The USGS has just reported that a 7.1 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Fukushima (at about 10 km depth). The quake has resulted in the administration of a tsunami warning; this time much smaller than the version that struck the coast in 2011. Today's earthquake was a normal slip-strike quake rather than the devastating megathrust variety, resulting in a much smaller (3.0 feet) lifting of the oceans being predicted.
However, these small tsunami effects can still be dangerous for those in low-lying coastal areas; a bystander was swept out to sea in 2011 in Crescent City, California when he and his friends went down to photograph the incoming waves from the Japan earthquake.
Remember, if you are in the zone of a tsunami warning- no matter how small- stay to higher ground and resist the urge to watch from unsafe locations.
To keep up on recent earthquakes, visit the USGS's Earthquakes Page- you might be surprised how common they are!
A science blog that examines what washes ashore in the Pacific Northwest. This exciting blog includes the latest news, as well as tidbits in oceanography, biology, and marine science. Your one-stop source for information and news on debris from the 2011 Tohoku tsunami in Japan.
Showing posts with label Fukushima. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fukushima. Show all posts
Friday, October 25, 2013
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Japan Copes with Debris and Devastation on its Own Shores
Debris and Tsunami Damage Presents Logistical Problems for Japan
After the 2011 tsunami in Tohoku, Japan, anxious eyes have peered towards the shores on the other side of the Pacific- Alaska, Hawaii, British Columbia, and the US continental Pacific Coast. However, for those who were caught in the epicenter of the disaster, this turning away is perhaps the worst thing.
More than two years after the events of March 2011, Japan is still struggling to establish a normalcy that has been severely disrupted by natural disaster. Recently, the Miyagi prefecture- where a majority of the damage occurred (Along with Iwate and Fukishima) - established a 10 year recovery plan to cope with the millions of tons of debris from destroyed architecture and other objects.
Iwate and Miyagi together still have over 600,000 tons of debris left to clean up. However, due to recent decreased estimates in the amount of debris, many fear losing essential funding that is being allotted for such efforts.
One town in particular- Ishinomaki, has an especially large amount of debris. The Jakarta Post reported the deputy chief of the reconstruction policy bureau stated the debris came from the remains of 53,742 damaged structures. He also stated that that volume of debris would take over one hundred years to accumulate as 'waste' at a natural rate.
Automated Cleanup Processes
Japan is relying on spectacular technology to help with cleanup of debris, which would be a nearly impossible manual task. The process is as follows:
1: Debris is separated into 'rough' groupings- such as timber, building materials, appliances, etc. and trucked to corresponding waste management facilities in a nearby establishment- more than 14 prefectures have offered services for disposal, despite initial concerns (since calmed) that the debris may be radioactive.
2: The debris is then loaded onto conveyer belts, where the debris is separated into combustible and non-combustible materials. Combustible materials are incinerated.
3: Non-combustible materials are further sorted an disposed of as necessary.
More than 1/3 of debris has been cleaned up, but some are still not satisfied with the level of progress thus far. In addition, recovery efforts have been slowed as many have moved inland to seek further employment. Those remaining are being employed to the best extent in the cleanup.
Businesses that were affected by the disaster are doing their best to recover. An interesting case noted by the Jakarta Post was that of a fish cannery. The cannery's president, Nigato Kimura, was determined to save his product. More than 400 of his cans of fish product were buried, and Kimura and his workers spent months recovering the cans, which were then sold both to restaurants and those who wished to support his business.
Kimura is a fortunate example of an impacted business- in general, victims of the 2011 disaster- including entire villages - completely lost their livelihoods, as well as all possessions.
Sources: Tisnadibrata, Ismira Lutfia. "Japanese Giant Works to Process Tsunami Debris." Jakarta Post. March 19, 2013. <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/03/19/japanese-giant-works-process-tsunami-debris.html>
Johnston, Eric. "Plummeting Debris Estimates Belie Pleas for Disposal Aid". Japan Times Online. March 10, 2013. <http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/03/10/national/plummeting-debris-estimates-belie-pleas-for-disposal-aid/#.UVyX4VdQ-vg>
Radiation a Diminishing but Very Real Concern in Japan
The earthquake and tsunamis that occurred caused massive nuclear disaster at the Fukishima Daiichi Nuclear Facility, in Fukishima Japan. As a result, nuclear radiation was leaked from the facility both purposefully (to prevent potentially hazardous gaseous buildup) and due to containment failures from physical damage and power failures. Radioactive material continued to leak throughout 2011 and 2012.
Read more about the details of the disaster in my Nuclear Impacts Part I and II posts.
On the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), Fukishima is the second event only - after Chernobyl - to be rated a 7 out of 7.
On a biological scale, the radiation levels appear to be surprisingly low. Higher levels of radioactive contamination have been noted in nearby fish or birds, but farther away from the disaster zone, results are more modest. However, part of the problem comes from the question of how to categorize 'safe' levels of radiation. We are all bombarded by a background level of radiation on a daily basis, but it is when the ratio of radioactive particles relative to non-radioactive particles becomes to high that we are in danger.
Interestingly, the general levels of radiation remaining around Fukishima are certainly higher than they used to be, but they are still lower than the background radiation levels in other parts of the world, such as Kerala, India- one of the locations with the highest background radiation levels in the world.
At the end of 2011, Fukishima was rated the #1 most radioactive location on Earth- this is certainly no longer the case.
There is much ahead for Japanese government as they perform risk assessments, cleanups, and decide what levels are truly environmentally safe. It will be a long time before permanent impacts, if any, are a consideration. Outlooks appear to be optimistic, however they should not deter from the urgency of cleanup efforts that are currently taking place.
Source: Oregon State University. "Fukishima Cleanup Continues, Many Areas Restored" February 2013. <http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2013/mar/fukushima-cleanup-continues-many-areas-restored>
After the 2011 tsunami in Tohoku, Japan, anxious eyes have peered towards the shores on the other side of the Pacific- Alaska, Hawaii, British Columbia, and the US continental Pacific Coast. However, for those who were caught in the epicenter of the disaster, this turning away is perhaps the worst thing.
More than two years after the events of March 2011, Japan is still struggling to establish a normalcy that has been severely disrupted by natural disaster. Recently, the Miyagi prefecture- where a majority of the damage occurred (Along with Iwate and Fukishima) - established a 10 year recovery plan to cope with the millions of tons of debris from destroyed architecture and other objects.
Iwate and Miyagi together still have over 600,000 tons of debris left to clean up. However, due to recent decreased estimates in the amount of debris, many fear losing essential funding that is being allotted for such efforts.
 |
| Before (bottom) and after (top) photos of a location in Naraha, Fukushima Prefecture. [KYODO] |
One town in particular- Ishinomaki, has an especially large amount of debris. The Jakarta Post reported the deputy chief of the reconstruction policy bureau stated the debris came from the remains of 53,742 damaged structures. He also stated that that volume of debris would take over one hundred years to accumulate as 'waste' at a natural rate.
Automated Cleanup Processes
Japan is relying on spectacular technology to help with cleanup of debris, which would be a nearly impossible manual task. The process is as follows:
1: Debris is separated into 'rough' groupings- such as timber, building materials, appliances, etc. and trucked to corresponding waste management facilities in a nearby establishment- more than 14 prefectures have offered services for disposal, despite initial concerns (since calmed) that the debris may be radioactive.
2: The debris is then loaded onto conveyer belts, where the debris is separated into combustible and non-combustible materials. Combustible materials are incinerated.
3: Non-combustible materials are further sorted an disposed of as necessary.
More than 1/3 of debris has been cleaned up, but some are still not satisfied with the level of progress thus far. In addition, recovery efforts have been slowed as many have moved inland to seek further employment. Those remaining are being employed to the best extent in the cleanup.
Businesses that were affected by the disaster are doing their best to recover. An interesting case noted by the Jakarta Post was that of a fish cannery. The cannery's president, Nigato Kimura, was determined to save his product. More than 400 of his cans of fish product were buried, and Kimura and his workers spent months recovering the cans, which were then sold both to restaurants and those who wished to support his business.
Kimura is a fortunate example of an impacted business- in general, victims of the 2011 disaster- including entire villages - completely lost their livelihoods, as well as all possessions.
Sources: Tisnadibrata, Ismira Lutfia. "Japanese Giant Works to Process Tsunami Debris." Jakarta Post. March 19, 2013. <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/03/19/japanese-giant-works-process-tsunami-debris.html>
Johnston, Eric. "Plummeting Debris Estimates Belie Pleas for Disposal Aid". Japan Times Online. March 10, 2013. <http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/03/10/national/plummeting-debris-estimates-belie-pleas-for-disposal-aid/#.UVyX4VdQ-vg>
Radiation a Diminishing but Very Real Concern in Japan
The earthquake and tsunamis that occurred caused massive nuclear disaster at the Fukishima Daiichi Nuclear Facility, in Fukishima Japan. As a result, nuclear radiation was leaked from the facility both purposefully (to prevent potentially hazardous gaseous buildup) and due to containment failures from physical damage and power failures. Radioactive material continued to leak throughout 2011 and 2012.
Read more about the details of the disaster in my Nuclear Impacts Part I and II posts.
On the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), Fukishima is the second event only - after Chernobyl - to be rated a 7 out of 7.
 |
| A spectacular image of the containment process at Fukishima, shortly after the disaster. A full size photo can be found here. |
On a biological scale, the radiation levels appear to be surprisingly low. Higher levels of radioactive contamination have been noted in nearby fish or birds, but farther away from the disaster zone, results are more modest. However, part of the problem comes from the question of how to categorize 'safe' levels of radiation. We are all bombarded by a background level of radiation on a daily basis, but it is when the ratio of radioactive particles relative to non-radioactive particles becomes to high that we are in danger.
Interestingly, the general levels of radiation remaining around Fukishima are certainly higher than they used to be, but they are still lower than the background radiation levels in other parts of the world, such as Kerala, India- one of the locations with the highest background radiation levels in the world.
At the end of 2011, Fukishima was rated the #1 most radioactive location on Earth- this is certainly no longer the case.
There is much ahead for Japanese government as they perform risk assessments, cleanups, and decide what levels are truly environmentally safe. It will be a long time before permanent impacts, if any, are a consideration. Outlooks appear to be optimistic, however they should not deter from the urgency of cleanup efforts that are currently taking place.
 |
| OSU's chart of radioactivity levels across the globe. Note that Ramsar, Iran exceeds Fukishima's highest evacuee dose- the amount of radiation found in an individual who was evacuated from the area. |
Source: Oregon State University. "Fukishima Cleanup Continues, Many Areas Restored" February 2013. <http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2013/mar/fukushima-cleanup-continues-many-areas-restored>
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Radioactive Tuna?
Radiation: Human Impacts
As with any historic event, the Fukushima disaster created almost as much hype and disinformation as reliable information. Unfamiliarity with the process of radiation created panicked speculation regarding US food supplies, ocean contamination, and visions of glowing radioactive tuna inhabiting the Pacific Ocean.
It is true that tuna are at the top of the food chain, and therefore act as 'bioconcentrators' of many marine contaminants- that is, they have the tendency to assimilate biotoxins (radiation, toxic substances, plastic derivatives) into their body tissues at a rate greater than it is metabolized or excreted back into the environment. This is especially an issue for top predators, as a small level of contaminants in one individual prey multiplies over time as many prey are consumed. When this begins at the very bottom of the food chain, the effects are even more amplified.
The effects of bioaccumulation have been studied for several types of plastic derivative, as well as heavy metals (mercury), and naturally occuring toxins, such as Domoic Acid, which is found in shellfish. The effects of radioactive bioaccumulation have also been studied as well, and in large amounts this could be an issue. (For more information on radiation, see my previous entry).
In the months following the Fukishima event, scientists scrambled to decide whether or not this disaster would affect the world and US food supply. While tuna have tested positive for small amounts of radiation, the levels are certainly not that which would have any biological impacts. Scientists at Oregon State University have continued to test Pacific Albacore tuna for radiation, and have found that fish are radioactive far below any dangerous levels.
Delvan Neville, a grad student at OSU's Radiation Health Physics program, quoted for OSU's news website, "“To increase their normal annual dosage of radiation by just 1 percent, a person would have to eat more than 4,000 pounds of the highest (radiation) level albacore we've seen.”'
Consuming highly radioactive food could have immediate health impacts, as well as long-term issues such as cancer, reproductive problems, organ damage, or blindness. However, the likelihood of mercury poisoning from consuming tuna is higher than experiencing any radioactive effects. The FDA recommends an average adult of 140-180 pounds (female and male, respectively) to eat no more than 4.4-5.6 ounces of albacore, or 12.8-16.4 ounces of white tuna a WEEK. This small amount of fish will have very little risk of radiation. Remember, radiation is everywhere in our environment- it is not the presence, but rather the concentration that is dangerous.
Beyond Human Impacts
Although the impacts on humans appear to be relatively nil, it is still unclear whether or not radiation will have impacts on the marine food chain itself. Studies are ongoing to determine whether radiation levels will result in decreased reproduction or survivability in marine animals. The results so far are unclear, as radiation is being found in almost all trophic levels, but in very small amounts. The effects, if they are tangible, will likely be long-term.
The long and short of it is, this is certainly not the first, or most serious, marine pollutant. Incredibly harmful plastic derivatives, such as PCB (Polychlorinated bisphenyl) or BPA (bisphenyl-A) are being found to have wide-ranging environmental impacts. In addition, heavy metals such as mercury are human-caused pollutants that can have proven health impacts.
Before we jump on any misinformed bandwagons, it is important to weigh information from reputable sources- scientific journals, university websites, the FDA, or your doctor. Certainly being cautious is not a bad thing, but if you love seafood (I certainly do), don't let fear take over your daily enjoyment of life.
How Your Local News May Mislead
Simply typing in 'radioactive tuna' on your search engine conjures of thousands of very formidable-sounding articles, not to mention photos, such as this cleverly photoshopped image in newsoxy's 'Science News' section:
Examples like this are why you should always think before you swallow any news (especially 'Science News') that is presented by the general media (sorry, Oxynews). You can't blame them- there is always a competition for readership. However, it is very easy to get carried away and misinformed when reading about environmental news. News stations and websites often report on scientific findings, but even if they report them correctly, the fearful undertone can still show.
In an article discussing scientists' findings regarding levels of radiation in the Alaskan ecosystem, BCLocalNews.com reports that radiation levels are too low to be of concern, and that,
"Officials caution that the levels detected are not life threatening." The simple composition of the sentence is misleading- the first two words insinuate that something serious has been found.
Always read between the lines, and use your common sense when deciding whether a source is reputable. And certainly it never hurts to go back to the original scientific paper which is being spoken of. Then the next time your friends start discussing radioactive fish at the gym, you can say "Actually, there's more to that...."
Note: The views and content choices expressed in this blog are mine alone. I am writing out of personal interest and a desire to share information with others in an accessible and fun way. Enjoy!
As with any historic event, the Fukushima disaster created almost as much hype and disinformation as reliable information. Unfamiliarity with the process of radiation created panicked speculation regarding US food supplies, ocean contamination, and visions of glowing radioactive tuna inhabiting the Pacific Ocean.
It is true that tuna are at the top of the food chain, and therefore act as 'bioconcentrators' of many marine contaminants- that is, they have the tendency to assimilate biotoxins (radiation, toxic substances, plastic derivatives) into their body tissues at a rate greater than it is metabolized or excreted back into the environment. This is especially an issue for top predators, as a small level of contaminants in one individual prey multiplies over time as many prey are consumed. When this begins at the very bottom of the food chain, the effects are even more amplified.
 |
| Bioaccumulation of Polychlorinated bisphenyl- a plastic derivative- through the food chain (worldoceanreview.com) |
In the months following the Fukishima event, scientists scrambled to decide whether or not this disaster would affect the world and US food supply. While tuna have tested positive for small amounts of radiation, the levels are certainly not that which would have any biological impacts. Scientists at Oregon State University have continued to test Pacific Albacore tuna for radiation, and have found that fish are radioactive far below any dangerous levels.
Delvan Neville, a grad student at OSU's Radiation Health Physics program, quoted for OSU's news website, "“To increase their normal annual dosage of radiation by just 1 percent, a person would have to eat more than 4,000 pounds of the highest (radiation) level albacore we've seen.”'
Consuming highly radioactive food could have immediate health impacts, as well as long-term issues such as cancer, reproductive problems, organ damage, or blindness. However, the likelihood of mercury poisoning from consuming tuna is higher than experiencing any radioactive effects. The FDA recommends an average adult of 140-180 pounds (female and male, respectively) to eat no more than 4.4-5.6 ounces of albacore, or 12.8-16.4 ounces of white tuna a WEEK. This small amount of fish will have very little risk of radiation. Remember, radiation is everywhere in our environment- it is not the presence, but rather the concentration that is dangerous.
Beyond Human Impacts
Although the impacts on humans appear to be relatively nil, it is still unclear whether or not radiation will have impacts on the marine food chain itself. Studies are ongoing to determine whether radiation levels will result in decreased reproduction or survivability in marine animals. The results so far are unclear, as radiation is being found in almost all trophic levels, but in very small amounts. The effects, if they are tangible, will likely be long-term.
The long and short of it is, this is certainly not the first, or most serious, marine pollutant. Incredibly harmful plastic derivatives, such as PCB (Polychlorinated bisphenyl) or BPA (bisphenyl-A) are being found to have wide-ranging environmental impacts. In addition, heavy metals such as mercury are human-caused pollutants that can have proven health impacts.
Before we jump on any misinformed bandwagons, it is important to weigh information from reputable sources- scientific journals, university websites, the FDA, or your doctor. Certainly being cautious is not a bad thing, but if you love seafood (I certainly do), don't let fear take over your daily enjoyment of life.
How Your Local News May Mislead
Simply typing in 'radioactive tuna' on your search engine conjures of thousands of very formidable-sounding articles, not to mention photos, such as this cleverly photoshopped image in newsoxy's 'Science News' section:
 |
| An example of fear-inducing media coverage |
Examples like this are why you should always think before you swallow any news (especially 'Science News') that is presented by the general media (sorry, Oxynews). You can't blame them- there is always a competition for readership. However, it is very easy to get carried away and misinformed when reading about environmental news. News stations and websites often report on scientific findings, but even if they report them correctly, the fearful undertone can still show.
In an article discussing scientists' findings regarding levels of radiation in the Alaskan ecosystem, BCLocalNews.com reports that radiation levels are too low to be of concern, and that,
"Officials caution that the levels detected are not life threatening." The simple composition of the sentence is misleading- the first two words insinuate that something serious has been found.
Always read between the lines, and use your common sense when deciding whether a source is reputable. And certainly it never hurts to go back to the original scientific paper which is being spoken of. Then the next time your friends start discussing radioactive fish at the gym, you can say "Actually, there's more to that...."
Note: The views and content choices expressed in this blog are mine alone. I am writing out of personal interest and a desire to share information with others in an accessible and fun way. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)