Fukushima is an ongoing problem

[RobertEarl]

Clearly, Fukushima has had - is having - an impact on the world. And since it is not being contained, its impacts are increasing daily. Just consider that billions of dollars are spent by the industry to contain the nuclear material. They spend all that money because their nuclear material is deadly and should be contained.

What we have now are at least 3 containment facilities in failure mode and the nuclear material is spreading around the world and being dumped into the Pacific.

Being aware of the Fukushima problem is a wise and healthy endeavor, eh?

[RobertEarl]

1. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution says: Quote:

The release of radioactive contaminants from Fukushima remains an unprecedented event for the people of Japan and the Pacific Ocean. Help scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution reveal the ongoing spread of radiation across the Pacific and its evolving impacts on the ocean.

http://www.ourradioactiveocean.org/

[NuclearDem]

2. PROTIP: The welcome page on a website doesn't count as evidence.

[Jesus Malverde]

4. It's called further reading for those that are interested

That Japan and the world are being impacted by this disaster doesn't need evidence.

[NuclearDem]

5. And further reading shows that the radiation levels on the West Coast

are within the levels WHOI expected from Pacific nuclear testing, not Fukushima.

Citing it as a website that proves "we're all screwed!" doesn't make sense.

[RobertEarl]

66. The welcome page doesn't count?

Bwahahaha. There you go again, making shit up.

I had told you i was ignoring you because you just make up bs. And damn are you good at it. Do you have a bs degree from some college? I should put you on ignore but, well, you do make me laugh.

Anyway.... I see you making excuses for the nuke power industry in thread after thread of mine. I see you trying to tell us that polluting the Pacific is not happening. Well, even the WHOI disagrees with you and so you have to make a bs statement saying that what they put on their website doesn't mean a thing.

No, polluting the air and the water is not something sane people condone, support or make excuses for. So what are you? A really good bs'er, or what, I wonder?

[NuclearDem]

69. Oh, Robert.

There is a middle ground between nuclear apologist and where you stand.

WHOI actually says their results are within what they expect as a result of Pacific nuclear testing, not Fukushima. Did you not even read the website you're linking to?

[RobertEarl]

71. Why do you hate science?

You seem to think it's all over. That is as anti-science stance as a climate denier.

The condoning and attempt to whitewash the pollution from Fukushima is being a nuclear apologist.

The science isn't in and you are already deciding what has happened. And you fight and cry about any science being undertaken.

[NuclearDem]

77. I don't hate science. I hate your strawmen and failure to grasp basic concepts.

You seem to think it's all over. That is as anti-science stance as a climate denier.

Tell me where I said it's all over. I'll make it easy on you: I didn't.

On climate denial, for someone constantly bringing that up, you seem hell bent on not accepting climate change as more of a factor in the sea star deaths than radiation. In fact, you seem to have a history of attempting to link ecological troubles to radiation when there is no such link and climate change provides a better explanation.

In short: despite claiming everyone else is anti-science, you seem to be rejecting the idea of Occam's Razor quite a bit.

The condoning and attempt to whitewash the pollution from Fukushima is being a nuclear apologist.

Pointing out that your claims are erroneous and not grounded in reality is not whitewashing or condoning Fukushima pollution. It's pointing out errors in your claims.

This is called falsification. It's a key component of the scientific method.

The science isn't in and you are already deciding what has happened. And you fight and cry about any science being undertaken.

Just the opposite, in fact. I more than welcome the atmospheric data, Amchitka study, and WHOI study you've cited. They actually show that you're claims are completely ridiculous, no matter how hard you work to misrepresent them.

The atmospheric data from the monitoring stations doesn't show the East Coast getting pummeled by Fukushima radiation. It shows that sensitive equipment picked up minute traces amounting to about a 0.5 mSv increase. In no reality could that be a reason for an Atlantic sea star die off.

The Amchitka study showed that while cesium from Fukushima was present in the wildlife, the plutonium in the mussels you try linking to the Pacific sea star die off came as a result of nuclear testing at Amchitka, and was consistent with pre-2000 levels of plutonium.

The WHOI's current 2014 results for the West Coast show cesium levels at what was to be expected from Pacific nuclear testing. You citing the teaser intro line to the website (which is marketing, not science) doesn't change that.

But why stop there? Your other claims are complete nonsense as well.

You claimed the water from Fukushima is heating the ocean, and cited a satellite image that shows hot water off the coast of Japan. You were shown that the necessary energy to heat that much water to that degree would require more energy than mankind generates in a whole year, and that tectonic and volcanic activity was more likely responsible, an idea corroborated by similar heat around the Pacific Rim and in volcanic regions.

You claimed radiation was killing the sea stars in the Pacific NW. You were shown the die off starting well before the accident, and that climate change was far more likely a culprit than radiation.

You've got some strange definitions of what constitutes science. I'll give you some help though: people finding errors in your claims are not "anti-science"; in fact, consistently dismissing falsification (again, a key component of the scientific method) by claiming conspiracy or the shill gambit actually constitutes anti-science; it's a hallmark of pseudoscience.

So, in short, your claims are ridiculous, and throwing tantrums over people correcting you is not an adult way to handle a conversation.

[RobertEarl]

78. My claims use the scientific method

Your claims are a denial of the science.

You post no links to back up your claims. And all you claim is that nothing happened, or is happening or will happen. Just like anti-science climate deniers do.

You have come to conclusions without using science. Such as what is killing the sea stars, how much dose we received from Fukushima, and your insistence that there is no link between manmade radiation and ecological damage. All pseudoscience and emotion based findings.

Don't you find it odd you spend more time attacking me than attacking the nuclear power industry, or other polluters? Makes me realize that I am having a huge impact alerting on their trespasses. Thank you for the affirmation of the soundness of my efforts.

[NuclearDem]

81. Except for the part about falsification.

In almost every case here, when you've put out a claim and it's been pointed out to be flawed in some way, you resort to personal attacks and claims of conspiracy or shillery. That is where your use of the scientific method ends. What someone actually using it would do at that point is evaluate those critiques, go back, and refine their claims so that they address those critiques as well. You just copy/paste arguments that have been refuted constantly.

You have come to conclusions without using science. Such as what is killing the sea stars, how much dose we received from Fukushima, and your insistence that there is no link between manmade radiation and ecological damage. All pseudoscience and emotion based findings.

You frequently cite studies like WHOI, atmospheric data, or Amchitka. I then go in and actually read them, and show how they don't claim what you do whatsoever. Either you don't know how to read a scientific study, or you're deliberately cherrypicking and/or distorting data. The former's excusable, the latter is grounds for losing any scientific credentials.

I can't do shit about the nuclear industry here. I can do plenty about your bogus claims, though.

As for the rest, I'm convinced that you just haven't taken a logic class, or may even just have trouble reading, because I haven't claimed anything that even resembles what you say I have. Misrepresenting and distorting claims is yet another hallmark of pseudoscience. Keep it up, Robert.

[RobertEarl]

82. You are wrong

You have not proven anything about anything except that I am having an impact on deniers of the science. You post nothing that backs up your assertions and you disclaim even the WHOI's PR as nothing to see.

You say I am doing personal attacks while your posts are full of you personally attacking me. Absurd.

I am always on your mind, while on my mind is the environmental calamity.

[NuclearDem]

86. Oh this is fun!

Alright, you got me. This is performance art. The best I've seen in a long time here.

[RobertEarl]

88. Your idea of fun, eh?

You say you can't do anything about manmade nuclear radiation!!

But you think you can do something about me!!

Just goes to show the absurdity.

You deny that the WHOI is concerned, you refuse to read Enenews.com.

All you have is: "If NuclearDem says it, it must be true"

[NuclearDem]

90. Oh dear God!

I love the ENENews is totally legitimate bit!

Now do the "you environmentalists are climate deniers" one. That's a hoot!

[RobertEarl]

94. There you go again

Attacking everything and everybody except the polluters.

I love that you think you can do something about me. Always on your mind?

Actually i find the attention rather absurd.


ETA: Readers, I apologize to you for not ignoring Nuclear Dem's attempts to make this thread in to another pissing match. I can only put up with so much carp before I have to flush it.

[NuclearDem]

99. Careful! That carp might have Fukuplutonium in it!

[RobertEarl]

101. See, that's how you are

Making fun of pollution.

There was plutonium released from Fukushima, and all you are doing is denying it.

You are trying to whitewash away the problem. You are in essence condoning and supporting the pollution.

Instead of going after the polluters, you come after me, who is exposing the polluters.

[malaise]

7. In a while they'll be spinning the consequences

Truth is scarce

[RobertEarl]

67. They may spin it

But they may not. We shall see. They are the only reputable group alarmed, concerned and being public, so there may be some real science that comes forth from the WHOI.

[Aerows]

3. I'm not sure how to stem it

It is indeed a problem, but solutions seem to be in short supply.

[RobertEarl]

8. Being aware is important

Some are in denial, but being aware and being careful is being intelligent.

If one is in denial one cannot intelligently adapt. Adaption to, and avoidance of the increased radiation levels is all we as individuals can do at this point.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. Do you live in the Fukushima prefecture?

[RobertEarl]

35. No, I don't live there

But a bit of what was there in Fukushima has come to where I do live. When it blew sky-high particles from there ended up on my house, in the trees, on the lifeforms that used to thrive here. We didn't want it, but the nuke lovers made it happen. Now all we can do is deal with it.

[snooper2]

73. have you washed the exterior of your house with a combination of bleach and ammonia yet?

[RobertEarl]

74. Right I washed down the trees too

And the bugs.

Your type of response is an enabling of the nuclear radiation. Your denial is anti-science.

[snooper2]

76. No, the chlorine gas produced neutralizes any radioactivity, you should know this

As well, I keep my orgonite protection from chemtrails handy at all times in the garage!

Everyone need to be aware!

[RobertEarl]

79. You post false info, again?

Why do you do that? You do realize it makes you seem rather odd, eh?

Oh, i get it, you are just trying to be funny. Well, you're not. Fail.

[snooper2]

80. So what do you do to protect your home and family from chemtrails?

We can't just bury our heads in the sand right!

[RobertEarl]

83. Doubling down on the absurdity?

Why do you do that?

If you have nothing of substance to contribute, then you should probably just ignore yourself?

[snooper2]

84. dude, you just stated that you have radiation all over your home and wildlife and bugs, what are YOU

DOING!


Have you watched this!


Radiation Protection - Iodine and Pectin - Fukushima - Prepper Survival HD

[RobertEarl]

85. Denial runs deep eh?

Denial of the power of manmade nuclear radiation and the denial of the Fukushima impacts, is reminiscent of the climate deniers' arguments.

Oh well, one makes their bed then sleeps in it. As for me I care for the innocents who are effected by manmade nuclear radiation and what Fukushima is doing to the environment. Just like the WHOI. Yeah, me and the WHOI are in the same bed. We care. We are smart and not in denial.

[maddezmom]

87. Did WHOI say the fallout from Fukushima made it all the way to NC?

Haven't seen it....

[RobertEarl]

89. My gawd

You missed all the reports about how the whole N. Hemisphere was dosed? And has been dosed for three years now?

Go read Enenews.com. Or if you want to remain uninformed, don't.

[maddezmom]

91. I don't trust ENEnews.com

They are seem like disaster junkies to me.

[RobertEarl]

92. You've not read it then

Because if you had you wouldn't be asking me about any of this dose.

Here, :

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless/2391/

And here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121343.htm

[maddezmom]

93. Hmmmm, rather biased sources IMO

But thanks for linking them.

[RobertEarl]

96. Tell ya what

Post your biased sources that say we have not been dosed.

[maddezmom]

97. Nah, people have given you links in all your threads but call them deniers, enablers

or worse.

[RobertEarl]

98. Nah? That's it? Just Nah?

You make my point rather well, thanks.

Here's another link: All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer.

http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1

[DeSwiss]

6. K&R

[center]

[/center]

''Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health experts do not recommend that people in the United States take precautionary measures beyond staying informed. And going forward, we will continue to keep the American people fully updated — because I believe that you must know what I know as President.''

- President Barack Obama, March 17, 2011 link

- See, Robbie? The President's on it! If there was a problem, he surely would have said something -- by now. Right?

[MoonRiver]

9. End times

because, well we just can't hurt bidness.

[bvar22]

10. "Relax! They're just venting a little steam."

"I know Science, and there is no need to be alarmed.
These modern plants have redundant back up systems,
and are SO safe that we can build them on KNOWN Earthquake Faults
and KNOWN Tsunami areas.
Only Luddites and Henny Pennys are worried about this.
Did I mention that I Know Science...and YOU don't?"

[corkhead]

11. and heavy water is wet.

[JEB]

12. I bet the nuclear industry is spending more money

trying to contain the flow of information than they are spending trying to stop the flow of radiation into the Pacific. It's the latest jobs program. Lie, obfuscate, distract and misguide. Must keep the idea of nuclear energy appearing viable.

[RobertEarl]

100. There is no telling how much $

They certainly are a failure at keeping it out of the ocean.

Thanks for your comment, JEB.

[Gravitycollapse]

13. "...its impacts are increasing daily." - That is a factually incorrect statement.

All indicators are that containment now is to a vastly greater degree than it was immediately following the disaster.

[RobertEarl]

15. Oh?

You have a link to that bit of news?

The latest news I have is that the water over the melted cores is still flowing into the pacific.

And many days one can see from the webcams at the meltdowns more emissions coming from the wreckage.

Chernobyl at least was covered up with concrete, not so at Fukushima.

Now, CG, do you have honest links or are you still in a wishful thinking mode?

What has happened is that the water being dumped has decreased somewhat the airborne emissions. Now it's all being washed a way a bit at a time via massive water flows. It is still increasingly polluting our planet, that's a fact. Otherwise it would be all over the news that it is contained finally, after 3 years.

[Gravitycollapse]

16. News would imply it hasn't been known already. Just because you don't know doesn't make it news...

It just means you know less than others.

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/27-1_buesseler.pdf

The peak specifically for aquatic emission was a month after the accident with emission values remaining fairly constant ever since. Without a doubt, the plant continues to emit radioactive isotopes into the ocean. That has never been in question.

This is being overly generous to your original claim, however, that the impact of the event is actually increasing (the oceanic plume of radiation is so diluted that it poses little or no measurable health or environmental risk as it spreads out http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26329323). And what actually pisses me off more about the vast majority of your statements regarding Fukushima is how this all appears to be a sort of apocalypse fantasy to you. By making this a doomsday event, you ignore the real life severity of the issue. Which needs no embellishment on your part.

Do you remember that time you tried to argue that Fukushima was heating the Pacific Ocean? Your posts on Fukushima are basically a chronology of scientific ignorance. What makes this worse is you are continuously provided with actual scientific information regarding the disaster by intelligent posters on this site and you choose to ignore it in favor of maintaining your apocalypse fantasy.

[RobertEarl]

17. Nice personal attack

You make some here proud!

So you admit that the pollution is ongoing. It has not stopped.

I have no apocalypse longing and you saying so is just cheap slander which makes you look foolish. You are the one who is full of contradiction and innuendo as you have shown right here and now. You have no credibility on this issue and you just showed why: Your emotions have run amok and your denial of basic science is all too evident.

[Gravitycollapse]

18. "So you admit that the pollution is ongoing. It has not stopped." - I never said it had stopped.

My emotions are that of frustration at witnessing the immensity of scientific ignorance you continue to spread all over this discussion board. Others have pointed this fact out over and over again.

We post studies over and over again from esteemed research institutions and journals that you disregard with no apparent justification. And your OPs on the subject continue to be absolutely riddled with ridiculous hyperbole.

I have no apocalypse longing

I don't believe you.

[RobertEarl]

19. There you go again

You just admit the pollution has not stopped.

Therefore it is ongoing and increasing.

And then you go off on another rant of a personal attack with a total lack of any science to back up your slander.

Guess what: Nuke plants are made to heat water. The fact that 3 nuke plants are releasing heated water into the pacific is a real simple fucking math equation. Can you do math?

Esteemed research institutions? From you? Hah. Never happened.

I linked to one above in a post: WHOI. They claim that there is a huge problem in the Pacific. That it is ongoing. And now you say it has not stopped. There ya go. Add it up.

[Gravitycollapse]

21. You realize that "ongoing" and "increasing" are not the same, right? You have to.

Because that is the least I require in this discussion that you understand simple semantic difference between common words in the English language.

The plume has reached the United States. Levels are elevated but as much as 5000 times (but as low as 370 times) lower than the maximum allowable levels which means they possess a negligible consequence on the health of humans or the environment.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26329323


The danger of Fukushima is localized. The discharge into the air was exceedingly dangerous for the surrounding area. That's why I asked up thread if you lived in the Fukushima prefecture because you seem to think you're going to suffer negative health consequences because of the disaster when that simply isn't the case.

Not only have I offered singular sources but I've also given you aggregated sources in the form of journal entries. You ignore them. Why? Well, the evidence doesn't support your narrative so you dismiss it.

By the reasoning of your argument, by heating a cup of water and throwing it into the Pacific I am also inputing thermal energy into the ocean. The problem here is scale. If we looked at a graph of the inverse relevance of thermal input to a large body of water, the function would be an inverse exponential function. At the extreme bottom end of input, the amount of energy involved is so low relative to the size of the ocean that the heat expelled by Fukushima is as irrelevant as my cup of hot water.

Can you conceive the size of the ocean? Now can you understand how much larger that is than the amount of heated water release by Fukushima? I've done the math for you before. You and I know this. So stop equivocating.

[RobertEarl]

23. Nice try

But you have proven nothing.

The satellites showed a plume of anomalous heated water in the Pacific right off the coast of Japan in the current that flows from Fukushima. Do you deny the satellites showed that anomaly?

If you keep adding more to something and that addition is ongoing, then yes it is an increase. But your emotions stand in the way of that simple observation. Your pro-nuke stance will not allow you to see anything that hurts nuke power. You are in denial. Sad to see, but there you are.

[NuclearDem]

25. You've already been told that's from tectonic and volcanic activity.

Not Fukushima.

[Gravitycollapse]

26. Except it was demonstrated in your own thread the anomalous increases happened 2 years before...

the accident as well. And happen in various parts of the ocean at different times for a number of reasons completely unrelated to Fukushima.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112741728#post8

I have a good memory, FYI.

[RobertEarl]

27. So your claim is

That the water from 3 melted cores washing into the ocean would not show up as a heat signature recorded by satellites?

It was amazing the jerkoff reactions in that thread. Thanks for reminding me.

[Gravitycollapse]

40. I assume satellite thermal imaging is quite good now...

With a very high resolution, I would not doubt it could pick up the signature of hot water exiting the plant into the ocean since that would be larger than the few meters resolution the cameras can resolve.

Is that what you're asking, though? Or are you asking if satellites have shown the temperature of the ocean as a body of water was elevated? That seems rather outlandish and without evidence on your part has little or no basis in science.

Like I said, the amount of thermal input into the ocean by the plant is negligible for anything outside of a narrow or small bay immediately next to the plant.

[FBaggins]

104. That's correct

The remaining heat from those cores could not possibly show up on those satellite images.

As was pointed out to you at the time... even when they were intentionally dumping many thousands of times as much heat directly into the ocean it didn't show up.

As was also pointed out at the time... there are two major currents (one cold... one hot) that merger right about where that spot was. Depending on which one comes out on top (pun intended) at any given time, you should expect a temperature anomaly off of Japan. You were shown plenty of examples (pre and post Fukushima) of colder anomalies.

Many times in the last several months, the same satellite data shows (using your brand of logic) that the Fukushima cores are now cooling the Pacific. I can't wait to hear your latest spin on the matter.

[RobertEarl]

105. Heh

Given that you claimed the cores are not even "hot" nothing else you say about any of this should be even considered. Here's the link to your "cores not hot" line of bs, but first a recap of the conversation:

RE: And the reason they do that is the core is still hot.

FB: There's no evidence that it's "hot".



http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10024304176#post27

[FBaggins]

106. You're just making yourself foolish

One is forced to suspect that that's your goal.

Given that you claimed the cores are not even "hot"

Which happens to be a true statement.

While you, OTOH, believe that they're still active - burning away uncontrolled somewhere underground... years later... despite all evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for the free entertainment.

[RobertEarl]

107. You just doubled down!!

Unbelievable.

They are dumping untold amounts of water on 3 melted cores and all that water is going into the pacific along with the groundwater flowing thru the site. They are attempting to construct an ice wall around the melted cores in order to stop the water from flowing into the pacific, and you say you have evidence that the cores are not hot?

No, FB, you don't have any evidence that backs your assertions that the melted cores are not hot. In fact everything points to you being absolutely mistaken and full of just wishful thinking. I too, have had the wishful thinking that this mess was never created. But, reality is what it is.

I, for one, will not attempt to whitewash it away and be in denial. You can attack me all you want, call me names... it matters none. Reality is we have a major calamity that is polluting the pacific ocean, and our atmosphere.

[FBaggins]

109. Doubled? Heck... it's at least triple or quadruple at this point.

You're not anywhere close to reality on this one. They aren't hot. There's no need to mince words or leave wiggle room... they simply aren't.

They are dumping untold amounts of water on 3 melted cores

Nope. They're dumping about 4-5 tons of water per hour on them. Note that an active reactor uses hundreds of thousands of gallons per minute to cool the core.

and all that water is going into the pacific along with the groundwater flowing thru the site.

Nope. Most of the water is pumped out and run through processing that either sends it back into the core or into tanks. If all of that water were flowing into the Pacific, they would actually detect higher rates of contamination in the water next to the plant. They haven't (as has been pointed out to you - with links - multiple times).

They are attempting to construct an ice wall around the melted cores in order to stop the water from flowing into the pacific

Nope. They're talking about constructing an ice wall around the reactor buildings to keep the groundwater from flowing in - thus reducing the volume of water that they need to handle.

and you say you have evidence that the cores are not hot?

Nothing in what I just replied to provides any evidence that the cores are hot. It's always entertaining for me to watch you list 3-5 unrelated claims and then jump to your conclusion as if there were actually a relationship.

No, FB, you don't have any evidence that backs your assertions that the melted cores are not hot.

No evidence at all? You mean evidence like multiple temperature gauges in each unit and the temperature of the water coming out of the cores? Or evidence like the simple fact that if they were hot, that would require active fission at this point and they couldn't possibly hide that (let alone deal with it with a few tons of water per hour)?

http://irid.or.jp/debris/S1-1E.pdf

The amount of heat created in the cores is a matter of un-debatable physics. There's been no fission there for over three years (remember that after about five years, spent fuel puts out so little heat that it can be placed in dry casks without any water cooling at all). If there was any fission going on there would be no way to hide it. There would be radioactive noble gases and radioiodine that would be easy to detect.

[RobertEarl]

111. You make it sound so cool, FB

Last edited Wed May 14, 2014, 11:30 PM - Edit history (1)

But the evidence is.........

They can't even get in to where the cores have melted. They have sent robots in and the robots melt.

"Cores are not hot" "fuel rods take five years to cool down", you say. Contradictions from you, again.

You claim this about reactors: "....active reactor uses hundreds of thousands of gallons per minute to cool the core".

Heh. Three reactors were running when the place blew up. So, in the first few hours when they had no water, the fission went out of control. And blew.

Thanks, you just proved that fission was out of control, and that in order to cool the cores down over the next ten days they would have used millions and millions of gallons of water. Water which flowed out of the 3 destroyed core containments and into the Pacific. And has been flowing for 3 years now.

Good gawd man, do you even read what you write?

[FBaggins]

120. "Good gawd man, do you even read what you write? "

I can't tell you how many times that question comes up when I read your posts.

They can't even get in to where the cores have melted. They have sent robots in and the robots melt.

You do seem to have an incredibly unique reading comprehension problem. It doesn't seem to matter what words you're presented with... you somehow come away thinking that they support your nonsensical positions. You've repeated this type of robot claim dozens of times and it has never been correct. And now the robots are melting? Hilarious.

"Cores are not hot" "fuel rods take five years to cool down", you say. Contradictions from you, again.

Nope. That's you making up reality again - since I never said anything of the sort. I said that after five years they produce so little heat that you can place them in dry cask storage and don't need water at all. It's actually earlier than that... but that's the regulatory time-frame. It doesn't mean that they're hot right up until that point.

Heh. Three reactors were running when the place blew up. So, in the first few hours when they had no water, the fission went out of control. And blew.

Other than generally correct spelling, that entire sentence had no connection to reality. The reactors were not running when they blew up... they hadn't been running for over a day before the first explosion. The reactors shut down automatically when the earthquake hit. The tsunami didn't knock out power for about an hour after that. Decay heat created all of the damage that we watched... there was no active fission.

Units 2&3 (the larger models) each produced almost 2,400 MWs of heat when they were running at full power. That figure dropped to about 150 MWs the instant that the reactor SCRAMed and 120MWs within the first ten seconds. They're down to less than 50MWs after about 10 minutes.

About an hour after the shutdown (when the tsunami arrived), decay heat was down to about 1.5% of the full-power rating. The problem is that 30-40 MWs is still a lot of heat if the pumps aren't working. By the time the unit 1 blew, the decay heat in 2&3 was only 10-15 MWs, but they couldn't shed even that much without pumps and the meltdowns were well under way there as well.

But the difference between that heat and the amount they would put out if they were "fissioning out of control" is massive.

And, of course, now... over three years later... the shorter-lived isotopes are all gone and the decay heat is far easier to deal with. The equivelent of 3-4 garden hoses (each) is more than enough. Which is why the temperature in the reactors is so low.

[RobertEarl]

122. 3 or 4 garden hoses? Bwhahaha

Incredible.

Ok, you have a point that IF scrammed properly the reactors would begin cooling.

The problem is that after any scram, the water either boiled off or ran out through the holes in containment and then the cores began to melt due to excess heating. The cores then were not in a configuration to create the highest potential heat. But once all the water had burned off, then what remained of the cores did go back to some fissioning as the scram configuration melted away.

And when some of the core material did explode it blew apart what was fissioning, making for even less concentrated core material to create more heat. But creating the heat it is doing, that is why they have had to pump water over the cores. Sure its not as hot as it was, but it's still too hot for even robots too get close to the melted cores. If they could get close to it, we'd all know where the corium actually is; besides that which was launched into the air.

Remember that used fuel is closely controlled and monitored to keep it from overheating and blowing up - like #4 fuel pool did.

So what we had in reactors 1-2-3 after a few days were cores that had melted down, all water was gone and some fissioning happening and then the building's of 1 and 3 blew up.

The containment of 2 was vented to the atmosphere and so its pressure was relieved preventing the massive nuclear explosions like we saw with 1 and 3. It's all on u-tube. 2 major nuclear explosions and venting of #2.

[FBaggins]

125. Three or four could handle it easily... probably fewer than that.

Let's see... a 100 foot 5/8 inch hose at 60 PSI is about 14 gallons per minute. That's 840 gallons per hour. 840 gallons is a tad over three tons of water... and they're spraying 4-5 tons/hour.

If you've got a 3/4 inch hose (same length and pressure)... you could do it with one hose.

Ok, you have a point that IF scrammed properly the reactors would begin cooling.

If? There's no debate over whether the reactors were shut down as soon as the earthquake hit.

The cores then were not in a configuration to create the highest potential heat.

Decay heat is not impacted by configuration.

But once all the water had burned off, then what remained of the cores did go back to some fissioning as the scram configuration melted away.

Nonsensical statement. Without water... there isn't anything to act as a moderator for the neutrons. It can't "go back to fissioning"... nor is there any such thing as a "scram configuration". You need a very precise configuration to get any fissioning... not to avoid it.

And when some of the core material did explode it blew apart what was fissioning

Nonsensical statement. Core material can't explode. You made this same ridiculous error with WIPP... assuming that nuclear material can be "unstable" in a way that causes it to just explode.

making for even less concentrated core material to create more heat.

Decay heat is not impacted by configuration

But creating the heat it is doing, that is why they have had to pump water over the cores. Sure its not as hot as it was, but it's still too hot for even robots too get close to the melted cores.

The only reason that robots can't get close to the cores... is that they're in a PCV that has no entry for robots. Temperature doesn't have a thing to do with it. They have thermometers in there and while the radiation would kill you... you could walk around inside the containment and it would just feel like a muggy summer day.

If they could get close to it, we'd all know where the corium actually is; besides that which was launched into the air.

No physical pieces of the core were "launched into the air".

Remember that used fuel is closely controlled and monitored to keep it from overheating and blowing up - like #4 fuel pool did.

Nope. Spent fuel pools can't explode... and #4 certainly didn't.

Look... that was nonsensical three years ago, but it's just plain crazy to continue to believe it at this point. I "get" that a woo youtube video of an explosion can be spun into whatever the nutcase speaker wants to say that it is... but we're looooong past knowing that it was nonsense. They've removed over half of the fuel from #4. There's exactly zero chance that there was a nuclear explosion (or any other kind) within the pool.

The containment of 2 was vented to the atmosphere and so its pressure was relieved preventing the massive nuclear explosions like we saw with 1 and 3.

Nonsensical statement. Pressure has nothing at all to do with nuclear explosions. Relieving gas pressure from the containment wouldn't avoid a nuclear explosion. Luckily... a nuclear explosion wasn't possible anyway. Also - see previous comment. When all there was to go on was a youtube video of an explosion, you could pretend that it was whatever you want (not that it would be any less nonsensical). The evidence is irrefutable at this point. There were no nuclear explosions.

[RobertEarl]

20. And

You should make clear to everyone reading this that you think nukes are the safest way to generate electricity. K?

That you are indeed a pro-nuke proponent. That will make clear to everyone where you are coming from and why you are so frustrated.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. "Nuclear is more dirty and less safe than renewables." - Myself circa April 27th

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4877639

[RobertEarl]

29. So what is your plan for the waste?

Seriously, you claim it is safe, so what do you do with the waste that remains deadly for 10,000 years?

The difference between you and I, is that the future matters to me. That I am able to see the big picture.

[Gravitycollapse]

31. We should use deep bore holes or deep geological repositories for our current waste.

Future waste should not be much of an issue as we will be rolling over to renewables and the only functioning nuclear energy plants left would likely be research facilities revolving around fusion energy.

[RobertEarl]

34. We tried that: deep holes

Last edited Sun May 11, 2014, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The WIPP - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in SE New Mexico, has been storing waste for 15 years. It has now quit receiving waste. Why has it stopped? Because the waste had what some would call an explosion down there and smoke was seen rising into the air.

WHOOPS - is now the most appropriate name for the place.

When was the last time you can remember a coal plant blowing up and 160,000 people were forced to evacuate the area - as happened at Fukushima and Chernobyl, too. These people may never return home. Never.

[RobertEarl]

36. DU thread about WIPP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4846608

Details about the WIPP fires and the failure of waste containment.

[Gravitycollapse]

37. I'm well aware of the fire and investigation.

It doesn't change my opinion. As extreme long term storage, those are really the only two viable options.

[RobertEarl]

39. Yep

That is the option at present.

So, we need to quit making more of it, is my idea.

Because already we have foisted on the future much deadly waste just so we can have a moment's comfort.

Did you hear many employees at WIPP were found to have plutonium in their piss? And you are cool with that? You should go volunteer there, if you are.

[Gravitycollapse]

41. The other option was to use fossil fuel powered plants...

Which would contribute to global warming. Pick your poison. I doubt you've been out living in the woods off the grid for the past 60 years. So if you're so fervently against nuclear energy, why are you using it at all?

This fire is an accident and the investigation should recommend ways to prevent it from happening in the future. But, unlike you, I choose to see this as an isolated incident that, while serious, can be resolved and prevented in other applications.

[RobertEarl]

43. 15 percent of elec is nukes

Like i say, all this for a few moment's comfort.

Doesn't matter, nukes are finished except when they can be subsidized by the government. Just as the WIPP place is. Yes, the DoE runs WIPP and they have a massive failure already. So placing any trust in your dreams of safe nukes is a damn foolish proposition. I ain't buying it. Sell it somewhere else.

[Gravitycollapse]

48. I have already shown you your smear against me is false...

I have said on multiple occasions that nuclear energy should be phased out for renewables. I even linked to such a post in this thread.

[NuclearDem]

24. Speaking of slander.

Total lack of self awareness.

[RobertEarl]

102. Calling someone pro-nuke is slander?

Bwhahahahaha. You make your bed you lie in it.

Unlike me who goes after polluters and the deadly, lying nuke industry, others here condone the pollution. They claim nukes are safe when the science says NO. So they twist and they turn, they spin and they make up stuff in order to protect the industry.

[NuclearDem]

103. I'm not even sure you know what "pro-nuke" means.

Though I imagine you think it's anyone who doesn't unquestionably accept your claims.

[RobertEarl]

108. Ok. Here's the thing

You claimed that you can't do anything about nukes, but you admit you want to shut me down.

The Truth of our conversations is that you have come after me time and time again for me using my freedom of speech to tell my opinions of what the nuke industry has done to our environment. Is some of it off base? Sure.

But you don't say anything about the lies of the industry. "nukes are safe" "Chernobyl can't happen again" that and more of a whole line of lies from the polluters. Do you say anything about that mass of lies? No. Instead, you come after me, an anonymous internet poster, with all your garbage, bs, denial and condoning of the environmental crimes of the nuke industry.

Shame on you, Nuclear Dem. Shame on you. You should retire your moniker and try a new angle.

[NuclearDem]

110. Alright, point by point.

You claimed that you can't do anything about nukes, but you admit you want to shut me down.

I don't want to "shut you down." I want to correct the errors you're making in your claim so that you can represent the anti-nuclear movement well outside of DU, but your behavior in doubling down, accusing people of being shills, and general nastiness towards people correcting you makes that damn near impossible.

If you're going to tread in a scientific field, then you're going to have to be open to critique and realizing that sometimes you might just be wrong.

The Truth of our conversations is that you have come after me time and time again for me using my freedom of speech to tell my opinions of what the nuke industry has done to our environment. Is some of it off base? Sure.

I'm not coming after you for your "freedom of speech." You make claims, and I respond to them. That you don't like the response is not an assault on your freedom of speech. I have my own freedom as well.

But you don't say anything about the lies of the industry. "nukes are safe" "Chernobyl can't happen again" that and more of a whole line of lies from the polluters. Do you say anything about that mass of lies? No. Instead, you come after me, an anonymous internet poster, with all your garbage, bs, denial and condoning of the environmental crimes of the nuke industry.

I don't address the nuclear industry here because the nuclear industry isn't making claims here for me to evaluate. You are making claims here.

Many of those claims are wrong to varying degrees. That in itself is not horrible; the scientific community functions by finding ways to refine insufficient hypotheses so they can better explain phenomena. Where this goes wrong here is that you take any attempt at correction personal, and assume the only people who could possibly take issue with your claims are nuclear industry apologists. That's a flaw in your logic.

Pointing that out doesn't make me a nuclear apologist; in fact, I have outright stated more than once, sometimes to you, that I'm no fan of nuclear power and favor cleaner sources like solar. You seem to routinely ignore that, though, and wrap yourself in a safety blanket of persecution complex and shill gambit.

Look, Robert, for all the shit I give you, you have great potential. You've got passion, and you obviously care about this issue. But as soon as you delve into personal attacks and put it in your mind that people who disagree are just shills, you're stuck.

You have to be open to correction. That's the bread and butter of the scientific method, and isolating yourself away from it just leaves you spinning your wheels in the mud; you won't get anywhere, you'll burn out, and people will have stopped trying to help and just either laugh or avoid you altogether.

[RobertEarl]

112. There you go again

Refusing to say anything bad about the lies and the pollution from the industry.

I don't need you to follow me around correcting me, because you are always wrong. If you posted anything correct about any of this I would gladly praise you.

Shame on you.

[NuclearDem]

113. Well, let it never be said I didn't try to help.

At any rate, good luck. You're certainly going to need it.

[RobertEarl]

114. Help?

You call giving me shit, as trying to help?

The only thing I need is for the nuke plants to close, the pollution to be cleaned up, and all the waste secured from ever entering the environment again.

Shame on you.

[NuclearDem]

115. You've brought almost all of it on yourself.

That you don't understand why is a part of the problem.

[RobertEarl]

116. Nothing has happened to me, NuclearDem

Except for getting dosed from Fukushima, and the pacific ocean getting polluted, I'm having a great life, and a good time on DU.

You make it sound like you matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are nothing compared to the nuke pollution. The only thing you have done is kicked my threads so more people can read them. I guess you did help?

This one has 32 recs. Thanks.

[zappaman]

121. "Except for getting dosed from Fukushima"

You got dosed by Fukushima?
Where do you live?
Are you okay?

[cantbeserious]

30. And How Do You, Or Anyone Else, Know That The Posted Studies Are Legitimate - Trust In Authority?

Yeah Right!

[Gravitycollapse]

32. They're peer reviewed studies.

[cantbeserious]

33. Peer-Reviewed - Easily Manipulated By Authorities - Only Publish Atomic Industry Friendly Articles

The important negative articles are withheld by design, never submitted or never written to begin with.

[Gravitycollapse]

38. So you just dismiss the entire institution of statistical investigation...

Which leaves you with fairy tales. There is a difference between dealing with corruption or bias on a case by case basis, addressing inconsistencies in methodology or questionable funding, and dismissing the very premise of academic research.

The latter is just anti science drivel.

[cantbeserious]

47. I Dismiss Blind Trust Placed In Online Articles When TPTB Can So Easily Corrupt Any Process Or Person

eom

[Gravitycollapse]

49. So your argument essentially amounts to an irrational fear of the internet...

Since I assume you already know that, for instance, a study from Stanford was done by human beings and not magical internet people who only exist In cyberspace.

[cantbeserious]

50. No Fear Of Internet - Only Great Concern For The Faith Some Place In Posted Studies And Articles

eom

[Gravitycollapse]

51. So you are saying we cannot trust the websites for academic journals...

And universities...Got it. That's an irrational fear of the internet.

[cantbeserious]

53. The Universities Are Not Free From Outside Influence

Anyone and any institution can be coruppted.

[Gravitycollapse]

57. Are you saying that because the chance of corruption exists it must be happening?

In other words, if the probability of X is greater than zero, X must be.

[oldhippie]

45. No one really needs to personally attack you .....

... as you do quite well all unto yourself. In a very entertaining way, I might add.

[RobertEarl]

46. You? Again?

Not dealing with the subject, going off topic, again.

You sound like a republican. Go away, Shoooo....

[darkangel218]

54. lol!

[WillyT]

28. Yes

[JJChambers]

42. It's both depressing and amusing that people are still alarmed over this non-issue

[RobertEarl]

44. No. It is wise thinking

The WHOI, is concerned about the pollution of the ocean. They know it is getting worse. (see first reply)

What is depressing is people acting as if nothing happened and that it is a non-issue.

[darkangel218]

52. Fukushima is a non issue??

*sighs*

[JJChambers]

55. It was an issue; it's been handled and is under control

Yet some people ignore science and post crackpot doomsday scenarios about Fukushima radiation on this very board. RobertEarl, for example.

[darkangel218]

56. Fukushima is FAR from being under control.

Just saying that "it is" won't change the fact that it isn't.

[JJChambers]

58. I see RobertEarl isn't alone. You two may continue

I hope you don't run out of tinfoil. The science is clear: Fukushima is not a threat.

[darkangel218]

59. Have a nice evening.

And you can keep the tinfoil for yourself. I sure don't need it.

[JJChambers]

60. I'm having a nice evening, as are the folks who live on the west coast

It's a good thing they didn't listen to the hysteria spouted off by (name removed) and sell their property.

[RobertEarl]

61. Say... you a pro-nuke person?

All you have introduced to this thread is emotional responses and slander.

The science regarding Fukushima tells us that the situation demands careful study and awareness of the impacts. And you deny that science and go off on personal attacks and whitewash of the known problems with Fukushima.

I get that it may petrify you to consider the real life ramifications of massive releases of nuclear core material on a fragile earth, but that gives you no cause to slander me or be an outright denier of the science.

Read enenews.com for more education and links to the science.

And please, quit embarrassing yourself and DU.

[RobertEarl]

62. Here is some science for you JJ

Evidence of airborne depositions

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121343.htm

""Since the double disaster of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that affected hundreds of thousands of people and seriously damaged the Fukushima Daichi power plant in Japan on 11 March 2011, minute traces of radioactive emissions from Fukushima have spread across the entire Northern Hemisphere. A monitoring network designed to detect signs of nuclear explosions picked up these traces from the stricken power plant. To date, more than 30 radionuclide stations that are part of the International Monitoring System have provided information on the spread of radioactive particles and noble gases from the Fukushima accident.""

*************************



In this report from the DOE, US government, it is described why they test for radioisotopes, where they test, when they test and some test findings. Note the excerpted listing for plutonium found in the mussels that were tested. This finding confirms the idea that plutonium can be passed up the food chain to the starfish.

http://www.lm.doe.gov/Amchitka/Sites.aspx

Title: Department of Energy: Biological Monitoring at Amchitka Appears to Show Impacts from Fukushima Dai-ichi Incident.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office Legacy Management (LM) has a long-term stewardship mission to protect human health and the environment from the legacy of underground nuclear testing conducted at Amchitka Island, Alaska, from 1965 to 1971.

Atmospheric monitoring in the United States showed elevated cesium activities shortly after the nuclear incident. LM scientists anticipated that atmospheric transport of cesium would potentially increase the cesium activities in the 2011 biological samples collected near Amchitka. Because cesium-134 has a relatively short half-life of 2 years and indicates leakage from a nuclear reactor, it is a clear indicator of a recent nuclear accident.

Because the Amchitka 2011 sampling event occurred soon after the Fukushima nuclear accident, the biota impacted by atmospheric precipitation showed the greatest impact (e.g., species that live in freshwater or shallow ocean waters) when compared to marine biota living in deeper water. This is because ocean currents are a slower transport process than wind currents. LM scientists anticipate that the marine biota will show the impacts of Fukushima during the next sampling event, currently scheduled to occur in 2016.

(One snip from report about the amounts found pg 226 of pdf)

* Plutonium-239 — 4.194 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue

[NuclearDem]

63. We've been over that Amchitka study Robert.

It checked for cesium levels in the wildlife as a result of Fukushima. That the study found plutonium in wildlife around a former nuclear test site (which was the whole point behind the study, not Fukushima) is not shocking at all.

They also pointed out the plutonium corroborated with pre-2000 levels, meaning the samples in the wildlife were not a result of Fukushima.

But here you are misrepresenting that study once again.

Strangely, we also went over the atmospheric monitoring data too, and yet you're still misrepresenting that as well. Extremely sensitive equipment picked up minute traces over North America; so what? A 0.5 mSv increase is utterly insignificant as far as human health is concerned.

[RobertEarl]

64. Here ya go, read up

Here's a bit of reading to do. This is directly from the admin of Enenews.com

http://enenews.com/bizarre-creature-turned-50-mile-stretch-of-california-coast-into-graveyard-in-summer-2011-govt-biologist-die-offs-like-this-very-rare-weve-never-seen-it-here-abalone/comment-page-1#comment-518076

1) "There is time needed to cause genetic changes"

>> It appears the scientists conclude the genetic changes took place "suddenly" after something "virtually unheard of" in that part of the world appeared in 2011 and then retreated. From the SF Chronicle article: "a species of phytoplankton virtually unheard of in this part of the world… Its modus operandi… is to suddenly appear… then retreat into tiny invasion-of-the-body-snatcher-type pods until ocean conditions are ripe for another rampage."

2) "Would the ocean current have had time to impact California coast"

>> In 2011, the California coast was impacted by fallout transported through the air and then the subsequent run-off, not contamination transported by ocean currents.

*40,000,000 Bq of iodine-131 in a single bed of kelp off California in March 2011
http://enenews.com/40000000-bq-of-iodine-131-in-a-single-bed-of-kelp-off-southern-california-amount-most-likely-larger

*California kelp had 2,500 Bq/kg of iodine-131 in seaweed in March 2011
http://enenews.com/california-2500-bqkg-iodine-131-seaweed-500-higher-other-tests-canada

*Kelp Study Author: California iodine-131 probably double or triple what we reported
http://enenews.com/study-author-california-iodine-131-underestimated-probably-double-or-triple-what-we-reported-it%E2%80%99s-not-a-good-thing-dispersed-over-a-variety-of-organisms

*Ocean water collected near the coast of Santa Barbara County on on March 22, 2011 had 14.7 Bq/m³ of cesium-134 and -137.
http://enenews.com/tv-at-height-of-fukushima-emergency-in-the-very-spot-in-california-where-the-radioactive-plume-was-forecast-to-hit-had-no-working-monitors-foia-email-shows-epa-decided-not-to-deploy-radnet-to

*Sr. Scientist: Most shocking thing is how US gov’t was “very concerned” about Fukushima radiation hitting West Coast and affecting Americans — Public told that everything fine (VIDEO)
http://enenews.com/tv-most-shocking-thing-i-found-is-how-us-govt-was-very-concerned-about-fukushima-radiation-hitting-west-coast-and-affecting-americans-public-told-nothing-video

*U. of California Dean: We detected “far more than I expected” of Fukushima radioactive sulfur in March 2011 — “Unprecedented increase” reported
http://enenews.com/university-dean-we-detected-far-more-than-i-expected-of-fukushima-radioactive-sulfur-in-san-diego-after-311-unprecedented-increase-reported-by-chemists-statement-to-media-i-d

[zappaman]

65. Hahahahaha

ENEnews?????

[NuclearDem]

68. Nothing but ENENews links.

You've officially jumped the shark, Robert.

[hobbit709]

70. that was obvious a long time ago.

[RobertEarl]

75. I get a lot of that

Some people are so deep in denial all they can do is try to kill the messenger.

And that is giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not full-fledged pro-nuke and anti-science.

Our society dies a bit each time. Just like with climate deniers. It seems to make some of you proud to be in denial.

[zappaman]

95. Oh, that happened quite some time ago.

[951-Riverside]

72. No it isnt. Radiation is good for you. Stop fear mongering. Yaaaay!

[DeSwiss]

117. Fukushima is but one symptom of the more obvious problems we suffer under.

We're almost always warned. This possible future been described to us and even prophesied for us, but we never seem to get it. Never understand what it means in time. We always seem to find ourselves where we are, due to our own ignorance. Willful ignorance for much of it. And FEAR. The FEAR is the worst of it.

Others have come and gone whose lives served to warn us, if we heeded the lesson. To teach us the lessons we needed. And yet here we are. They have died and we turned away, afraid to look. Afraid of what we'll see.

- We can do nothing as long as we're afraid.

[RobertEarl]

118. I get that people have fear

In my case it is a wonder that I am still alive, so hardly fear death.

My greatest concern is for the voiceless. The little kids who, were the situation explained to them, would be demanding their daddies' nukes be shut down and cleaned up, for it is they who will live with this legacy.

All I can do is keep writing, keep telling folks and keep demanding nukes be shutdown.

Truth is nukes are very fearsome. And the odds of success of clean up are practically nil. But I will die thinking that i did what i could.

Thank you, DeSwiss, for not being too afraid.

[DeSwiss]

119. Gratias, Amatorem Veritatis.

12:47 PM EST on May 14th, 2014
CNN: ''Problem from hell at Fukushima'' — Tons of ‘highly radioactive’ liquid pouring out of Reactor 2 each day — Mysterious explosive bang ''deep inside'' — 3 areas at bottom may be ruptured — Caroline Kennedy at Plant: US will help with the leaks; 21 y/o son 3-hr Tepco tour (VIDEO) link

09:33 PM EST on May 13th, 2014
Former official posts pics of bloody tissues after daily nosebleed: “You can no longer live in Fukushima”… many suffer due to radiation — Fukushima U. Prof.: Impossible to make it so people can live here — Top Govt Spokesman: Nosebleeds & nuclear disaster NOT related (PHOTOS) link

03:28 PM EST on May 13th, 2014
Medical Expert: Hundreds ill after Fukushima nuclear plant rubble burned in major Japanese city — Suffering nosebleeds, problems with eyes, throats and skin — Gov’t: Radiation levels were ‘low enough’ to be safe (PHOTO) link

[Octafish]

123. You wouldn't think it from the lack of science.

Ocean water off La Jolla coast being monitored (and not) for Fukushima radiation

By Pat Sherman
La Jolla Light, Feb. 4, 2014

EXCERPT...

In 2011 Thiemens and a crew of UCSD atmospheric chemists reported the first quantitative measurement of the amount of radiation leaked from the damaged nuclear reactor in Fukushima, following the devastating earthquake and tsunami there.

Their estimate was based on radioactive sulfur that wafted across the Pacific Ocean after operators of the damaged reactor had to cool overheated fuel with seawater — causing a chemical reaction between byproducts of nuclear fission and chlorine ions in the saltwater.

Thiemens has, for the past several years, unsuccessfully sought to obtain grant funding to follow-up his research, first reported on Aug. 15 2011 in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

However, he said neither the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board or National Academy of Sciences (of which he is a member) were interested in funding additional research to measure the Fukushima fallout.

“It’s probably one of these things that just fell through the cracks,” Thiemens said. “It doesn’t quite fall under classical (research criteria).”

CONTINUED...

http://www.lajollalight.com/2014/02/04/ocean-water-off-la-jolla-coast-being-monitored-for-fukushima-radiation/

I wonder if the respondents above, who find fault with you for posting about Fukushima, can show where up-to-date information on radiation from Fukushima and its effects can be found. If academics can't find funding for research on the subjects, shouldn't the governments of the United States and Japan step forward with the necessary resources?

[RobertEarl]

124. That is a good point

The govts. are not funding or doing anything to sample the ocean. It seems like policy to ignore it. Even the WHOI had to go begging for funds.

Lots of independents, as in the case of your link, have noted that there is pollution from Fukushima coming this way.