Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:14 AM Apr 2013

150,000 SQ.KM of Pacific with Fukushima nuclear material - ‘Remarkable’ amount released in ocean

Study: 150,000 sq. kilometers of Pacific with Fukushima nuclear material — ‘Remarkable’ amount released in ocean

Published: April 12th, 2013 at 12:43 pm ET
By ENENews

Title: Cesium, iodine and tritium in NW Pacific waters. A comparison of the Fukushima impact with global fallout
Source: Biogeosciences Discuss., 10, 6377-6416, 2013
Date: April 3, 2013

... Recently, large quantities of radioactive materials were released to the atmosphere and coastal waters following a nuclear accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant (NPP), which increased 137Cs concentrations in coastal seawater off Fukushima up to eight orders of magnitude above the global fallout background ...

... the measured 137Cs concentrations in surface waters ranged from 1.8mBq L-1 to 3500mBq L-1, up to 3500 times higher than the global fallout background, although the cruise track did not go closer than 30 km from the coast. … The elevated 137Cs levels covered an area of around 150 000 km2 (south of 38°N and west of 147° E).

...The contribution of 137Cs, 129I and 3H released from the damaged Fukushima NPP to the sea has been remarkable, as it has considerably influenced their concentrations in surface seawater as well as in the water column of the NW Pacific Ocean.

...

Full study here (PDF)

See also: Graphic: 900-mile-long "front" of most contaminated water from Fukushima Daiichi moving across Pacific toward U.S., Canada (VIDEO)


“So how far and how fast is the cesium traveling? If you take a broader
look at the Pacific Ocean and you look for a front of where you see the
edge of the cesium moving. This goes to March 2012, about 180 degrees.
This is actually based on samples, not models.”

http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf#


Published: April 12th, 2013 at 12:43 pm ET
By ENENews


89 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
150,000 SQ.KM of Pacific with Fukushima nuclear material - ‘Remarkable’ amount released in ocean (Original Post) DeSwiss Apr 2013 OP
K&R!!!!! burrowowl Apr 2013 #1
Gee, it'd be nice if it wasn't up to independent researchers to pay attention to this stuff. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #2
You must not have been paying attention FBaggins Apr 2013 #5
Really? So where's the data on radioactive isotopes in, say, Pacific fish caught for sale in the US? Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #12
It's too low to measure in almost all cases. FBaggins Apr 2013 #13
Exactly. The EPA isn't measuring it. The FDA isn't measuring it. My point exactly. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #15
Sorry... wrong. FBaggins Apr 2013 #17
Dance, dance, dance. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #19
Thanks for making my point. FBaggins Apr 2013 #20
If you've actually read what I've written, I'm not "predisposed to think" anything. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #22
you were corrected in a few simple errors FBaggins Apr 2013 #23
Right. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #24
Why did you bring Sr90 into the discussion?... SidDithers Apr 2013 #29
you're absolutely right, Sid; I meant Strontium, not Cesium. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #36
That's a big "IF" FBaggins Apr 2013 #39
Is wasn't a "goofy platitude" FBaggins Apr 2013 #38
what's the recommended level of excess radiation exposure above natural background? CreekDog Apr 2013 #25
There is no such thing FBaggins Apr 2013 #37
Apples and Oranges versus Bananas and Tuna Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #42
Nope. FBaggins Apr 2013 #45
Don't blame me if your ambiguous and confusing rhetoric ... Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #47
Lol! FBaggins Apr 2013 #48
Huh? hunter Apr 2013 #46
Try this for a "huh" - Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #49
You do understand that a much worse scenario is within our borders? mick063 Apr 2013 #3
Much worse? FBaggins Apr 2013 #4
You really don't know do you? mick063 Apr 2013 #10
Please consider posting this as an OP as it so succinct. snagglepuss Apr 2013 #11
In fact I do. FBaggins Apr 2013 #16
I have to disagree mick063 Apr 2013 #21
The methods of disinformation are many Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #40
Oustanding post! Octafish Apr 2013 #43
Aw... and you saved your first post for little 'ol me? FBaggins Apr 2013 #44
I agree with him. Occulus Apr 2013 #87
He's not a newbie FBaggins Apr 2013 #88
Yup nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #14
Yep. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #26
All this from one nuclear installation gone bad Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #6
This is one reason (albeit an extremely potent one) why..... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #33
Why do you hate nuclear power? malaise Apr 2013 #7
You mean aside from it being the most..... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #30
You did see my sarcasm thingy? n/t malaise Apr 2013 #31
Yeah I did. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #34
Honest question: Is Obama still intent on the taxpayer supported Nuke in Georgia? byeya Apr 2013 #8
Why of course! DeSwiss Apr 2013 #28
kick flamingdem Apr 2013 #9
Well, me and the birds are fine for today, nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #18
Hmmm.... Nanas! DeSwiss Apr 2013 #27
Check out this old Mork and Mindy you tube clip! Zorra Apr 2013 #32
From ancient times.... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #35
Fukushima is still out of control. Octafish Apr 2013 #41
De nada. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #50
And, don't forget ... Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #51
"This video has been removed by the user." hunter Apr 2013 #52
Yep.... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #53
Uploaded again, don't know how long it will last - Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #54
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell nt DeSwiss Apr 2013 #55
NOAA Sea Surface Temperatures reveals a surprising thing... Octafish Apr 2013 #56
Let me guess... FBaggins Apr 2013 #57
Is your mission in life to knock me for wondering about the stupidity of atomic power? Octafish Apr 2013 #58
Nope. FBaggins Apr 2013 #59
Keep the smears. It's the NOAA satellite data. Octafish Apr 2013 #60
There's nothing wrong with the data. FBaggins Apr 2013 #61
Who's the real 'internet nut,' FBaggins? Octafish Apr 2013 #62
You're not saying that you're responsible for the interpretation of the video, are you? FBaggins Apr 2013 #63
What a load of crap. Octafish Apr 2013 #64
I gave you the benefit of the doubt. FBaggins Apr 2013 #65
Write what you want. Just don't smear me. Octafish Apr 2013 #68
I didn't. FBaggins Apr 2013 #69
Really? Look at the map and see for yourself where the sea surface temperatures are highest. Octafish Apr 2013 #72
Right! What else could it POSSIBLY be??? FBaggins Apr 2013 #73
The NOAA map I posted was from the last month. Yours is from 1997. Octafish Apr 2013 #74
Did that actually make sense to you? FBaggins Apr 2013 #75
2002? Big deal. It's still not what you wrote. Octafish Apr 2013 #77
It's exactly what I wrote. FBaggins Apr 2013 #80
It's still there. Which reminds me why I don't trust the nuclear industry's perspective... Octafish Apr 2013 #81
Except that it isn't "there" FBaggins Apr 2013 #82
Except. It is. Octafish Apr 2013 #83
Repeating a clear falsehood doesn't make it any less dishonest. FBaggins Apr 2013 #84
All is well, right? Octafish Apr 2013 #85
All is most certainly not "well" FBaggins Apr 2013 #86
Let us compare, FBaggins. I say it's not normal. You say it is. Octafish Apr 2013 #79
FBaggins is up to his old tricks, eh? RobertEarl Apr 2013 #89
Is it time to quit eating from the Pacific Ocean? Coyotl Apr 2013 #66
My sense is to quit eating the salmon that swims long distances and tuna flamingdem Apr 2013 #67
This is also addressed to Flamingdem and any others Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #70
We seem to be caught between a wild-caught radioactive rock..... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #71
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #76
Yep.... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #78

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
2. Gee, it'd be nice if it wasn't up to independent researchers to pay attention to this stuff.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:57 AM
Apr 2013

Although far be it for me to suggest that, say, governmental environmental agencies of large First world countries that reside alongside, and eat fish from, said Pacific Ocean might at least pretend to give a shit.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
5. You must not have been paying attention
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 07:59 AM
Apr 2013

The "government environmental agencies" collected FAR more data than this.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
12. Really? So where's the data on radioactive isotopes in, say, Pacific fish caught for sale in the US?
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 03:38 PM
Apr 2013

Is it coming from the FDA? The EPA? Anyone?

I'll wait- if you can find it, I'd love to see it.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
13. It's too low to measure in almost all cases.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:10 PM
Apr 2013

And where it's possible to measure... it's been too low to care about.

Here's one from a few weeks ago.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling/FoodChain#salmon

There were also results published recently (and posted here) of Tuna caught off the West coast with identifiably contamination from Japan. Yet that contamination was a fraction of a percent of the radiation from the Potassium 40 that all tuna have in them.

If you read through the wildly ignorant posts online from people who were worried about a single Bq/kg... you'll know why the EPA doesn't have some sort of ongoing publishing of such numbers.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
15. Exactly. The EPA isn't measuring it. The FDA isn't measuring it. My point exactly.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:18 PM
Apr 2013

Saying "They're not measuring it because people are freaking out over radiation unnecessarily" isn't an argument. If people are "ignorant", fine, educate them. Don't contribute to the ignorance.

Isn't more information better? I'm sure there are some people who would like to know that seafood is being monitored. Humor them.

so.. does Potassium 40 get incorporated into human bone the way, say, Strontium 90 does?

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
17. Sorry... wrong.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:25 PM
Apr 2013

There's a difference between "isn't measuring" and "isn't publishing".

Isn't more information better?

Obviously not. Just look at any of the recent attempts post-Fukushima.

so.. does Potassium 40 get incorporated into human bone the way, say, Strontium 90 does?

Potassium 40 is in the human body all the time as well. We are naturally radioactive.



Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
19. Dance, dance, dance.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:31 PM
Apr 2013

I didn't ask if Potassium 40 is "in the human body".

I asked it it is incorporated into human bone in the same manner that Strontium-90 is.

Or do you deny that Strontium 90 can pose any sort of unique problems in that regard?

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.html#inbody


Now, I'm not really interested in playing these games with you anymore, but I'm sure I'll run into you in some other thread where someone is rambling on about how horribly dangerous and deadly pictures of naked women are.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
20. Thanks for making my point.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:48 PM
Apr 2013

I gave you a straight answer and because you're predisposed to think that things are worse than they are... you thought it was evasion and "games".

I asked it it is incorporated into human bone in the same manner that Strontium-90 is.

What's "in the same manner"?

You have somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 Bq of Potassium 40 and Carbon 14 in your body (yes, including your bones).


Or do you deny that Strontium 90 can pose any sort of unique problems in that regard?

It isn't unique in that regard. It's the one that's most "bone seeking" of the isotopes that you could be exposed to in a reactor accident, but radium is as well and you'll run into that in nature. Barium has at least one isotope that's a daughter of one of the cesium parents and it's also a bone seeker.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
22. If you've actually read what I've written, I'm not "predisposed to think" anything.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:57 PM
Apr 2013

The Fukushima multiple meltdowns were a rather unprecedented situation, so I'd prefer it if my taxpayer funded governmental agencies were paying attention, in particular, to the fish coming in from the N. Pacific that sit higher on the Marine Food Chain.

I'm not knee-jerk anti-nuclear power, and I don't appreciate being talked down to with "happy atom" platitudes. I'm not an idiot, thanks.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
23. you were corrected in a few simple errors
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 05:10 PM
Apr 2013

How does someone who isn't predisposed in one direction respond normally?

Not with a chip on his shoulder.

If you don't want to be talked down to, don't assume that you know things that you don't... because then even a polite conversation appears to be insulting. As you've just proven.

They ARE paying attention. They just haven't found anything CLOSE to levels that are newsworthy.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
24. Right.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 05:16 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:31 AM - Edit history (2)

You responded to a point about Strontium-90*; with its known issues around accumulating in bone- with a goofy platitude about how "everyone has radiation in their bodies", and I'm the one who comes off looking silly.

Sure.

But I know how this works. Like I said, you can do this dance with someone else. I'm not going to enable you to rack up any more posts doing.... whatever it is you're up to.





Edited for correct isotope. Sorry!*

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
29. Why did you bring Sr90 into the discussion?...
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:09 PM
Apr 2013

The vast, vast, vast majority of Sr90 contamination is a remnant of nuclear weapons testing from the 40s to the 80s (90s?).

And what the fuck is Cesium-90?

Sid

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
36. you're absolutely right, Sid; I meant Strontium, not Cesium.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:30 AM
Apr 2013
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207250060

Why did I bring it into the discussion? Because it's one of the byproducts of this meltdown. Whether or not Fukushima accounts for "the majority" or not, if there's an uptick due to Fukushima that's showing up in Pacific Fisheries, as someone who eats a lot of fish from the Pacific, I'd like to know about it.

http://www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/anzen_kiban/outcome/Proceedings_for_Web/Topics_2-09.pdf

Not because I'm all freaky-outy over any amount of radioactive material, but because I'd like to imagine the FDA and EPA are paying attention.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
39. That's a big "IF"
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 02:51 PM
Apr 2013
if there's an uptick due to Fukushima that's showing up in Pacific Fisheries, as someone who eats a lot of fish from the Pacific, I'd like to know about it.

There hasn't been such an uptick. I don't think there have been any fish with Strontium from Fukushima caught outside of the area close to the plant where fishing is not allowed (apart from research).

For instance - Here's a recent report of a fish caught near Fukushima. It contained about 200Bq/kg of Cesium and just under 2Bq/kg of Strontium. That's roughly in line with background levels of Strontium that are found in fish around the world (left over from weapons testing and Chernobyl).

It's also useful to keep in mind that Strontium is a "bone seeker" in fish as well... and you probably don't eat fish bones. So even if 2 Bq/kg were a concern (it isn't)... you still wouldn't have anything to worry about - and that's a fish caugt off Fukushima (where they can't sell the fish)... not somwhere that could end up on your plate.

You have far more to worry about from mercury in fish than Fukurads.

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/03/1-8-bqkg-of-strontium-90-measured-from-rainbow-smelt-in-minamisoma-city-fukushima/

Not because I'm all freaky-outy over any amount of radioactive material, but because I'd like to imagine the FDA and EPA are paying attention.


They have been. The place where imagination is actually required it to pretend that they haven't been.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
38. Is wasn't a "goofy platitude"
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 02:33 PM
Apr 2013

It responded to the substance of your error.

Bringing up Sr 90 (when none has been detected here and almost none was detected even in Japan) was a diversion (or simple misunderstanding).

But facts seem to go by the wayside in favor of your misperceptions.

The FDA did tens of thousands of checks just in the first couple months post-Fukushima... yet you sit here and just repeat nonsensical assumptions that the government isn't doing anything. They tested fish from Japan and 99.5% of them had no radiation from Fukushima detectable at all, while the remaining .5% were WELL below any regulatory threshold. In the absence of even fish from Japan causing problems, they told us that they weren't planning on a special program to test fish caught HERE... and the nuts (Gundersen etc.) made up nonsense about "the FDA refusing to even test!"... and that nonense has grown among the tinfoil hat crowd into a belief that our fish are contaminated and the government is hiding it from us.

The EPA dispatched additional radiation monitors to the parts of the US that would expect the highest levels to arrive... and they never saw anything to be even the slightest bit concerned about. Yet the tinfoil hat brigade instead looked at other sensors that were offline and declared that THAT was where the real contamination was and the government was turning off the sensors intentionally to hide it from us.

When you say "I know how this works"... you sound like you're in the brigade. Is that really what you intend?

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
25. what's the recommended level of excess radiation exposure above natural background?
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 06:27 PM
Apr 2013

how much do you recommend going over that amount?

do you not recommend going over at all?

or is some amount actually good, in excess of the amount found in one's body without additional exposure?

simple question, which is better to have the amount your body would have without exposure to specific sources or to have more?

more or less, which is better?

if you answer this question, i'll eat my hat.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
37. There is no such thing
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 01:59 PM
Apr 2013

That is.. there is no "recommended amount above natural background" because "natural background" isn't a set level (and most background dose isn't 'natural' in that sense). The guidance is almost always to limit exposure to the amount practicable.

As I've pointed out to you more than once, the normal background levels vary substantially from one area to the next (even from one home to the one next door)... and these variations easily exceed any exposure in the US from Fukushima.

I know where you're coming from. You've heard the BS about "no safe level" and assume that this means that any exposure, no matter how small, should result in action to avoid it... but that simply isn't the case.

Let me point out some examples that illustrate the fundamental error in your thinking:

Take the Pacific bluefin tuna reported on last month. A bit more than half of the fish tested came back with measurable amounts of radiocesium from Fukushima. And, as can be expected, some of the knee-jerk crowd here talked about avoiding tuna because of it. But the contamination in question ranged from zero to 1.3 Bq/kg in those tuna... while the "noatural background" (Potassium 40) in those same fish varied from about 250-700 Bq/kg. So if you had the ability to identify the Cs134 in those fish (no consumer-grade device could do so... but we'll just pretend), and you selected fish without any Fukushima radiation, you could easily add hundreds of times as much radiation to what you put in your mouth.

Or take cesium fallout is rain (in the US) in the weeks immediately following the accident. Obviously almost all of this contamination would end up outdoors on the ground... with some concentrating in drainage areas. Let's say that you could detect it with your home equipment (you couldn't) and elected to stay indoors in response. Most homes have higher radon levels indoors than what you see outside... and that different is MUCH larger than the highest level of FukuCesium found here. So again, by choosing to follow the logic of "less un-natural radiation"... you expose yourself to more radiation.

Other relevant data points include decisions that people make every day. Where in the country do you choose to live? How do you travel (air or ground)? Do you want granite countertops in that home you're thinking of buying? How about all-brick... or a brick facade... or just siding? Cast iron pots and pans or copper? Home on a slab or a crawl space over bare earth? Open your windows in the Spring/Fall or use the AC?

These decisions have more impact on your annual radiation dose than anything from Fukushima... so why are you so worried about one of them and none of the rest?

If you actually "get it" this time... I'll eat crow.

 

Mr. Eneos

(11 posts)
42. Apples and Oranges versus Bananas and Tuna
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:31 AM
Apr 2013

Gosh - What an interesting post. You write well, and are obviously intelligent. And, you are obviously well acquainted with the major issues and talking points. But, your rhetoric is a mish-mash of half-truths, errors, myths, logical fallacies, patronization (talking down to), ridicule, rhetorical questions ... What's up with all that?

You seem to be saying that you agree there is "no safe level of exposure" but then proceed to ridicule that very premise. That's confusing.

You said, "Take the Pacific bluefin tuna reported on last month" and talk about the tuna that was tested. So, you know about the contaminated tuna that showed up in California waters. Without getting into an argument about the data you quote, your point seems to be that there is K-40 (Potassium 40) in the tuna, and therefore the Fukushima radionuclides, being lower in concentration than the K-40, is insignificant. Right? (It's hard to pin down your point.)

Well, your conclusion depends on the relative health dangers of Potassium 40 and Cesium 137. You relate the health dangers in terms of Bq/Kg. There are multiple errors in that formulation.

1. Bq/Kg (Which means the number of radioactive disintegrations per second in each kilogram) doesn't distinguish between the kind of radiation - alpha, beta, or gamma - and the difference is crucial in estimating the effect on health. Even within some emissions, there are important differences - Such as the so-called "soft beta" particle, which is a lower energy beta, and contrary to expectations is more damaging to living organisms than more energetic beta emissions.

2. You don't make any reference to the body's response to K-40 versus Cs-137. Humans have been eating bananas for a long time, and if there were any danger in it we'd probably know by now. In fact, our bodies maintain a constant level of Potassium - whether stabile or radioactive, and when we ingest some, if it's more than we need, we then excrete the excess. So, you can eat bananas by the bunch day after day and never increase your body-load of Potassium. And as for the particular health impact of radioactive Potassium 40, a naturally occurring isotope which Earth's creatures have evolved with and adjusted to, it can be considered normal and non-harmful since the environment in which we evolved is the baseline for determinations of health effects (differences from what is normal.) In other words, the real meaning of "no safe level of exposure" is "No safe level of increase above the natural background radiation," and "natural" in this context excludes the radioactive contamination of our biosphere due to human nuclear activities since the early 20th Century.

3. If half of the tuna tested contains Cs137, and we don't have practical means of testing each mouthful, then it follows that we assume a 50% risk of internal contamination from eating a mouthful from any particular tuna. Each mouthful multiplies the internal dose if that tuna is dirty, and each subsequent dirty sandwich during one's lifetime adds to the physiological damage.

4. “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”

I'm just getting my socks on.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
45. Nope.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:22 AM
Apr 2013
patronization (talking down to),

Missed the irony there, eh?

1. Bq/Kg (Which means the number of radioactive disintegrations per second in each kilogram) doesn't distinguish between the kind of radiation - alpha, beta, or gamma

Which would be so much less embarrassing for you if it weren't for the fact that K40 and Cs134/137 are both beta emitters (K40 actually shows all three types of beta decay)

2. You don't make any reference to the body's response to K-40 versus Cs-137.

Ah... more of the banana defense. How original. The fact is that no, potassium levels are not a constant in the body (else there would not be such a large body of research on variability of potassium levels and how/when to treat them... nor any need to include potassium in multivitamins... or tell people how to increase their potassium intake). It is true that we excrete the stuff, but it isn't instantaneous. The excretion time delay for potassium is about 30 days. The biological half-life for Cesium is closer to 70, but it too leaves the body. So no... you can't eat large amounts of potassium-rich foods and never increase your "body load"... you'll just hit a higher equilibrium level as the excretion rate matches your higher intake levels.

a naturally occurring isotope which Earth's creatures have evolved with and adjusted to, it can be considered normal and non-harmful since the environment in which we evolved is the baseline for determinations of health effects

That's nonsensical (and laughable)... though frequently parroted here. Elements are one thing, but a gamma ray of a particular energy is a gamma ray of a particular energy. The tissue that is exposed to it has no clue what element it came from.

the real meaning of "no safe level of exposure" is "No safe level of increase above the natural background radiation," and "natural" in this context excludes the radioactive contamination of our biosphere due to human nuclear activities

Just as ridiculous. The radon in your home is "natural"... but amount that you are exposed to is much higher (in most cases) because we live in well-sealed homes (where we did not evolve). Cosmic radiation is entirely natural, but we didn't evolve at 30,000 feet... and our decision to fly (or to live at higher elevations) impacts that dose.

You seem to be saying that you agree there is "no safe level of exposure" but then proceed to ridicule that very premise. That's confusing.

There's a difference between being confusing... and just being confused. The "no safe level" spin has always been just that... spin. It relies on the fact that "safe" is taken to mean that there is absolutely zero chance of any negative impact. By that standard, nothing is "safe". It's true that there is no way to build a bridge such that it immune to collapse in all circumstances. Some people have an irrational fear of bridges... but we would laugh at them if they went on about how there's "no safe exposure" to bridges and drove miles out of their way to avoid them... because driving is inherently dangerous too. And yet here you are telling me that we evolved walking on dirt and there were no bridges around.

IOW, "no safe level" is true... it just doesn't mean anything. The implied corollary (that any additional amount is to be avoided) is simply not true.

I'm just getting my socks on.

What you forget is that there's far more involved than just being willing to tell the truth. You first must know what the truth is... and your first two posts are not encouraging in that regard.
 

Mr. Eneos

(11 posts)
47. Don't blame me if your ambiguous and confusing rhetoric ...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:42 PM
Apr 2013

draws fools into arguing with you. I'm not going to be your victim.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
48. Lol!
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:50 PM
Apr 2013

Says the guy who joined a website just to argue with me?

Yeah... that's believable.

How odd that when you're presented with facts you run and hide... calling them "ambiguous" or simply "rhetoric".

Nah... not odd at all.

And once again... there's very clearly a big different between something that is confusing to you... and that thing actually being confusing.

hunter

(38,264 posts)
46. Huh?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:29 AM
Apr 2013

If you hate nuclear power, this is not the way to do it.

If you are mocking opponents of nuclear power, well, carry on...

Me? I'm a Luddite and radical environmentalist. I find 90% of all human industry and "economic" activity utterly loathsome.

 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
10. You really don't know do you?
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:56 PM
Apr 2013

Let's just say that I work there.

I'm a Nuclear Chemical Operator and I work at these tank farms. I can't say a whole lot more, but I can say that a prolonged sequester is delaying the resolution of a potential disaster.

I'll explain a simple concept here. The ocean can dilute radioactive contamination to negligible effect. It won't take long to disperse the radionuclide's. A common saying in the nuclear clean up world is "dilution is the solution".

Aqua firs? That is a different story. They are extremely difficult to clean up and can take hundreds of years to naturally clean themselves. This is fracking type damage on steroids.

These tank farms consist of 53 million gallons of mixed waste. Mixed waste is a combination of hazardous chemicals (chemicals that requires DOT placards on vehicles that transport them) as well as highly radioactive waste. The contamination at Fukishima is almost 100% a radiological hazard with no other hazardous constituents involved.

The large-scale effort to clean up Hanford is nearly a quarter-century old. Hanford was the state’s largest recipient — more than $1 billion — of federal money under President Obama’s stimulus program. The money went to begin construction of a vitrification plant that will eventually turn radioactive waste to glass and permanently isolate it from the environment.

But the waste is, as Inslee described it, a “witches’ brew” and treating it poses a major technical challenge. The vitrification plant is years behind its original schedule and far over budget. Before the project can go ahead, the DOE plans a full-scale mockup demonstration to show that its technology can work. “This is something never before done in human history,” said Inslee.

In the meantime, the state will insist on additional monitoring, and wants sludge pumped out of the old single-shell tanks and into double-shell tanks. The first tank to be confirmed as a leaker — T-111 — still contains more than 440,000 gallons of radioactive sludge. It was built originally in 1943-44.


Here is a good link on adverse health effects from radiological contamination.

snagglepuss

(12,704 posts)
11. Please consider posting this as an OP as it so succinct.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:27 PM
Apr 2013

Trying to understand these situations can be overwhelming so the clarity of your post is much appreciated. Thanks.



FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
16. In fact I do.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:19 PM
Apr 2013
The ocean can dilute radioactive contamination

This is of course true... but it doesn't change the fact that the release from Fukushima into the ocean was much worse than the Hanford leak... even if it's many MANY times worse than what has been reported so far.

And the ocean isn't the only thing that dilutes the contamination. The Hanford leak has a large amount of dilution to come before it could impact drinking water.

Aqua firs? That is a different story.

Not really. It has to get there first (diluting all the way)... and then it's still mixed in with billions of times the volume as the 300 gal/year of the leak.

These tank farms consist of 53 million gallons of mixed waste.

When comparing Hanford to Fukushima... the volume in the tanks isn't particularly relevant. It's the volume that leaks out that matters.

In short... Nobody is saying that Hanford isn't a BIG deal... it's just not comparable to Fukushima.
 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
21. I have to disagree
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:55 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:05 PM - Edit history (5)

The volume that leaks out of the tanks is an unknown.


It has been revised upward in the last few years from a few gallons a year to hundreds of gallons a year. These have all been estimates.


There are millions of gallons of waste in single shell tanks. The vitrification plant (process that solidifies the waste into manageable logs) is years from completion. There is no major construction underway to build enough double shell tanks to hold all of the waste. Known "leakers" are transferred to the newer double shell tanks, but that is not a fast process, and old technology has not allowed for 100% transfer as well. Hence, this waste will continue to be stored in tanks built as long ago as 1944 far in to the future.

The tank leaks are not diluted well because they require water medium for movement. These tanks are located in a desert that receives less than ten inches of rain a year. Without a good, consistent flush of rain water, the contaminates will dwell in the soil, moving slowly down with each rainfall. An ever expanding underground cloud. In effect, a channel direct to ground water will be created and will eventually becomes saturated. Upon saturation it will "dump" a large volume in a short period of time. This ground contamination is not comparable with the ocean when speaking of dilution.

Where Fukishima as an instant, acute effect on the environment that can dissipate over a shorter amount of time, the tank waste is a slow, methodical contamination over expanding areas that cannot be cleaned up with current technology. Note: In the nuclear clean up world, clean up = dilution.


So it is a matter of what snapshot in time you wish to take the photograph. There will be a time when these tank wastes far exceed the contamination from Fukishima but in a more localized area and with a great deal more persistence. That is until it eventually travels to the Columbia River.

Edit upon discovery: Last revision estimates that up to 1 million gallons (that's right...1 million) have leaked from the tank farms. This is bad stuff. I know of a couple occupational exposures that resulted in debilitating injury. The word from the workers is vastly different from official accounts.


The Government Accountability Project claims that between 1987 and 1992, it took only 16 vapor releases requiring medical attention to trigger large scale investigations by the DOE, the then tank farm contractor Westinghouse, the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the DOE's Office of Inspector General, and, upon invitation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The investigations resulted in widespread changes onsite.

Now, over a decade later, the rate of worker exposure to chemical vapors has increased 750 percent, and over 1200 chemicals have been documented in the vapors contained in the tank headspaces.

The report claims workers exposed to the tank vapors have health effects ranging from nosebleeds, persistent headaches, tearing eyes, burning skin and lungs, constant productive coughs, shortness of breath, dizziness, nausea and increased heart rates. Despite these conditions, says the Government Accountability Project, CH2M Hill fails to require basic respirators in the tank farms, denies worker requests to use supplied air, and is planning to reduce the level of personal protective equipment used by tank farm workers.


I would like to note that WRPS is the company that currently operates tank farms and not CH2MHill which was the contractor at the time of this report..
 

Mr. Eneos

(11 posts)
40. The methods of disinformation are many
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 10:28 PM
Apr 2013

The most important thing for a disinformation operative, a web shill, a doubletalking corporate shill - is to pick the right victim. There's no advantage in arguing with someone who's on to you and laughs at your sophistry and fallacious rhetoric. What you require is a good but naive soul who (for whatever reason) thinks you are sincere. He/She can think you're misguided, but it is essential that they don't perceive you as a joker. That's the way to draw him/her into an endless, meaningless jabber-fest of non-sequiturs, ad hominems, false choices, false conclusions, and all the other manipulations and games that you use to wear them down, make them feel frustrated and angry. Emotion is your tool; use it against them without mercy. And after you've led them on for hours or days or weeks, they will be reluctant to admit they've been manipulated, and that is how you immunize them against an authentic critic who tries to clue them in. You're a con man, essentially, and that is your forte. So, don't forget to use ambiguous and vague rhetoric, and appear to be one one side while arguing back and forth from both sides, but never committing to any definitive set of ideals, beliefs, facts.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
43. Oustanding post!
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:34 AM
Apr 2013

They are Legion. Perhaps it's a calling, plausible denial.

Thank you, Mr. Eneos. A most hearty welcome to DU!

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
44. Aw... and you saved your first post for little 'ol me?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:35 AM
Apr 2013

Whether newbie or new identity... I'm flattered.

Of course... you left out one of the easiest ways to spot a troll...

... their first post looks much like that one.

Occulus

(20,599 posts)
87. I agree with him.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:56 PM
Apr 2013

It's what you always do, without end, in every discussion.

I've seen you do it forever, man. Give it up. You got caught by a newbie. Own it.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
6. All this from one nuclear installation gone bad
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 08:06 AM
Apr 2013

How many hundreds are out there lurking like ticking time bombs? How many eons is it that we will supposedly diligently be protecting the environment from all of the wastes? One of the most industrialized nations in the world, Japan, can't even keep the waste water from leaking. We can't keep the wastes from leaking at Hanford. 50 years down, 150,000 to go.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
33. This is one reason (albeit an extremely potent one) why.....
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:34 PM
Apr 2013

...I have absolutely no faith in the existing system to resolve any of the issues we face today. None whatsoever.

The existing system was what allowed the creation of this madness. The madness we now experience. Every. Single. Day. Mass murders and die-offs have become normal. We now live in SHOCK without realizing it. We are all suffering from PTSD. PTSD is becoming the NORM.

So it is utter fantasy to think that the existing system and the controllers at the levers of power will undo what it has allowed to go unfettered and unchallenged until now. (Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~Albert Einstein)

It is ridiculous to think that the corrupted political system, chained as it is like a slave to Wall Street, will ever act on anyone's behalf but the 1%.

There is one -- and only one -- [font color=red size=3]POWER[/font] that we have that is undeniable and unstoppable. THE ACT OF DOING NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

It is our power and our energy that makes all systems on this planet work. We cannot be held in chains by the 1%ers. Only by ourselves.

- If we ever figure this out en masse, we may have a chance to change things. But not until......

[center]
Willful Noncompliance Until Disclosure.

Willful Noncompliance.

Disclosure Now.
[/center]

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
30. You mean aside from it being the most.....
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:15 PM
Apr 2013

...STUPID, IGNORANT, ARROGANT, UNFORGIVABLE ACT OF BARBARISM EVER COMMITTED BY MANKIND?

- Here's one more reason: NSFW

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
34. Yeah I did.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:44 PM
Apr 2013

It's just that all things nuclear bum me out. Totally. We're still barbarians and have no business with such power.

NONE.

- Sorry....

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
28. Why of course!
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:02 PM
Apr 2013

[font size=4]He dances with the ones that brung 'em. [/font]


Looks like another news outlet has noticed that the Vogtle Nuclear Power plant, currently under construction in Georgia, is the recipient of federal loan guarantees some 15 times larger than the widely trumpeted Solyndra bankruptcy. And yes, Vogtle is turning into a boondoggle. So the Christian Science Monitor became the latest major pub to carry the story.(more)


- Besides, it's hard to hear the voice of the people over the noise of the money-counting machines......
 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
35. From ancient times....
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 12:01 AM
Apr 2013

...to the 70's of Mork & Mindy's time and even until today, it's the jesters who will tell us the truth. Always listen to the jesters.

- And always remember to keep a desk handy in the event of an unplanned nuclear holocaust....

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
50. De nada.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:55 PM
Apr 2013

If you're interested, ENENews regularly compiles reports from all over that the MSM never seem to find time for.

Two other sources you might like because they stay-on-top-of-it-EVERYDAY are:
MsMilkytheclown1
Rad Chick

 

Mr. Eneos

(11 posts)
51. And, don't forget ...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:41 PM
Apr 2013

Pinksaphirette and Kevin Blanch.

Did you see the video I posted about web shills - Before it was shut down? I saw it first on Youtube and it played up to the point when the lady was talking about war propaganda, and then it froze everytime. I expect a lot of folks are going to be uploading it all over the place and making it difficult to stuff down the memory hole.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
53. Yep....
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:40 PM
Apr 2013

...I checkout Pink each morning. She reads the articles to me while I have breakfast. And I watch Kevin sometimes when MsMilky or Rad Chick link to him for a particular reason, but for me -- he can be a little intense to watch everyday. But at least I know he's the REAL DEAL.

 

Mr. Eneos

(11 posts)
54. Uploaded again, don't know how long it will last -
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:20 AM
Apr 2013

Really good info about the Hasbarats and their kin:

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
55. “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” ~George Orwell nt
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:36 AM
Apr 2013

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
57. Let me guess...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:11 PM
Apr 2013

... you see that video and think that the ocean temperatures displatyed have something to do with Fukushima... don't you?

Hillarious.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
59. Nope.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:05 PM
Apr 2013

It's to lift people out of ignorance or give them the tools to do so themselves.

In this case, you need to understand how truly massive the amount of heat involved is when you're talking about thousands of square miles of ocean. Even if all three reactors were operating at full power (thousands of times as much heat) you wouldn't be able to see it in that view.

Just think of all the operating reactors in the world that don't use cooling towers (venting waste heat into a reservoir, river, or the sea)... you would see this kind of thing everywhere if that was enough heat to do that.

It can raise the temperature of a river by a bit... but thousands of square miles of ocean?

Think it through before you buy into the tinfoil hat nuttery that you'll find on the internet. Feel free to oppose nuclear power on more rational grounds... plenty do.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
60. Keep the smears. It's the NOAA satellite data.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:10 PM
Apr 2013

As for lifting people out of ignorance, start with yourself.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
61. There's nothing wrong with the data.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:11 PM
Apr 2013

It's the interpretation from some internet nut who thinks that she's seeing something from fukushima.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
62. Who's the real 'internet nut,' FBaggins?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:02 PM
Apr 2013

Me, for raising awareness of an important issue with life or death consequences?

Or you, a person who claims Fukushima can't affect the Pacific ocean because it's so vast?

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
63. You're not saying that you're responsible for the interpretation of the video, are you?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:13 PM
Apr 2013

I assumed you saw it at one of the usual suspect sites. Likely the UFO nuts (they're pushing this one the hardest) and just fell for it. Yes... if you were the source of the claim you would be the "internet nut" in this example.

Or you, a person who claims Fukushima can't affect the Pacific ocean because it's so vast?

"can't affect"? That's an interesting strawman. What I said was that the 3 degree rise shown as a plume from the region of Japan cannot possibly be heating from Fukushima. And it can't. It isn't physically possible.

Let’s take a simple arithmetic example. We’ll look at a volume of water 100 km on a side and 100 m deep (a tiny fraction of the area shown off Japan in that video). Now one calorie is defined as the amount of heat needed to raise one cubic centimeter by one degree Celsius. So first we convert that volume into cc’s and then multiply by three (because that’s the temperature increase displayed)

100 km = 100,000 m = 10,000,000 cm.
100 m = 10,000 cm.
So we’re looking for 10,000,000 x 10,000,000 x 10,000 x 3 - which equals 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 = or three quadrillion calories.

Now we’ll assume that all three reactors that melted down suddenly resumed fission reactions at full power. Between them they produced just over two gigawatts of electricity… which probably means they produced a close to six gigawatts worth of heat. So all we have to do now is convert gigawatts to watts, and then watts to calories so that we can make a comparison.

A gigawatt = 1,000,000,000 watts – so those three reactors would be producing 6 billion watts worth of heat. One watt is about 1/4th of a calorie every second. So we divide by four and we get 1.5 billion calories per second… but we need three quadrillion calories to get the job done.

Simple division now. 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 calories divided by 1,500,000,000 calories per second equals two billion seconds. Divide by 60 seconds per minute… and 60 minutes per hour… and 24 hours per day… and 365 days in a year… and you get a figure of about 63 years. IOW, It would take those reactors 63 years of ceaseless operation at full power with every bit of heat going straight into the ocean in order to raise 100kilometers square (with a depth of 100m) by three degrees.

Of course 63 years isn’t even close. Those cores aren’t producing 6 GW of heat… they’re down to about two megawatts between the three of them (3,000 times less)… and the volume of ocean in the +3 degree range on that video is orders of magnitude larger.


Or you could have just read my previous reply, rather than assume that you could ignore it. There are hundreds of power plants around the world that have to dump waste heat into the water... not just reactors, but coal plants and many gas or oil plants. They all produce WAY more waste heat than a reactor that has been offline for two years. If Fukushima could be the source of that plume, you would see them everywhere... and global warming would take weeks... not decades.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
65. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:26 PM
Apr 2013

If you're saying that was unwarranted... I won't argue with you.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
72. Really? Look at the map and see for yourself where the sea surface temperatures are highest.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 02:52 AM
Apr 2013

The NOAA data, the most recent available, clearly show the anomaly around Fukushima over a week this month. It is the largest, most consistent patch of significantly higher than normal temperature sea surface waters on the planet -- more than 3 degrees Centrigrade. Anyone can see that.

Oh, yeah. Almost forgot. The animation also exposed what kind of person you are.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
73. Right! What else could it POSSIBLY be???
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 07:23 AM
Apr 2013

Fluid dynamics is a fascinating subject... you should look in to it some time.

That area off Japan is where the Kuroshio and Oyashio currents collide. The Oyashio current brings cold (but nutrient rich) water down from the Arctic and the Kuroshio current brings warm waters up from around the Philippines and Taiwan. Their mixing is why sea life off of Japan is so much more abundant than most of the rest of the world (and has thus impacted Japanese culture for centuries).

The two currents intermingle in inconsistent ways... sometimes colliding farther south along the coast, sometimes farther north. Sometimes with warmer currents predominating near the surface, sometimes colder ones. They blend and turn east to form what is called the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension (KOE) and are part of what is known as the North Pacific Gyre (where it interrelates with El Niño and La Niña events. Sometimes it's much colder than normal.. sometimes much warmer.

The flow of the Kuroshio current is comparable to the Gulf Stream. We're talking tens of millions of tons of warm water every second. Dozens of times more water flowing than every river in the world combined. Mother Nature is much more powerful than you're giving her credit for.

Hey! Want to have some fun? Why don't you post this NOAA data (clipped down to just the 2001/2002 period) onto YouTube. Add a little mood music and you'll have the UFO nuts proclaiming "BREAKING!!! FUKUSHIMA MELTED DOWN A DECADE EARLIER AND THE GOVERNMENT COVERED IT UP!!!!!!!" within days.




BTW - Having looked a few images from previous cycles, I'll tell you that there's a good chance that if you zoomed in on the coast, you would find that the plume starts miles off the coast, and that the area around Fukushima is actually colder than normal... but it's hidden at the scale you're seeing.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
75. Did that actually make sense to you?
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:57 PM
Apr 2013

It was for multiple years and showed clearly that this type of image is by no means rare... nor is it in any way connected with power plants. You're embarrassing yourself and, frankly, the more sensible anti-nukes.

What you keep missing is that this is a common failing from the ufo websites. They see fog rolling in on a webcam and believe that it's a radioactive release. They see two pictures weeks apart of unit 4 being dismantled and declare instead that it collapsed. They see work lights through the fog and scream that fukushima is on fire.

Now they see a perfectly normal phenomenon that mankind couldn't replicate if we tried... and they see a new plume of heat from Fukushima... and you just lap it up. You keep going back to the credibility of the source... without realizing that there's nothing wrong with the source. It's the ignorant eyeballs looking at it and the active imagination behind them.

So tell me. Did you notice the joint N.Korea/China anti-global-warming device that they're still keeping secret from the world? You can clearly see the effect on those last two frames of the video. Hey! The map is from NOAA... so I must be right.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
77. 2002? Big deal. It's still not what you wrote.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 03:49 PM
Apr 2013

The animated map I posted clearly shows a temperature anomaly around Fukushima. It doesn't appear random, considering how the rest of the planet's oceans behave, some areas hotter than normal then cooling, others the reverse. It stays around Fukushima. Why that is, I don't know and haven't claimed otherwise, despite what you say I wrote.

Oh. I am sorry that I noted 1997. Your map did not appear as an animation for me on my phone. Now that I see it move, it does show temperature anomalies around Fukushima and the globe. Still, it only goes to June 2002. LOL.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
80. It's exactly what I wrote.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 12:19 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

The animated map I posted clearly shows a temperature anomaly around Fukushima.

Nope. Let's look closer (as I advised you to)



And then closer still



Those bastards! They ran a pipe out into the Pacific so they could vent all that Fukushima heat without it looking like it came from the plant!

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
82. Except that it isn't "there"
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:36 PM
Apr 2013

as I clearly showed you.

I suspected the woo was strong with this one.

On edit - and it just keeps getting worse for you. Here's today's data.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
84. Repeating a clear falsehood doesn't make it any less dishonest.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:56 PM
Apr 2013

You're making yourself look even more foolish. You're living in a fantasy world and need to at least visit reality periodically.

There is clearly no plume of heat emanating from Fukushima. There never was such a plume, but now even you must see this clearly.

Laugh all you want.

Believe me... I appreciate the free entertainment that you're providing. But you're making DU (and anti-nuke DUers in particular) look bad.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
85. All is well, right?
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:29 PM
Apr 2013

Look at your picture. It shows an elevated sea surface temperature around Honshu, by Fukushima. I didn't put it there.



You want me to say it's due to the normal deviations that happen everywhere? If so, it would happen and go away, like in other parts of the world, as shown in the animation I provided in Reply 56 <
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly.html >. But it doesn't, so I won't.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
86. All is most certainly not "well"
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:46 PM
Apr 2013

But that doesn't mean that any imaginary "not well" that you come up with is suddenly rational.


Look at your picture. It shows an elevated sea surface temperature around Honshu, by Fukushima.

"By Honshu"? You mean... the main island of Japan? Now we're imagining that Fukushima is responsible for any heat anywhere around the country? How much wilder can you get?

The spot on the map that is right next to Fukushima is colder than the area farther out to sea. There isn't any way to explain that other than the heat doesn't originate there.

You want me to say it's due to the normal deviations that happen everywhere? If so, it would happen and go away, like in other parts of the world

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Your entire experience on the matter is five weeks of weekly datapoints. These things happen all the time. Sometimes they're gone quickly, sometimes they last for months/years. You're in no position to declare "what would happen if". For heaven's sake... they've got years and years worth of weekly data that you can just pull up... why do you make such ridiculous comments without even checking to see whether you're making a fool of yourself? If, for instance, you looked at winter 2008 into spring 2009... you would see months and months of the same kind of patter NE of Honshu... with nary a reactor meltdown in sight.

Even the five weeks you've seen directly contradicts your woo. There are several spots that didn't "happen and go away" that are clearly "normal deviations".

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
79. Let us compare, FBaggins. I say it's not normal. You say it is.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:17 PM
Apr 2013

Anyone with a set of eyes can look at the NOAA maps and see for themselves.

Even more important, I also say three out-of-control nuclear reactors, including one that ran on plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel, that long ago went into full-blown meltdown and their busted-out containment buildings and surrounding storage facilities spewing radiation into something so big as the Pacific can do great damage to the environment and human life.

And you do not.



See. I kept it simple.

Just for you.



For those interested in learning more about the subject:

DOE-STD-1128-98

Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities


EXCERPT...

4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination

There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire
to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) [font color="red"]The one characteristic that many believe is
unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force. Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or
removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area.
[/font color]

SOURCE PDF: http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/standard/DOE-STD-1128-2008.pdf

More on what's been reported, re plutonium: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=584287

PS: Thanks for bringing up UFOs. Unlike so many these days, I do like to keep an open mind. It's part of being a Democrat.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
89. FBaggins is up to his old tricks, eh?
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:41 PM
Apr 2013

Did you notice how he started trying to make fun of you? And of the science?

Here is another link to surface anomaly.
weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
(link would not show hot? Hence this edit.)



What you pointed out, Octafish, is that there are three uncontrolled reactor cores that have melted from overheating. That as never happened before.

And one of them had a good bit of plutonium and again, that has never happened before. So we are dealing with unknowns.

What is surmised is that these melted blobs of nuclear reactor cores have burned down into the ground. That ground is next to the Pacific ocean and the ground water there moves into the ocean at a slow pace.

So what is most likely happening is that the water has been heated a few extra degrees and is leaking into the ocean. Making for this anomaly offshore.

This nuclear heated water is now surface water. It may only be a few dozen meters in depth. The fact that it contains many radioactive compounds could also be keeping it from mixing with the unpolluted colder seawater besides the fact that it can still produce constant heat.

Despite FBaggins simple pleadings that Fukushima meltdowns can't produce heat and that the failed plants don't release steam to the atmosphere, it surely is producing heat and steam. In fact those are the ways of releasing heat from controlled reactors - via water heating and atmospheric steam.

What we have here are uncontrolled reactors, and the science shows excess heat is being produced and that heat is affecting the temperatures in the nearby Pacific ocean.

flamingdem

(39,304 posts)
67. My sense is to quit eating the salmon that swims long distances and tuna
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:29 PM
Apr 2013

well blue tuna for sure. Then when the crap arrives quit all of it. This should be a huge news story but it's too depressing and the financial stakes are too high.

My question is should I leave the California coast when the radioactive crap arrives.

 

Mr. Eneos

(11 posts)
70. This is also addressed to Flamingdem and any others
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:05 AM
Apr 2013

anyone who doesn't understand the seriousness of the problem.

Yes, it was time to stop eating anything from the Pacific OR inland fresh waters back in mid 2011.

Here's some of my reasoning on the matter:

I was in Hawaii in November 2011 and found a news report from the preceding April 11 that said the local milk had been tested and contained 1,500% / or 1,500 times (they didn't agree on which as I recall) more Ioding 131 than was "considered safe." So, after 30 days of the meltdowns Hawaii's milk was already way past being safe.

I went to Hawaii thinking it was out of the more direct path of the jet stream and that the ocean waters would take considerable time to reach Hawaii from Japan. What I didn't count on was the surface winds - And I believe that is what contaminated the islands in such a short time.

I was a little encouraged by the mere fact that the local papers reported the story. so, I searched for more info. There was a story shortly thereafter about the dairy farms trying to mitigate the contamination using Boron - Which I suppose they would feed to the cows. I never found any follow up story; there was no mention of other radionuclides which certainly would have accompanied the I-131; there was no advice to people about how much milk (or butter or cheese) would be safe to consume, danger to pregnant women, infants, etc. There was nothing. You can still search out the original story, I think. I just found this on ENEnews: "Top Hawaii health official calls out Forbes’ journalist for reporting Hilo milk exceeds EPA radiation level… then admits he is “technically correct” Published: April 12th, 2011 at 6:25 pm ET By ENENews

Another matter: The first reports we got on the West Coast about contaminated tuna, presumably migrated from Japanese waters, was about mid-2012, if I remember correctly. But, the testing they were reporting was data they had acquired a year earlier.

Another problem: The kelp (and probably all the other seaweed/sea vegetables) was discovered to be contaminated a long time ago here in the L.A. arrea, and that is the food source for a lot of local fish. The fish that consume the contaminated seaweed will bioconcentrate the contaminants and be marketed locally.

Further: Using food and other products that contain ingredients from the ocean - toothpaste, for example - and trying to dodge the poisons by choosing products imported from Europe, S. America, Australia, etc. is not reliable: The products may show the country of origin/manufacture, but the ingredients' place of origin not be specified. And, of course, they might just lie about any of these matters and expect no serious penalty if they were somehow discovered. It probably wouldn't even be reported.

When I was in Hawaii I met a youngish Environmental Sciences student from UHH. I asked him to give me a call when he had some time to discuss the Fukushima incident and the impact on Hawaii's environment. He not only never called; when I said that to him he clammed up like I'd suggested something illegal or dangerous. The US has a long history of keeping the obvious secret from our ignorant and apathetic masses.

Just the fact that we're scavenging and digging for data that should be readily available from our trusted government and the institutions it controls and funds tells me I better watch out for Number One, and leave the naive good citizen attitude behind.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
71. We seem to be caught between a wild-caught radioactive rock.....
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:38 AM
Apr 2013

...and a GMO-fed hard place when it comes to eating things from the waters these days.

Personally, I try to limit most consumption of fish to that which is locally caught, or farm-grown catfish w/o GMO feed (almost impossible to know but some say so). I
had been finding the best selections at the local Farmer's Market (this is one of them), but here lately their selection and availability has gotten low and the prices are skyrocketing.

Here's a little more info:



Response to DeSwiss (Reply #71)

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
78. Yep....
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:14 PM
Apr 2013

...that chart (beginning at 3:50 on the video) is from a Dr. Helen Caldicott symposium. The ICRP Chart 111 refers to a reference for radiological exposures to Cesium 137 issued from the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»150,000 SQ.KM of Pacific ...