish
* Plutonium-240 — .091 pCi/kg Reindeer Lichen
* Plutonium-240 — .117 pCi/kg Sea Urchin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional resources emailed in by Pia
- clip "The PHG is based
on the known carcinogenic effects of radiation observed in humans. In 1999, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) published“ Cancer Risk
Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides: Federal Guidance
Report 13”"
Have fun and thank you for all you do
___________________________________________________________
And Majia weighs in with some meaty links, including an article by her on bio accumulation
The nuclear complex has known since 1953 that radionuclides – such as Strontium-90, pose irreparable risks to the biosphere.
Read about Project Sunshine
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/project-sunshine-and-failed-paradigm-of.html
After completion of Project Sunshine (which followed Project
Grabriel) the AEC commissioned many studies on bioaccumulation in the
environment, which I review here:
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/bioaccumulation-cesium-is-one-among.html
A separate study funded by the Rockefellers – BEAR – was published in
condensed form in 1956. The genetics subcommittee warned that radiation
induces heritable mutations that are transmitted across generations,
with potentially devastating long-term impacts to the human genome:
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/systematic-study-in-first-bear-study-on.html#comment-form
The nuclear complex has known that radionuclides poison life and yet
the complex took little-to-no-action to stop the growing contamination
of planet Earth, upon which we all depend.
The nuclear complex is leading us toward our extinction. But first we
get to watch the animals we love die from our greed, corruption, and
denial.
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/06/acid-oceans-why-should-we-care.html
http://youtu.be/Xzw1dZNWiL8
Stock.. have you seen it yet?
http://youtu.be/eIZTMVNBjc4
NOTE ABOVE IS TRAILER ONLY
Arctic Ice Coverage Has Dropped 40 Percent, Arctic Amplification Effect Taking Hold; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/12/arctic-ice-coverage-has-dropped-40.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Another article from an ENENEWSer
A moneymaker that fell through due to the facts: ice is NOT melting at the rate HOPED for by those intending to profit from it.When mainstrem media & corporate mouthpieces like the UN & all the think tanks try to confuse you on a topic, know in your heart that it is entirely a scam. The energy companies, mining companies as well as those companies that meant to profit by making the necessary equipment needed to traverse the Arctic are now admitting that ice is increasing there not decreasing. And only admitting it becasue they lost their new moneymaker. They helped spread the news that ice was melting in order to convince mining & energy companies et al to invest in the Arctic. It was a sales pitch noting more.
"Predictions of increased ship traffic in the wake of diminished Arctic sea ice Arctic waters may have been premature, said Malte Humpert, executive director of the Arctic Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
"I think 2014 kind of shows that development and Arctic shipping may be further off than we might have thought a few years ago, that the ice is not melting as quickly as previously predicted," Humpert said.
"More ice formed in 2014, and the nature of shipping changed."
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/ice-not-melting-fewer-ships-sailing-in-arctic-287613991.html