You won't learn it any other way either, given that
Politicians and environmentalists however expressed outrage Sunday that the plant and nuclear inspectors had provided no information about the higher levels of cesium 137 released more than a decade ago into a lake that provides 68 percent of the drinking water to the nearby town of Biel.
Reconstructing how much there was at the time in the water of the lake from the sediment deposition might be possible. But if nobody has done this (yet) it's not the journalists' fault.
I wonder if this is the study. Yes, there is a Cs-137 spike at 2000. Smaller than Chernobyl. Smaller also than the atmospheric testing spike up to 1963. The 1976 spike is also from the power plant.
The article said geologists from Geneva University discovered it in 2010, and your study is after that. Since the journalist knows of the study (as well as a confirmatory one), the journalist could provide the contamination levels.
I take the paragraph you copied as meaning the outrage is over the length of time that this has been going on without information being provided. As of 2010, the levels were provided (by "accident").
Three of the five authors of the 2013 paper are from Geneva University including the corresponding author. The Lake Biel coring was done in 2010. Quoting:
"In the upper part of our Lake Biel sediment core, a small 137Cs activity peak dated to 2000 is for the first time revealed by this study (Fig. 1)."
It's the same paper. Took a while to get written up and published.
No, it's not the outrage (politicians generate that all the time) but the lack of information as such. But yes, the journalist could have linked to the paper which is open access. But that still doesn't directly give the contamination levels at the time.
> I can understand being upset about lack of information.
Yes, of course. Actually according to the article there was an event in 1998 that may be this event, and that at the time was reported. So, no cover-up.
You won't learn it any other way either, given that
ReplyDeletePoliticians and environmentalists however expressed outrage Sunday that the plant and nuclear inspectors had provided no information about the higher levels of cesium 137 released more than a decade ago into a lake that provides 68 percent of the drinking water to the nearby town of Biel.
Reconstructing how much there was at the time in the water of the lake from the sediment deposition might be possible. But if nobody has done this (yet) it's not the journalists' fault.
I wonder if this is the study. Yes, there is a Cs-137 spike at 2000. Smaller than Chernobyl. Smaller also than the atmospheric testing spike up to 1963. The 1976 spike is also from the power plant.
The article said geologists from Geneva University discovered it in 2010, and your study is after that. Since the journalist knows of the study (as well as a confirmatory one), the journalist could provide the contamination levels.
ReplyDeleteI take the paragraph you copied as meaning the outrage is over the length of time that this has been going on without information being provided. As of 2010, the levels were provided (by "accident").
Three of the five authors of the 2013 paper are from Geneva University including the corresponding author. The Lake Biel coring was done in 2010. Quoting:
ReplyDelete"In the upper part of our Lake Biel sediment core, a small 137Cs activity peak dated to 2000 is for the first time revealed by this study (Fig. 1)."
It's the same paper. Took a while to get written up and published.
No, it's not the outrage (politicians generate that all the time) but the lack of information as such. But yes, the journalist could have linked to the paper which is open access. But that still doesn't directly give the contamination levels at the time.
Okay, that's the right paper. It says 41 Bq/kg from a depth associated with the year 2000 (measured in 2010). So:
ReplyDelete41Bq/e^(-ln2*10 year)/30 year = 52 Bq/kg in 2000.
Okay, that gives the article some quantitative perspective. I can understand being upset about lack of information.
OOOppps...41 Bq/(e^(-ln2*10y/30y)) = 52 Bq/kg
ReplyDelete> I can understand being upset about lack of information.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course. Actually according to the article there was an event in 1998 that may be this event, and that at the time was reported. So, no cover-up.