3 ms·

Fair enough - though I'm not sure if I will just take your word for it that the potential for new releases of new cesium 137 is not an ongoing threat from Fukus

Fair enough - though I'm not sure if I will just take your word for it that the potential for new releases of new cesium 137 is not an ongoing threat from Fukushima Daiichi. The only way we can know for sure I suppose, is through the efforts of independent researchers brave enough to get close to the facility. In the spirit of HN, it would be neat to see an open technology solution for the purposes of monitoring. Ie: if(waterSample.cesium137 > 0.001) return ALARM(waterSample)

gh02t 11y ago
> it would be neat to see an open technology solution for the purposes of monitoring It's trivial to do so. Decay of Cs-137 releases a 662 keV gamma ray that is easily measured and the count rate is proportional to the source activity (or ultimately the total amount of Cs-137 present). You can calibrate an inexpensive NaI detector such that it will tell you how much Cs-137 is in a given volume of water. If you place it next to a pipe that has a constant flow rate, you can infer the average amount of Cs-137 in the liquid flowing through the pipe. It's something that you can build in an afternoon if you know what you're doing and have the equipment. This is pretty much how they monitor liquids for contamination in a real plant, except they use more detailed spectral measurements to monitor multiple isotopes. If you ever have the rare opportunity to go into a reactor control room, there will be a display somewhere that reads out this exact measurement.
- mrschwabe 11y ago
  Good info! If the technology is cheap, as you point out, then the next logical step might be a collaborative project to get a network of inexpensive, miniature, buoyant craft's out to sea - for the purpose of actively measuring levels of cesium 137; sharing these results for everyone to see, to graph, and to check on at any given time of the day. One-time results from a fish is useful data but to have a whole swarm of devices actively monitoring levels in various locations would be ideal. Thinking ahead, the next hurdle could be the logistics of internet connection - maybe they could connect to each other in a mesh-network that daizy-chains back to an internet connection closer to shore. Oh, and power (solar panel maybe?). Navigation. Yeah - some challenges for sure, but it all seems within reason.
  - slapshot 11y ago
    Somebody did this. Before the experiment, they expected a background level of Cesium 137 of between 1 and 2 bq/M^3 (caused by 1950s nuclear testing, which released a ton of it). They found actual levels between 1 and 2 bq/M^3 across the Pacific with some small variation above and below: http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html Think about it this way. Worst-case estimates are that 2-4 kilos of Cesium 137 were released. If it all ends up in the ocean, the total Pacific Ocean weighs on the order of 638,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilos. The total new Cesium 137 is: 0.000000000000000000627% of the ocean. At a 30 year half-life, that's one decay event per 70 liters per hour.
    - mrschwabe 11y ago
      Thanks for the headsup - but there's nothing wrong with some competition and not to mention getting more coverage; for example it doesn't look like they have any data near the coast of Fukushima preficture which is the most important spot. Also the monitoring does not appear in realtime and if we are getting nitpicky there are certainly a few UX issues with how the data is presented. On a related note, I'm sure Ken Buesseler is a good guy and his site is nice and I have nothing bad to say about him; I don't know him - but you can find comments about him from people who claim he's a "nuclear shill" and so regardless as a matter of principal it would be prudent to get more independent researchers involved in gathering data.
      - gh02t 11y ago
        > but you can find comments about him from people who claim he's a "nuclear shill" and so regardless as a matter of principle it would be prudent to get more independent researchers involved in gathering data. You can also find a large number of people on the Internet who claim Obama is a lizard alien (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/polling-theory-embarrassment-453096 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/polling-theory-embarrassment-453096). This comparison is hyperbole, I know, but his data and methodologies are peer-reviewed and support his claims. He's far from the only person studying the issue, it's a hot topic (pun intended) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=fukushima+radiation+levels&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C34&as_sdtp= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=fukushima+radiati... .

gh02t 11y ago

> it would be neat to see an open technology solution for the purposes of monitoring It's trivial to do so. Decay of Cs-137 releases a 662 keV gamma ray that is easily measured and the count rate is proportional to the source activity (or ultimately the total amount of Cs-137 present). You can calibrate an inexpensive NaI detector such that it will tell you how much Cs-137 is in a given volume of water. If you place it next to a pipe that has a constant flow rate, you can infer the average amount of Cs-137 in the liquid flowing through the pipe. It's something that you can build in an afternoon if you know what you're doing and have the equipment. This is pretty much how they monitor liquids for contamination in a real plant, except they use more detailed spectral measurements to monitor multiple isotopes. If you ever have the rare opportunity to go into a reactor control room, there will be a display somewhere that reads out this exact measurement.

mrschwabe 11y ago
Good info! If the technology is cheap, as you point out, then the next logical step might be a collaborative project to get a network of inexpensive, miniature, buoyant craft's out to sea - for the purpose of actively measuring levels of cesium 137; sharing these results for everyone to see, to graph, and to check on at any given time of the day. One-time results from a fish is useful data but to have a whole swarm of devices actively monitoring levels in various locations would be ideal. Thinking ahead, the next hurdle could be the logistics of internet connection - maybe they could connect to each other in a mesh-network that daizy-chains back to an internet connection closer to shore. Oh, and power (solar panel maybe?). Navigation. Yeah - some challenges for sure, but it all seems within reason.
- slapshot 11y ago
  Somebody did this. Before the experiment, they expected a background level of Cesium 137 of between 1 and 2 bq/M^3 (caused by 1950s nuclear testing, which released a ton of it). They found actual levels between 1 and 2 bq/M^3 across the Pacific with some small variation above and below: http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html http://ourradioactiveocean.org/results.html Think about it this way. Worst-case estimates are that 2-4 kilos of Cesium 137 were released. If it all ends up in the ocean, the total Pacific Ocean weighs on the order of 638,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilos. The total new Cesium 137 is: 0.000000000000000000627% of the ocean. At a 30 year half-life, that's one decay event per 70 liters per hour.
  - mrschwabe 11y ago
    Thanks for the headsup - but there's nothing wrong with some competition and not to mention getting more coverage; for example it doesn't look like they have any data near the coast of Fukushima preficture which is the most important spot. Also the monitoring does not appear in realtime and if we are getting nitpicky there are certainly a few UX issues with how the data is presented. On a related note, I'm sure Ken Buesseler is a good guy and his site is nice and I have nothing bad to say about him; I don't know him - but you can find comments about him from people who claim he's a "nuclear shill" and so regardless as a matter of principal it would be prudent to get more independent researchers involved in gathering data.
    - gh02t 11y ago
      > but you can find comments about him from people who claim he's a "nuclear shill" and so regardless as a matter of principle it would be prudent to get more independent researchers involved in gathering data. You can also find a large number of people on the Internet who claim Obama is a lizard alien (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/polling-theory-embarrassment-453096 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/polling-theory-embarrassment-453096). This comparison is hyperbole, I know, but his data and methodologies are peer-reviewed and support his claims. He's far from the only person studying the issue, it's a hot topic (pun intended) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=fukushima+radiation+levels&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C34&as_sdtp= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=fukushima+radiati... .