Tiny amounts of radiation from Japan reach Nev

RENO, Nev. – Minuscule amounts of radiation from Japan's damaged nuclear plant have reached Las Vegas, but scientists say it poses no health risk.

Extremely small amounts of the radioactive isotopes iodine-131 and xenon-133 reached a monitoring station by the city's Atomic Testing Museum this week, said Ted Hartwell, manager of the Desert Research Institute's Community Environmental Monitoring Program.

Hartwell said he's certain the isotopes came from Japan because they're not usually detected in Nevada. But he said the readings were far below levels that could pose any health risks.

"Unless you have an accident like this (in Japan) you wouldn't expect to see this. No doubt it's from Japan," Hartwell told The Associated Press.

Minuscule amounts of radiation from Japan have been reported elsewhere in the West, including California, Colorado, Hawaii and Washington. Officials have said those levels also were not harmful.

Nevada health officials have said they do not expect any risk to the state from Japanese radiation releases because of the distance the materials would have to travel.

"Any material released must travel 10,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean, during which time it will be dispersed and diluted in the atmosphere to levels that might eventually be detectable, but which will not present a health hazard nor require any protective actions," said Eric Matus, radiation physicist for the Nevada State Health Division.

Scientists say they weren't surprised that radioactive isotopes from Japan were detected in the Western states.

"They get caught up in the right wind pattern and they'll move across the ocean," said Jeff Daniels, an environmental scientist with Reno-based DRI.

Tiny amounts of the radioactive isotope cesium-137 were detected at a University of Nevada, Las Vegas laboratory between March 17 and 21, but haven't been reported since then, Hartwell said.

The Desert Research Institute operates 29 stations that monitor the air for radioactivity around the Nevada National Security Site, formerly the Nevada Test Site, about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The institute plans to release the results of testing at the other stations and post them online at http://cemp.dri.edu/ by late in the week, Hartwell said.

The vast majority of the monitoring stations are in Nevada, with four in Utah and one in California

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_japan_radiation_nevada
 
you're probably exposed to more radition while flying in a plane. I'm occupational so I can take 5 rads before there is a problem :)
 

FrostyBoy

Banned
I'm waiting for Rush Limbaugh to come along and explain how this will, in the long run, be good for the planet.
 
If you're in Vegas there are other things to worry about there. Hell half the chicks there probably have radio-active vaginas.
 
For those of us who paid attention in physics ...

Well, if you read the New York Times (not exactly a hotbed of right-wing material, quite the opposite), you'd know what most of us who paid attention in physics already know ...

"Drumbeat of Nuclear Fallout Fear Doesn’t Resound With Experts"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/science/03radiation.html

And if you're too lazy to read the article like you were too lazy to study in high school physics (or study enough to take it), this graphic is a great "cheat sheet" to the reality of the world we live in.
"Sources of Radiation"
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/05/03/science/03radiation_graphic.html

If you can't read graphs, can't help you there. There's only so many ways things can be presented. ;)

As always, three (3) things to take away:

1. Medical exposure and, in the case of waste disposal, by-product are, by far, the biggest danger to most everyone. This includes several, accidental deaths of serious conditions to individuals who came into contact with improperly disposed medical equipment. The mass number of devices out there are also another reason why more long-term, nuclear storage facilities are required, but often go even less properly addressed than for nuclear power (see #3).

2. Past nuclear weapons airburst testing is, by far, the most intentional release that continues to cause all sorts of issues and complications for the planet. And there is still a gross under-reporting of accidents, conditions and even deaths due to weapons research.

3. Nuclear power is hardly the main issue from both a release and waste standpoint, given the low radioactive nature of the materials and by-products compared to weapons or even nominal, medical usage or aging devices that need to be disposed of. They can be safely encased for long-term storage, and places like Yucca Mountain were designed for such (now embroiled in a "states rights" argument where Nevada took the money and ran behind the Constitution).

But yes, in select ranges, background radiation is actually helpful more than harmful. This was shown in the case of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at a select distance and exposure. But in reality, the range is very narrow, as the body can only take in a select dose, which neutralizes just the right type and amount of organisms that the body can (and in many cases, should) do without.

I mean, there are reasons chemotherapy and other treatments are used. The body's ability to absorb and repair itself from all sorts of chemical and radiological intake while other cells and organisms in the body are targeted are why the treatment exists. The problem is always how much the body can take while it is selective targeted, which varies from individual to individual, sickness to sickness. Radiation is used because it works, doing exactly that, killing, selectively.
 
Top