Fukushima Radioactive Elements Settle To Bottom of Liquid/How to filter?

[7up]

Do heavy radioactive particles from Fukushima that have contaminated US water, milk, etc sink to the bottom of a liquid, and if they are down to single atoms would they still sink?

Then I could avoid drinking them.

 

[Sledge]

Do heavy radioactive particles from Fukushima that have contaminated US water, milk, etc

What.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do heavy radioactive particles from Fukushima that have contaminated US water, milk, etc sink to the bottom of a liquid, and if they are down to single atoms would they still sink?

Then I could avoid drinking them.

Are you afraid of eating bananas?

Because bananas are naturally far more radioactive than anything that Fukushima will do to any US foods. You can safely ignore the effects of Fukushima for any foods coming from the US.

 

[Mikemcc]

Do heavy radioactive particles from Fukushima that have contaminated US water, milk, etc sink to the bottom of a liquid, and if they are down to single atoms would they still sink?

Then I could avoid drinking them.

In all practical terms - No. Most radioactive isotpes have the same density as their non-radioactive counterparts. You could centifugue with very precise parameters, but not with any useful throughput.

 

[7up]

"Are you afraid of eating bananas?

Because bananas are naturally far more radioactive than anything that Fukushima will do to any US foods. You can safely ignore the effects of Fukushima for any foods coming from the US."

http : // enenews . com/ny-times-contributor-confirms-california-rainwater-181-times-above-drinking-water-standards-for-radioactive-iodine-131

 

[ehcks]

"Are you afraid of eating bananas?

Because bananas are naturally far more radioactive than anything that Fukushima will do to any US foods. You can safely ignore the effects of Fukushima for any foods coming from the US."

http : // enenews . com/ny-times-contributor-confirms-california-rainwater-181-times-above-drinking-water-standards-for-radioactive-iodine-131

I think it might be safer to assume that's due to the large number of people consuming iodine tablets out of fear.

 

[7up]

I think it might be safer to assume that's due to the large number of people consuming iodine tablets out of fear.

But the iodine elevated by 181x, that's radioactive iodine

 

[ehcks]

But the iodine that elevated by 181x, that's radioactive iodine

In all practical terms - No. Most radioactive isotpes have the same density as their non-radioactive counterparts. You could centifugue with very precise parameters, but not with any useful throughput.

There would be some amount of radioactive iodine even in the iodine tablets meant to protect you from radioactive iodine. Then you pee it out into the water supply, where it's again difficult to remove.

 

[7up]

"There would be some amount of radioactive iodine even in the iodine tablets meant to protect you from radioactive iodine. Then you pee it out into the water supply, where it's again difficult to remove."

Interesting.

 

[NoahFence]

Honestly, I'd be more worried about getting struck by lightning during a drought than suffering ill effects from Fukishima.

 

[Ziggurat]

http : // enenews . com/ny-times-contributor-confirms-california-rainwater-181-times-above-drinking-water-standards-for-radioactive-iodine-131

Unlike the radioactive potassium in bananas, radioactive iodine 131 is not naturally occurring. Any iodine 131 that one encounters is man-made. The regulatory limits on iodine 131 can thus be set at very low levels, because it's usually quite easy to achieve these very low levels.

But that doesn't mean that these levels pose any sort of public health threat. They don't. Furthermore, these levels were found in rain water, not in food OR in drinking water. I'm going to assume that you don't drink from your gutters.

By the way, I'd suggest using a better source for your information, namely the people who actually did the measurements:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/RainWaterSampling
Rather than comparing their concentrations to regulatory limits, they compare the actual dose you would receive to another common activity that exposes people to elevated radiation levels, and it becomes clear that there's nothing for us to worry about in the US:

"For example, in the rain water we collected in 18 hours between March 17 and March 18 we observe an activity of the isotope of I-131 (Iodine-131) of 4.26 Bq/l. At this level, you would need to drink 632 liters of this rain water to obtain the same radiation effects you obtain on a round-trip flight between San Francisco and Washington D.C. Therefore, the increase in radiation levels in the rain water due to the events in Japan remain extremely small."

Your sources are simply fear-mongering.

 

[7up]

In all practical terms - Most radioactive isotpes have the same density as their non-radioactive counterparts. You could centifugue with very precise parameters, but not with any useful throughput.

"As their non-radioactive counterparts," meaning they too are not dense enough either to sink? How about mercury and lead atoms, would they sink?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it might be safer to assume that's due to the large number of people consuming iodine tablets out of fear.

No, it's not. Iodine 131 has negligible natural concentrations (with an 8 day halflife, it just doesn't last), and this is rain water, not sewer water.

However, iodine pills are made of potassium iodine, and potassium DOES have significant naturally radioactive isotope fractions. So in the US, taking iodine pills could indeed increase your radiation exposure more than Fukushima.

So the presence of iodine 131 due to Fukushima is real and measurable, but the actual dosage that anyone in the US will receive is completely negligible in terms of health effects. Basically, our instruments are a hell of a lot more sensitive than our bodies are.

 

[7up]

By the way, I'd suggest using a better source for your information, namely the people who actually did the measurements:

see post for url

"For example, in the rain water we collected in 18 hours between March 17 and March 18 we observe an activity of the isotope of I-131 (Iodine-131) of 4.26 Bq/l. At this level, you would need to drink 632 liters of this rain water to obtain the same radiation effects you obtain on a round-trip flight between San Francisco and Washington D.C. Therefore, the increase in radiation levels in the rain water due to the events in Japan remain extremely small."

That would be equivalent to taking that flight every 79 days - if drinking 8 glasses of water daily from your gutters - and milk is more concentrated, plus the increase from produce and meat, so there is still some increase even if slight, which will keep increasing as long as the nuke plant keeps spewing out radiation. Plus that article was written a month ago and only three weeks after the disaster.

ETA
And then there are the other radioactive particles blowing over from Japan and getting into seafood.

 

[macdoc]

And don't even think about hanging around a smoker - tobacco leaves pickup a lot of naturally radioactive particles and they are accumulated.

read and learn

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

181 x next to nothing is still next to nothing.

 

[Ziggurat]

That would be equivalent to taking that flight every 79 days - if drinking 8 glasses of water from your gutters - and milk is more concentrated, plus the increase from produce and meat, so there is still some increase even if slight, which will keep increasing as long as the nuke plant keeps spewing out radiation. Plus that article was written a month ago and only three weeks after the disaster.

Why do you assume that it's going to be more concentrated in milk, meat, or produce? There's significant delays between the time that iodine 131 arrives in rainwater, to when it gets ingested by cows or absorbed by plants, to when those things get harvested, to when they get delivered, to when you buy them at the grocery store, to when you actually sit down and eat them. And with a half-life of only 8 days, that stuff will be constantly decaying away during that period. This isn't like mercury, which becomes successively more concentrated as you go up the food chain: the fact that iodine 131 decays pretty quickly means that the longer it takes to go up the food chain, the less of it there is.

 

[7up]

Why do you assume that it's going to be more concentrated in milk, meat, or produce? There's significant delays between the time that iodine 131 arrives in rainwater, to when it gets ingested by cows or absorbed by plants, to when those things get harvested, to when they get delivered, to when you buy them at the grocery store, to when you actually sit down and eat them. And with a half-life of only 8 days, that stuff will be constantly decaying away during that period. This isn't like mercury, which becomes successively more concentrated as you go up the food chain: the fact that iodine 131 decays pretty quickly means that the longer it takes to go up the food chain, the less of it there is.

To when it gets ingested by cows would be within 24 hrs if they are grazing. I'll assume it gets into the milk fast and they milk the cows daily. Then they want to get it to market fast for freshness. A gallon of milk may last a few days if two people consume. All that could transpire in under one half life. I've also read radioative particles are more concentrated in milk, and that includes strontium 90.

 

[7up]

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/20...-samples-1600-epa-drinking-water-limit-18630/

 

[Ziggurat]

To when it gets ingested by cows would be within 24 hrs if they are grazing.

That's the food they ingest. But the water isn't going to be rainwater for the most part.

I've also read radioative particles are more concentrated in milk, and that includes strontium 90.

Strontium 90 has a half-life of 29 years. Not even close to equivalent.

Iodine 131 in milk was a problem after Chernobyl, for people living relatively near the plant. And for milk produced in Fukushima, they definitely need to test for elevated levels of iodine 131. But it is not a problem for milk produced in the US. The levels are simply far too low to matter.

 

[Sledge]

Let me put this simply: you're worrying about nothing. Stop it.