By Jeff Barnard
The Associated Press
Want more top stories? Sign up here for daily or weekly newsletters with our top news.
PORT TOWNSEND — When the public health official for Jefferson and Clallam counties says there is no evidence of radiation danger to anyone on the North Olympic Peninsula after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant spill in March 2011, he is relying on state, federal and scientific sources.
There are no county monitoring programs of water or fish on the Peninsula, he said.
At the federal level, “their level of concern is so low, they are not doing any systematic monitoring” specifically for radiation from the Japanese plant, he said.
The state Department of Health tested a limited amount of fish and shellfish for radioactivity from nuclear power plants soon after the disaster, according to Fukushima FAQs on the website www.doh.wa.gov.
“All test results were far below levels that would pose a threat to people's health,” the site says.
“We'll continue to test fish and shellfish, focusing on the species most likely to travel long distances across the ocean,” the department said.
Radioactive particles carried across the ocean are predicted to be in the vicinity of the West Coast in the next month or so.
“The dilution has been extreme as it moved across the body of water,” said Dr. Tom Locke, public health officer for Jefferson and Clallam counties.
“All the science I have seen is that the concentrations are so low, there is no human health concern,” he added.
“Projections are that levels will be well below human health concerns,” he said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which says it tests for radiation routinely, issued an update this month saying it has found no evidence of radiation from Fukushima in the U.S. food supply at levels that would pose a public health concern.
The FDA cited a report published in 2012 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of low levels of radioactive Cesium in Pacific bluefin tuna off the coast of California in August 2011.
It said officials determined that levels were roughly 300 times lower than levels that would prompt further investigation.
The Environmental Protection Agency's environmental radiation monitoring program, known as RadNet, tests radiation in the air.
Data on air radiation from Japan at www.epa.gov/japan011 is from March 11, 2011, to June 30, 2011.
“EPA has returned to routine RadNet operations,” it said.
Real-time date from air monitoring by the EPA can be found at www.epa.gov/radnet.
With the risk to public health extremely low, the effort is more about perfecting computer models that will better predict chemical and radiation spills in the future than bracing for a threat, researchers say.
Federal agencies are not sampling at the beach. Washington also doesn't test ocean water for radiation, said Washington Department of Health spokesman Donn Moyer.
The state of Oregon is sampling, but looking for higher radiation levels closer to federal health standards, said state health physicist Daryl Leon.
The March 2011 tsunami off Japan flooded the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant, causing radiation-contaminated water to spill into the Pacific.
Airborne radiation was detected in milk and rainwater in the U.S. soon afterward.
But things move more slowly in the ocean.
“We know there's contaminated water coming out of there, even today,” Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, said in a video appealing for volunteers and contributions.
In fact, it is the biggest pulse of radioactive liquid dropped in the ocean ever, he said.
“What we don't really know is how fast and how much is being transported across the Pacific,” he added.
“Yes, the models tell us it will be safe,” Buesseler said.
“Yes, the levels we expect off the coast of the U.S. and Canada are expected to be low.
“But we need measurements, especially now as the plume begins to arrive along the West Coast.”
In an email from Japan, Buesseler said he hopes the sampling will go on every two or three months for the next two to three years.
Two different models have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals predicting the spread of radioactive isotopes of cesium and iodine from Fukushima.
One, known as Rossi et al, shows the leading edge of the plume hitting the West Coast from southeast Alaska to Southern California by April.
The other, known as Behrens et all, shows the plume hitting Southeast Alaska, British Columbia and Washington by March 2016.
The isotopes have been detected at very low levels at a Canadian sampling point far out to sea earlier than the models predicted, but not yet reported at the beach, said Kathryn A. Higley, head of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health Physics at Oregon State University.
The Rossi model predicts levels a little higher than the fallout from nuclear weapons testing in the 1960s.
The Behrens model predicts lower levels like those seen in the ocean in the 1990s, after the radiation had decayed and dissipated.
The models predict levels of Cesium 137 between 30 and 2 Becquerels per cubic meter of seawater by the time the plume reaches the West Coast, Higley said.
The federal drinking water health standard is 7,400 Becquerels per cubic meter, Leon said.
Becquerels are a measure of radioactivity.
The crowdsourcing raised $29,945 from 225 people, enough to establish about 30 sampling sites in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington and California, according to Woods Hole. The website so far has not reported any radiation.
Sara Gamble of Renton, the mother of a young child, raised $500 because she thinks it is important to know what is really going on.
Woods Hole sent her a bucket, a funnel, a clipboard, a UPS shipping label, instructions and a big red plastic container for her sample.
She went to Ocean Shores a couple of weeks ago, collected her sample and shipped it off. No results have come back yet. To do another sample, she will have to raise another $500.
“I got lots of strange looks at the beach and the UPS Store, because it's labeled 'Center for Marine and Environmental Radioactivity,' and it's a big red bin,” she said.
“But it's funny; nobody would ask me anything out on the beach. I was like, 'Aren't you curious? Don't you want to ask?'”
Taking the sample has allayed her initial fears, but she still thinks it is important to know “because it affects our ecosystems, kids love to play in the water at the beach, and I want to know what's there.”
For details on the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution radiation project, see www.ourradioactiveocean.org.
Woods Hole facts on Fukushima radiation is at http://bit.ly/KoFvKk
The video of the crowdsource appeal is at http://bit.ly/1krSzLH.