OK

This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.

ATTENTION: READ THE RULES.

  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Over the past number of months I have been writing short diaries to combat what I see as a continuous stream of misinformation present online concerning the likely impacts of Fukushima radionuclides on the west coast. I have endeavored to present information that is peer-reviewed in open-access journals and to summarize new data coming out of a Canadian lead monitoring program in the northeast Pacific. In a piece published today on the website Energy News (link) the anonymous author accuses me of being inaccurate in my diary of Jan. 4, 2014 as follows:

In addition, the figures provided by the professor appear to be inaccurate:

1.  According to the source document, it’s Cs-134, not Cs-137, that measured 0.9 Bq/m3 (or 0.0009 Bq/L if you modify the units like the professor)..

2. The professor writes that in June 2013 there were “lower levels of 0.0003 Bq/L toward the coast” — This amount is not in the  measurements for 2013, the only mention of it was in 2012: “Levels of 137Cs equal to 0.3 Bq/m3 measured at Sta. P26 in 2012.”

My purpose in writing here is to point out that these statements by Energy News are incorrect.  Rather than refer to my primary source of information which can be found here they disingenuously point readers to their own incomplete and misinterpreted summary of the presentation given by Dr. John Smith and others on October 15, 2013 at the 2013 Annual PICES Meeting held in Nanaimo BC Canada. They did not contact me before posting this story and I have asked them to retract it without any response to this point. I respond specifically to their inaccurate points below the fold.
Intro

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

The numbers I have provided in my diary and referred to in interviews with various media outlets are accurate. Slide numbers refer to slides in the original presentation which I summarized in the diary and can be found here.

With respect to the accusation from Energy News that

1. According to the source document, it’s Cs-134, not Cs-137, that measured 0.9 Bq/m3 (or 0.0009 Bq/L if you modify the units like the professor)..
Fact: Both Cs-134 and Cs-137 were measured in all years (2011-2012) at all stations in the North Pacific shown on slide 11 of the presentation.
Stations sampled in June 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the subarctic northeast Pacific for Cs-134 and Cs-137
Cs-134 was below detection limit (0.0001 Bq/L) in 2011. Cs-134/Cs-137 in the initial release was ~1 according to Povinec and others (2013) Biogeosciences and references therein. Cs-134 detected in 2012 and 2013 was decay corrected to the time of the accident to determine the amount of Cs-137 that was detected in seawater owing to Fukushima release. Cs-137 activities that I reported are shown in the following figure on slide 14 of the presentation and shown for reference here:
Cs-137 activities measured in June 2012 ~1500 km offshore at Station P26 in the subarctic northeast Pacific
With respect to the accusation by Energy News that
2. The professor writes that in June 2013 there were “lower levels of 0.0003 Bq/L toward the coast” — This amount is not in the  measurements for 2013, the only mention of it was in 2012: “Levels of 137Cs equal to 0.3 Bq/m3 measured at Sta. P26 in 2012.”
Fact: Cs-137 levels of 0.0003 Bq/L were measured toward the coast in 2013

Shown here is slide 16 from the original source which summarizes the concentration of Fukushima derived Cs-137 along Line P in June 2013 which is reported to be <0.0005 Bq/L at Station P1. The actual value, according to the scale, is 0.0003 Bq/L and is the value that was measured at the site and reported by me in my diary.

Energy News did not bother to contact me to discuss my diary. I fully expect them to retract or correct their incorrect reporting. They actively contribute to misinforming the public by choosing to post such poorly researched and inadequate work.  I have formally asked them to remove their story (link) earlier this morning.  As of 1332h PST it is still up.  What is a scientist to do Kossacks?

Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 10:23 AM PT: I received the following reply from Energy News to this detailed diary that completely refutes their story.  They still refuse to retract their misinformed, poorly researched piece.

This was the response I received from Energy News in response to this post.  Judge for yourself how intellectually honest it is:

Energy News (anonymous) says

"Hope this address is suitable, I was unable to find one in your messages from today. I thought it would be best to address this via email, rather than on social networking sites.

I've been away from the computer for the last few hours and saw your various accusations of being dishonest, misleading, etc.

Yet, after making time this evening to review your recent postings,  I've come across no evidence that the issues raised in the report on ENENews are incorrect.

Please take the time to read this carefully and respond appropriately, as the statements of yours that  I've read thus far make it rather clear that you have not grasped the specific issues that were raised about your Jan. 4 diary.

Though, I appreciate you pointing out the error in the link for the source document. It has been updated and goes directly to the .pdf file.

Issue #1

You stated in your Jan. 4 diary:  “Fukushima derived Cs was detected all the way to the coast in June 2013 with the highest levels of Cs-137 farthest offshore (0.0009 Bq/L”

My response to this statement: “According to the source document, it’s Cs-134, not Cs-137, that measured 0.9 Bq/m3” on Line P in June 2013.

Your response:  “Both Cs-134 and Cs-137 were measured in all years (2011-2012) at all stations in the North Pacific shown on slide 11 of the presentation.”

Unfortunately your response does not address my statement. No facts are provided to back up your Jan. 4 statement that Cs-137 at 0.9 Bq/m3 was detected on Line P in 2013.

Your Jan. 4 statement specified these three elements -- Radionuclide: Cs-137; Concentration: 0.9 Bq/m3; Year: 2013

To back up your claim made on Jan. 4, provide the exact location in the Smith et al. (2013) source document where it shows Cs-137 was detected at 0.9 Bq/m3 on Line P in 2013.

It’s a very specific issue that requires only the relevant quotations from the source document. No lengthy reply is needed.  

I trust that if you are not able to provide the exact location of those elements in the source document, you will correct the diary which asserts I’ve mislead readers. If you do provide me with the evidence requested, I have absolutely no problem correcting any errors.

Issue #2

You stated in your Jan. 4 diary: “in June 2013 […] Cs-137 […] of 0.0003 Bq/L toward the coast” was detected on Line P.

My response to this statement: “This amount [i.e. 0.3 Bq/m3 of Cs-137 toward the coast] is not in the measurements for 2013, the only mention of it [i.e. 0.3 Bq/m3 of Cs-137] was in 2012: ‘Levels of 137Cs equal to 0.3 Bq/m3 measured at Sta. P26 in 2012.’”

Your response: “Cs-137 levels of 0.0003 Bq/L were measured toward the coast in 2013 -- Shown here is slide 16 from the original source which summarizes the concentration of Fukushima derived Cs-137 along Line P in June 2013 which is reported to be <0.0005 Bq/L at Station P1. The actual value, according to the scale, is 0.0003 Bq/L and is the value that was measured at the site and reported by me in my diary.”

Again, your response does not address my statement. In your Jan. 4 diary, you make the specific claim that 0.3 Bq/m3 of Cs-137 was detected in 2013.

The source document states “Distribution of 137Cs from Fukushima on Line P in June, 2013 shows values < 0.5 Bq/m3 at Sta. P1.”

The source document does not specifically state that the Cs-137 amount is 0.3 Bq/m3 as you did in your Jan. 4 diary. Rather it states the Cs-137 as a range of less than 0.5 Bq/m3.

To back up your claim made on Jan. 4, provide the exact location in the Smith et al. (2013) source document where it shows Cs-137 was detected at precisely 0.3 Bq/m3 toward the coast on Line P in 2013. If you are simply guessing the amount is 0.3 Bq/L based upon the color scale, that would not be at all precise or scientific.

And again, it’s a very specific issue that requires only the relevant quotations from the sole document you cited as a source, Smith et al. (2013).

 It's about 10p here but I'll be up for a few more hours. I look forward to your reply."

My response in addition to this diary was:

"Hi Enenews,

Please see my detailed response here:

http://www.dailykos.com/....

Issue #1.  Cs-137 and Cs-134 were measured on all cruises from 2011 to 2013.  Look at slide 16.  Cs-137 from offshore to inshore showing exactly the concentrations I report.  I can give you a table of values if the figure is too hard to interpret. The Figure on slide 16 shows Cs-137 of 0.0009 Bq/L at station P26 offshore and Cs-137 of 0.0003 Bq/L at station P1 inshore

Issue #2 Same as #1.  The numbers in the figure are the numbers we measured and agree with the 0.0003 Bq/L.

Please retract your story.  It is factually incorrect and dishonest."


Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to MarineChemist on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 01:42 PM PST.

Also republished by Japan Nuclear Incident Liveblogs and SciTech.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.