QUESTIONS from STAKEHOLDERS

AMCHITKA STAKEHOLDER QUESTIONS

1. Why Didn't You Sample Salmon?

     Salmon were on the original list of target species developed by CRESP in the Amchitka Science Plan.  However, we were advised by biologists from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and by people who had worked on the terrestrial assessment of radionuclides conducted on Amchitka that Salmon were rare on Amchitka.  The Salmon Run at Amchitka may be small or non-existent because there are no good spawning streams for Salmon.  The streams near the test shots do not flow into the sea, but drop over bluffs or steep slopes.

     When we travelled around Amchitka, we found no Salmon, although our Aleut fishermen looked.

     We did however find Dolly Varden, another species that lives in the ocean and enters streams to spawn.  We were able to collect them from the creek near the airport, and from Cannikin Lake (which is land-locked).  The levels of cesium in Dolly Varden were low, even for those collected in Cannikin Lake, and were well below any human health risk.

2. What about Marine Mammals?

     Marine mammals were on our original target species list in the Amchitka Science Plan - to be collected by Aleut team.  However, it became clear that Aleuts could participate in collecting samples for this study only if they were with us on our ship. Amchitka is too far from the nearest villages at Adak,    NOAA determined that if Aleuts collected marine mammals for CRESP to be used for chemical analysis, they could not do so without scientific collecting permits, which required 2 years to obtain.

     We decided to take a food chain approach to marine mammals, and collect the food items that marine mammals eat (such as Sea Urchins, fish).  The levels of cesium and other radionuclides were low or non-detectable in the foods eaten by marine mammals. 

     The Aleut hunters on the Ocean Explorer with us did take one Stellar Sea Lion as part of a subsistence hunt.  They butchered the seal and froze the meat to take back to their villages.  They then wrote to the Museum at the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) and asked that the liver and meat they sent there be analyzed for radionuclides.  They wished to know if it was safe for them to eat the Sea Lion meat.  The Museum then asked CRESP to perform this analysis.  The levels of cesium were low and well below any levels that would cause harm to the Sea Lions themselves, or to people who consume them.

3. Do your Data Relate to Worker Risk?

     No.  The CRESP study was designed to examine radionuclides in marine biota.  It does not deal with any hazards that workers may have encountered before, during or after the nuclear testing, nor does it provide information about the  remediation workers who were on Amchitka in recent years. There are many ways workers could have been exposed, but the CRESP study did not collect any data that were relevant to this question..

4.  Were the Detection Levels Low Enough to Be Protective?

     Yes.  We designed our analysis plan so that our detection limits were at background levels, and were a 100 times below health risk standards.  The levels we actually found in marine biota were very low.  However, we wanted to detect levels in biota so that we would be able to determine which species accumulate levels (even though they were very low).  Thus, for cesium we analyzed some samples of Aleut subsistence foods using 1000 gram samples, and counting for 3-6 days. 

     It was essential to have detectable levels for some marine organisms so that we could provide information that would be useful for DOE to design a biomonitoring plan for the future.  It is the organisms that accumulate some radionuclides that should be used in the future for biomonitoring.  These would provide the earliest warning if there were ever a problem with radionuclide seepage into the marine environment.

5. How can You Say the Foods are Safe, if you Haven't Tested All Foods?

     It is never possible to test all foods because of the vast number of species that are available.  Instead, we developed a sampling plan that included organisms at different trophic levels on the food chain.  These organisms are representative of other species at the same level in the food chain.  For example, we expected that the levels of radionuclides would be similar among algae, and would be similar among fish, and would be similar among birds.  We found this to be the case.

     We used information provided by A/PIA on the species consumed in the Aleut villages to decide which species to collect.  In the summer before our collecting expedition, we held public meetings in Unalaska, Nikolski, and Atka to show them the tentative species list and ask them what other species we should include.   We also asked people on Adak whether there were other species we should add.  These discussions resulted in our adding another species of algae, Octopus, and a number different fish.

6. How can you Say the Foods are Safe if you Only Sampled in One Season, in One Year?

     Our data are from one time period, in one year - and they reflect that time period.  However, radionuclides accumulate in organisms, and the levels we found represent cumulative exposure over the lifetime of the organisms.  Some of the fish we collected can live for 50 (Halibut) to 100 years (some species of rockfish).  Some of the fish (Rock Greenling) have very small home ranges and reflect local exposure in the marine environments near the test shots, while others represent a larger area (Halibut, Pacific Cod).

     Our testing results will serve as a baseline for any testing that is accomplished in future years.

7. How Will I Know if Things Change at Amchitka?

     The only way to know if things change at Amchitka is to conduct periodic monitoring of the radionuclide levels in marine organisms.  It is essential to develop a biomonitoring plan based on the data generated in the CRESP study.  That is, the species used for biomonitoring should be those species that had detectable levels of radionuclides, even though they were very low.

8. What Happens if there is a Major Earthquake out at Amchitka?

9. What were the Major Conclusions About Food Safety from this Study?

     The main conclusion is that the human foods are well below the public health guidance levels.  Although we did not test every food, we tested foods in the different trophic levels.

     We also found that there was a wide range of organisms in the intertidal and subtidal habitats around Amchitka that could be at risk if there was radionuclide seepage.  A combination of sedentary and mobile organisms at different trophic levels can be used in the future as bioindicators of possible radionuclide seepage.

     We did not find local discharges of freshwater onto the ocean floor, nor did we find any freshwater flows through geological faults into the ocean.  Thus, we did not find any evidence that freshwater was currently carrying radionuclides out into the ocean.

10. How can you be confident that your sampling didn’t miss a seepage point?

     Sampling can never be universal. After examining the Amchitka history, geological information and conferring with people who had worked at Amchitka, we chose sampling areas closest to the most likely point for contamination to move from the cavities to the sea. We then established sampling transects all around those points in an effort to maximize the likelihood that we would find seepage if it were occurring.