Radiation from Fukushima reactor detected off Vancouver Island

[Octafish]

Source: The Canadian Press

Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press
Published Monday, April 6, 2015 7:32PM EDT

VICTORIA -- Radiation from the leaking Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor has been detected on the shores of Vancouver Island, four years after a deadly earthquake and tsunami in Japan killed 16,000 people.

University of Victoria chemical oceanographer Jay Cullen said Monday that it's the first time radiation has been found on the shorelines of North America since the quake and tsunami ravaged the Japanese north coast and disabled the nuclear reactor.

Low levels of the radioactive isotope Cesium-134, which scientists say can only come from Fukushima, were found in waters collected on Feb. 19 off a dock at Ucluelet, B.C., about 315 kilometres west of Victoria, said Cullen.

Last November, the first sample containing detectable radioactivity from Fukushima was discovered 150 kilometres off the coast of northern California.

Over the past 15 months, scientists and citizen volunteers have been collecting water samples at more than 60 sites along the Canadian and U.S. west coasts and in Hawaii as they've looked for traces of radioactive isotopes from Japan.

"This is the first sample that's been collected in North America with this contaminated plume of sea water, which we've seen offshore, but it's the first time we've actually seen it at the shoreline," Cullen said.

Read more: http://www.cp24.com/news/radiation-from-fukushima-reactor-detected-off-vancouver-island-1.2314613

---

And it won' be da last.

[Buzz Clik]

1. It won't be the last, but the detected radiation will never get large.

Simulations of the movement of the radioactive plume demonstrate as much.

[Octafish]

2. True. But the radiation also demonstrates contamination from Fukushima is global.

And with that comes the various particulate contamination, so-called "hot particles" contaminated by substances including plutonium, which are a real problem for human beings and other living things.



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="blue"]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 file format): http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/07/f2/doe-std-1128-98_cn2.pdf

[FBaggins]

3. Global, yes...

... at an incredibly insignificantly tiny level for the vast majority of the world.

Particulate / "hot particles"... no.

Such are common from nuclear explosions, and likely to some degree from Chernobyl... but not from Fukushima (where the releases were almost exclusively volatile elements escaping as gases).

[SoLeftIAmRight]

35. up the food chain it will go

enjoy

[FBaggins]

39. Not really

Certainly not in the way that so many here seem to assume. Bioaccumulation is a more complex topic than people give it credit for.

The concept to read up on in this case is "biological half-life".

[SoLeftIAmRight]

42. reality check for an apologist - questions

1 - Do you think the Fukashima complex was built in an appropriate location?

2 - Do you think the amount of pollution be emitted from the destroyed site a good thing?

3- Do you think the reading might be a little higher closer to Japan?

4 - Do you think it would be wise for humans to be more careful in the ways we release pollution?

[longship]

51. Okay...

1. No. (Obviously!)

2. No, the amount reaching North America is thankfully tiny. In spite of all the problems, thankfully the Pacific Ocean is ginormous. And in spite of all the screeching by those who apparently only want to set people's hair on fire by making shit up about this. (E.G., sea stars)

3. Probably only near Fukushima, since these are not long-lived isotopes which is precisely how they knew that these measurements were from Fukushima. All longer lived isotopes are below background, in other words, not a detectable danger.

4. Of course, but this seems like a straw man. Nobody says we should not be careful. And in hindsight, Fukushima probably should not have been built how and where it was. So the question remains, what do we do about it now? All other questions and post hoc hand-wringing become moot. Except the lessons to be learned, that is. It is a bit late to not build Fukushima.

I've learned by my mistakes and I can repeat them exactly.
Peter Cook, a British humorist of some note.

on edit: and above all, transparency is essential. Saving face (or whatever one cynically calls covering ones ass in ones culture), much less so.

[FBaggins]

61. Answers

1 - I'm sure they wish it were somewhere else... but it really wasn't the siting that was the problem that really did the units in (or even height of the seawall). We could talk about unit design and that newer designs would not have melted down... but that wasn't available to them at the time.

What was available to them was the level of emergency planning that US reactors of the same era have to comply with. Things like waterproof bunkers for backup generators... replacement generators stored in safe locations that can be brought in... standardized connectors so that you don't end up with backup power that can't even be connected when the time comes... and (most of all) practice drills that actually bring in generators and connect them up.

They survived the earthquake... and even the tsunami strike. It was the loss of power that did them in, and that's something that regulators should have stricter controls in place for.

2 -Seriously? Did you expect anyone to say that it's a good thing? The ongoing releases are negligible compared to the initial release... but even those are not "good things"

3 - Of course (about 1,000 times higher IIRC)... and it was MUCH higher than that back in 2011. This is really the one for you to look at. Take a look "up the food chain". Bioaccumulation happened in some species, but the levels fell off pretty rapidly. There are literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of datapoints for crops, livestock, and seafood... and the remaining significant contamination for seafood is almost exclusively the bottom-feeders that are still in contact with high contamination levels on the sea floor.

4 - Oh come on. Seriously?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

64. I see that some people are not willing to fight for...

a future that is well planned.

All the talk about this is not so bad just works against any force that wants more thoughtful consideration about the future.

It seems that you might be well meaning but I suggest that you are short sighted.

Be well

[FBaggins]

65. On the contrary... I'm absolutely fighting for a future that is well-planned.

Fighting against the irrational/paranoid fears that cause some people to bite off their nose just to spite their face.

All the talk about this is not so bad just works against any force that wants more thoughtful consideration about the future.

Just the opposite. Insisting on people rejoining the rest of us in reality and accurately assessing what has really occured... is a necessary prerequisite for considering the future. I think, for instance, that a proper consideration for the future should involve understanding that the evacuations and coincident substandard housing conditions have already killed far more people than returning once the threat of sustained criticality and additional core damage was past. I think that a proper consideration for the future would include a better understading of the health and climate impacts of the billions upon billions of dollars in additional fossil fuel burning due to a national shuttering of nuclear plants (not to mention the extreme economic impact just at a time when they were exiting their decade-long recession and now have so much necessary rebuilding that the money could have been spend on).

I think the proper consideration for future generations is to increase the amount of nuclear and renewable generation substantially... until no coal or oil gets burned at all, and only enough natural gas to back up the variable generation of renewables that couldn't otherwise be covered by surplus baseload nuclear/hydro.

[RobertEarl]

75. Well planned future?

The world looks forward to a better plan for the nuke waste.

The only plan now is to bury it and find a way to warn future generations of where we buried it.

Currently we see that Fukushima has lost control of its waste. And now that waste is being found on our west coast. Sure, 'future planners' such as yourself said it would never reach the US and Canada, but here it is. So we must look at whether 'planners' such as yourself have any credibility. And the verdict is: NO. No credibility.

[wordpix]

78. well planned? bwahhhhaaa - for one, where is the waste going?

Well, first the highly radioactive spent fuel rods were going in pools of water to keep them cool until a suitable home could be found. But no one (and I'll bet that includes YOU) wanted them in their backyard, not to mention traveling around the country to get there. Then Congress found a suitable home at Yucca Mt. in Nevada, which likewise even Las V. residents did not want and they're 100 mi. from the site. So the rods have sat in these old pools since the 1970's, just waiting for a disaster (earthquake, pump failure, whatever) to happen and contaminate a large area.

So, yeah, good planning. As for the future, I'm sure our descendents will be very happy that we left them with highly radioactive materials sitting around in old pools.

[wordpix]

77. please provide your position with nuke industry/reg agency

Your apologist stance is getting irritating.

[Wellstone ruled]

6. This why TEPCO has been so effective on

killing most information as to the real damage to their Reactor's. The Nuke Lobbyist have been very successful with killing the stories. Anyone with rudimentary Chemistry and Physics recognizes what is happening and the long term effects.

[Joe Chi Minh]

17. It is accumulative. Builds up in the body over time.

[Buzz Clik]

21. Sort of. Cs-137 has a biological half-life of about 70 days.

That indicates that, yes, it bioaccumulates, but it flushes from the body somewhat quickly.

[Larry Engels]

24. Get your facts straight.

Cs-137 has a half life of 30 years.

Besides, the article is talking about about Cs-134, which has a half life of 2 years.

[Buzz Clik]

27. God, I hate this. Ok, science lesson time:

The article mentioned ¹³⁴Cs because it could only come from Fukushima. Why? Because ¹³⁴Cs has a radiological half-life of 2.06 years, and ¹³⁴Cs from any other sources would have long decayed away.

¹³⁴Cs will not appear in the absence of ¹³⁷Cs; the ¹³⁷Cs will be there, too, but because of its longer radiological half-life of 30.2 years, ¹³⁷Cs could be coming from a number of other sources.

The biological half-life of ¹³⁷Cs is identical to that of ¹³⁴Cs, a matter of a few short months. Therefore, given the very short biological half-life of both isotopes of isotopes compare to their radiological half-lives, it is a safe assumption that neither will bioaccumulate to any extent in humans.

Are we clear now?

[Larry Engels]

28. Source?

I don't take my science lessons from someone named Buzz Clik.

[RobertEarl]

81. Accumulation in the body

True, some science says that cesium resides in the body around 70 days.

But what must be recognized is that since cesium is everywhere, bodies acquire more cesium almost daily.

So the chances of having a decaying cesium atom in your body these days is greatly increased. And for 70 days it has a chance to decay and radiate into your tissue.

[cheapdate]

29. If somebody offers me a piece of pie

but tells me first, "Oh yeah, it's just a tiny bit radioactive. There's a bit of cesium 134 in it." -- I'll probably tell them, no thanks.

If they explain that it has a short biological half-life, my answer is the same.

I'd prefer not to be irradiated from the inside, if it's practically avoidable.

[Buzz Clik]

31. If someone offers you a piece of pie, it IS just a tiny bit radioactive.

If radioactivity frightens you, you are screwn. You absorb radioactivity with every cosmic burst that hits your skin. And you can't hide in your basement because it has radon in it.

Sorry.

That being said, Fukushima was an avoidable disaster.

[cheapdate]

33. If I'm offered two glasses of water,

and one of them is pure, uncontaminated spring water, and the other, I'm told, has been carefully tested and determined to contain PCBs at a concentration less than 100 times the officially recognized safe limit, then I'm taking the first glass and not the second one.

If I'm offered pie that is known to contain unnatural radioisotopes, I'm going to look for alternatives. You can have my slice.

[Buzz Clik]

34. I'll toss out both and take a glass from the tap.

You can have your glass of Organic Water and all that comes with it.

[cheapdate]

36. Most of the water I drink is from the tap.

My tap water is taken from the Stones River. The Middle Point Landfill is the largest waste landfill in the state of Tennessee. It's situated immediately on the bank of the Stones River, inside of a bend a few miles from Percy Priest Lake, which is the secondary reservoir for our drinking water supply.

Under what's known as the Bulk Survey for Release (BSFR) program, Middle Point Landfill began accepting low-level radioactive wastes from nuclear facilities in Oak Ridge Tennessee in 1997.

How Allied Waste Inc. came to own and operate the largest active waste landfill in the state of Tennessee, and how a Class I permitted landfill came to be located on a river bank just upstream from a major municipal drinking water reservoir is a long story.

We are in the process of moving from opposition within the system to a more confrontational approach, but that too, is another story.

[Buzz Clik]

44. Okay, your situation is totally different. Good lord.

Allied either established their site before the new regs or somebody was totally asleep at the wheel. Just a hint that they are leaking, and they get shut down.

The fact that they are receiving radioactivity is not only crazy it is in violation of federal regulations. RCRA controls waste disposal, and even a Subtitle C (hazardous waste) landfill cannot accept radioactivity.

How is this happening?

[cheapdate]

45. It's a long story.

Short summary from The Post:
http://www.murfreesboropost.com/how-did-we-end-up-with-middle-point-landfill-cms-4877

Public Comments from 2007:
http://www.tn.gov/environment/radiation/docs/PublicCommentsBSFR.pdf

There are ample hints that the liners are compromised and leaking, TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation) chooses to ignore or minimize the issue. The multiple gas flares around the site are another potential source of exposure. There are solid, reasonable, and well founded concerns over the siting and operation of this landfill. Government agencies dismiss all concerns with boilerplate language.

[Buzz Clik]

46. Any chance of getting your Congressman or Senator to put the cattle prod to EPA?

Or even Al Gore?

[cheapdate]

52. Possibly. Good suggestion.

Our congressman is Tea Partier Scott Des Jarlais (who famously impregnated a patient and encouraged her to have an abortion, all the while proclaiming his anti-abortion stance.) Our senators are GOPers Alexander and Corker.

TDEC is a big part of the problem. They have a way of pretending to be responsive to citizens, while they're actually interested in nothing more than defending business interests. And everyone in government defers to them and their statutory role.

I've just recently gotten involved and I'm still learning.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[FBaggins]

37. You have no option to avoid being irradiated from the inside.

Your body is itself radioactive. Several thousand Bq worth (compared to the 7 Bq per ton of seawater in this case).

[cheapdate]

43. It's not all the same.

<<TOXICITY SUMMARY: The element cesium exists in several forms known as isotopes. In nature, cesium exists only as a non-radioactive (or stable) isotope known as cesium-133 (Cs-133); however, there exist several cesium isotopes that are radioactive. The radioactive isotopes of cesium are formed during nuclear fission, in commercial applications such as the generation of electricity at nuclear power plants. The most important cesium isotopes in terms of their potential effects on human health are cesium-134 (Cs-134) and cesium-137 (Cs-137).>>

-United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) TOXNET (Toxicology Data Network), Cesium, Radioactive, Human Health Effects.

[FBaggins]

59. Actually it is

You provided a short clip related to the toxicity of cesium... but didn't compare it to the elements in your body that are also radioactive. TOXNET has them as well... why didn't you check?

Nobody in the world (yes, including Japan at the plant) has seen radiocesium levels high enough that the chemical toxicity of the element is relevant to the conversation (see below for why). The radiotoxicity of a given activity level of Cesium is virtually identical to that of the bulk of your internal radioemiters... because both are producing beta particles (electrons) of roughly the same energy level.




Example for above - One milligram of Cesium 134 produces almost 45 Billion disintigrations per second (Bq). This report says that the CS134 reading was 1.5 Bq per ton of water. So if you consumed an entire liter of seawater, you might have to worry about the salt content, but not the chemical toxicity of the .00000000000003378 milligrams of Cesium 134 that you were consuming.

[bvar22]

55. It doesn't matter how large the radioactivity from Fukushima is.

Radiation exposure is CUMULATIVE.
I've heard the experts say that ,
"Oh, its only as much radiation as you get in a X-Ray.....
Well, I've already had 3 X-Rays this year. Where does it stop?

ALL the new inputs of radiation to our environment ADD together,
3-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and on ALL add to our environmental radiation.

Do NOT buy the sales promo about "Its less than an X-Ray".
Thats crap.


The Lesson from Fukushima:
As long as we use nuclear plants,
Fukushima and WORSE will happen again
...and again,
...and again.

[jeff47]

4. Since it travels backwards through time, you'd think it would have already arrived. (nt)

[AnAzulTexas]

5. Going by the first few replies

there seems to be a lot of "nothing to see here"

I'll continue to stay pessimistic until TEPCO can prove that they have the reactors and the leaking under control.

[cstanleytech]

7. Thats because so far there still isnt.

Even if there is worse to come the only thing that can remove the contamination from the ocean is time but that aside this should be a wake up call that nuclear power is just a bad idea in general both because reactors can as we have seen become damaged and leak not to mention the massive problem of long term storage for the fuel and the other contaminated waste.

[dixiegrrrrl]

49. Did you see this earlier post? “No idea how to decommission reactors…the technology does not exist"

The Times of London, Mar. 27, 2015 (emphasis added): Japan faces 200-year wait for Fukushima clean-up — The chief of the Fukushima nuclear power station has admitted that the technology needed to decommission three melted-down reactors does not exist, and he has no idea how it will be developed.

In a stark reminder of the challenge facing the Japanese authorities, Akira Ono conceded that the stated goal of decommissioning the plant by 2051 may be impossible without a giant technological leap. “There are so many uncertainties involved. We need to develop many, many technologies,” Mr Ono said. “For removal of the debris, we don’t have accurate information (about the state of the reactors) or any viable methodology…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026454944

[AndyTiedye]

8. Fukushima Will be Spewing Radiation Forever

Nobody can really do anything about it, the place still to radioactive for man or machine.
What they found was cesium 134, with a half-life of about 2 years.
That is itself a breakdown product though, the reactors were not fueled with cesium.
They were using a mix of uranium and plutonium,
which have half-lives in the thousands, millions or billions of years.

[progressoid]

9. "radiation dose that is more than 1,000 times less than that of a single dental X-ray"

"The levels we are seeing are so low that we don't expect there to be impacts on the health of either the marine environment or people living along the coast," Cullen said.

"We're more than a thousand-fold below even the drinking water standard in the coastal waters being sampled at this point. Those levels are much much much lower than what's allowable in our drinking water."

Cullen said in a statement that if a person swam for six hours each day in water with Cesium levels twice as high as those found in Ucluelet, they'd receive a radiation dose that is more than 1,000 times less than that of a single dental X-ray.

[chervilant]

10. Your dismissive post

does not negate the fact that the environs immediately surrounding Fukushima will be uninhabitable for generations to come, nuclear technology to date has NO reasonable means of disposing of spent fuel rods, and there will be an increase in cancers as our species--indeed the entire ecosystem--adjusts to yet another massive dose of deadly radiation dispersing across our planet.

Your effort to minimize this catastrophe is pitiable.

[Bonobo]

11. As a Japanese resident, the ACTUAL dismissal I see is:

That hundreds of thousands of people have been and are still displaced as a result of the tsunami.

20,000+ people were killed and families destroyed, thousands of kids orphaned.

THAT is the real human face of this tragedy and the fact that it gets constantly disregarded is a monument to the ego of those who worry that a drop of radiation amy affect their own lives.

[F4lconF16]

13. Thank you for the reminder.

I have a cousin over there, and I still remember watching the news that day, for hours, and hours, and hours. Reading and watching the damage reports, seeing the photographs for weeks after. The radiation may or may not end up being a major problem worldwide--I'm not sure yet. But the immediate human effect was catastrophic, and something we should not, can not forget.

[Bonobo]

14. Than you for the empathy.

I'm always amused to see those on these threads that claim to be empathetic over the disaster are the ones that make the jokes: Bananas, kumquats, etc.

It's all so fucking amusing, I know. And it is fun to throw the nuclear argument back and forth and spar over words.... yep.

But here, you still feel the pain and damage around you. Nuclear power is an issue for sure, one that the Japanese talk about and think about.

But the tsunami and earthquake was the tragedy that broke cities, communities, and families.

I wish people here would reflect how lightly the jokes would be taken if we were talking about a tragedy in their backyard.

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. Auto-deleted. Sometimes silence is the better option.

[Larry Engels]

25. The Japanese people have some responsibility in this.

They need to control their government. Of course, this is easier said than done!

4 years after Fukushima, Japan considers restarting nuclear facilities


http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-nuclear-20150330-story.html#page=1

[progressoid]

15. It's not dismissive or an effort to minimize the catastrophe.

It's from University of Victoria chemical oceanographer Jay Cullen quoted in the article linked in the OP.

[chervilant]

23. And, you chose that particular passage because...?

I stand by my assertion.

[progressoid]

26. Because it's germane to the discussion.

Another question would be, why are so many ignoring the other half of the article?

And as stated below, the real disaster is in Japan. That the barely detectable effects of that disaster should reach our shores seems to be a selfish reaction to the tragedy.
I suppose a headline that said, "While Japan struggles to rebuild and recover, the effects on North are negligible" might not be as sensational.

[Buzz Clik]

20. His post was not dismissive and not talking about Japan

It was a statement of fact (mostly quoting an expert) about the west coast of North America.

[DeSwiss]

47. +1000

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. That is almost too pitiful a misrepresentation to even respond to.

Like the analogy with eating bananas.

[DeSwiss]

48. How pathetic.

- Bananas and six-hour swimming jaunts? Geeze.

[cheapdate]

54. There's a reason why lead shields are used during dental x-ray procedures.

Because until the equipment and safety procedures were worked out, people were harmed and injured by x-rays. In many cases, it's still typical today to leave the thyroid exposed during the procedure, unless the patient specifically asks that it be shielded.

Radiation is dangerous. I have a thyroid disease. So does my mother. I've had a lot of dental x-rays in my life. Are they related? Who knows. Do you?

All radioactive decay processes are not equal. Cesium 134 decay produces radiation of a specific frequency and energy. You might be comfortable with official claims of the relative safety of certain kinds of radiation, but I think it's prudent to consider such claims as speculative.

[FBaggins]

60. And there's a reason why they aren't used at other times.

Radiation is all around you, but there are levels that simply don't present an issue.

The comparison given in the article was that you could swim in water twice as contaminated for six hours a day every day for a year and it still wouldn't add up to 1/1,000th of a single dental xray dose.

I have a thyroid disease. So does my mother. I've had a lot of dental x-rays in my life. Are they related? Who knows. Do you?

There has been a small correlation between dental x ray doses (particularly with very young patients) and increases in thyroid cancer (and other thyroid disorders)... so it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility (though the chances are very low). There is also, however, a FAR larger correlation to genetic factors. If your mother has it as well, most specialists woud assume that was much more likely.

All radioactive decay processes are not equal. Cesium 134 decay produces radiation of a specific frequency and energy.


Not "frequency" perhaps... but yes, there certainly is something to be said for difference in radiation type (alpha/deta/gamma/etc) and energy level involved. One Bq of radiation from plutonium is not the same as the same activity level of cesium.

However, it's worth noting that the type and energy level of the radiation from Cesium (Beta radiation at a bit over 1 MeV) is virtually idententical to that of Potassium 40... and you have many thousands of those disintigrations occuring in your body every second. Seven more (assuming you could consumer a literal ton of water) is hardly going to make a difference.

[cheapdate]

62. All radiation consists of waves which have a frequency and an amplitude.

Or in quantum terms, both the energy and momentum of a photon are proportional to the frequency of the wave.

I might not swim in the ocean 6 hours a day, but the ocean is filled with living things that are there 24/7.

The amount of radioactive cesium, iodine, and other isotopes spread across 4,700 miles of ocean was small, this time. That's a lucky accident.

[FBaggins]

63. Not all radiation, no.

You're thinking of electro-magnetic radiation (which does include x-rays).

The nuclear radiation that we're discussing is primarily alpha and beta particles. They have charge and mass, not wavelength.

I might not swim in the ocean 6 hours a day, but the ocean is filled with living things that are there 24/7.

Yep... and for them it's useful to compare that 7 disintigrations per ton of water... to the 10,000+ disintigrations that are already there naturally (most of which are of the same type and energy level as that of cesium emissions). It's also worth noting the far higher amounts of activity from things like nuclear explosions that's still there.

The amount of radioactive cesium, iodine, and other isotopes spread across 4,700 miles of ocean was small, this time. That's a lucky accident.

And that's about the size of it. While the event was significant (the second worst nuclear power disaster)... it simply isn't a health threat to the oceans or mankind in general... and is barely a threat to the people closest to the plant.

[cheapdate]

71. Yes, all radiation.

All particles, including particles resulting from radioactive decay, have both a wave aspect and a particle aspect. Wave or particle models can be used. Depending on the question, one or the other model may be more useful. The wave aspect of particles involves a wavelength inversely proportional to the particle's momentum.

[FBaggins]

72. Very well... I stand corrected.

Thanks for the reminder. Believe it or not, I majored in the subject.

The rest of the conversation, however, stands. There is no rational basis for discussing chemical or radio toxicity of cesium at 7 Bq/ton of water.

[RobertEarl]

73. Keeerist

You sound like one of those climate deniers that go around looking like idiots saying an increase of 100 PPB of co2 can't cause global warming.

You have no medical experience, no biology experience, and yet, like all those crazy climate deniers are prone to do, make bold claims about the environment and the effect radiation has on lifeforms.

Get this: the levels of radiation in the world are increasing - meaning there is more radiation now because of man and his nukes. The natural background is about 6cpm on a Geiger counter and now the normal everyday levels have increased in some places by as much as 600%.

Your similarity to anti-science climate deniers is shocking.

[nikto]

12. 1 kumquat contains 23 Fukushimas ---Go eat a kumquat pie --You'll be fine.

Radiation is good for you.
Just like GMOs and daily vaccinations with triple-Thimerasol.

Wake up, people.

How dare you question this?

[closeupready]

22. +1, lol - you pretty much got it all down.

[longship]

53. What the fuck does this have to do with GMO and vaccinations?

One is precisely equivalent to cross-breeding (thousands of years old) with more specificity; the other is one of the most important life-extending medical discoveries in human history.

Thimerosal? Bah! Eat a tuna sandwich and get tons more mercury... And methyl mercury, not the safer ethyl mercury in thimerosal. BTW, you do know that thimerosal has been removed from most vaccines since early this century, don't you?

Utter anti-GMO and anti-vaccine pseudoscientific rubbish.

[nikto]

56. Laughably desperate response, just like your statement...

"Fukushima probably should not have been built how and where it was."

No shit, Sherlock.





Oh, and don't forget to breathe.

[longship]

57. Make sure you get your vaccinations.

You will save some child's life some day. Or somebody who cannot have the vaccine.

Herd immunity is not a joke. Anti-vaccination is a cruel and ignorant position with a real body count. People die when people don't vaccinate.

Thankfully there is no more smallpox -- thank you vaccines! We are getting close to eliminating polio. Influenza is more than one virus and it mutates easily so we will likely not be rid of it. It has been years since some hospitals have seen measles, until recently thanks to ignorant buffoons who listen to babbling idiots like Jenny McCarthy and don't vaccinate their kids. And people die.

Get your vaccines!

[nikto]

74. Vaccines don't work for everything...

[NuclearDem]

66. the fuck did I just read

[nikto]

16. No problemo

[Trillo]

30. This has got to be the biggest environmental disaster ever.

The effects will be long term and cumulative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disasters

[FBaggins]

38. Not even close

Try actually reading the list in the link you provided.

It isn't even that high up on the list of nuclear environmental disasters (though clearly #2 among those related to nuclear power).

[Trillo]

40. LOL!

You accuse me of not reading the list, then you insinuate that that list is ranked by some kind of order beyond category. There is no such assertion made in that Wikipedia article! Once categorized, the entries are unordered lists.

I do not believe the full extent of this tragedy will be known for some time. There has been unprecedented censorship invoked in regards to it.

[FBaggins]

41. Now I'll accuse you of not reading what you replied to

I nowhere "insinuated" that there was any ranking (either overall or by category).

I merely pointed out that if you read the actual list, you would see many (including many nuclear events) that were worse than Fukushima.

I do not believe the full extent of this tragedy will be known for some time

That's true almost by definition. It will take decades at least... but we're more than far enough along to tell that it is nowhere close to being as bad as... say... Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Castle Bravo (just to list a few of the nuclear events).

There has been unprecedented censorship invoked in regards to it.

Nope. There are conspiracy theories that try to pretend that there's "unprecedented censorship", but there hasn't been anything beyond the normal corporate/governmental desire to avoid looking worse than they have to.

[dixiegrrrrl]

50. 3 of the 6 reactors melted down completely

and as I posted up thread the head chief of the plant says there is NO technology that can handle the problems
and that is not as bad as Chernobyl which was a single plant?

You have an interesting perspective on things.

[FBaggins]

58. So?

Let's not oversimplify the issue beyond all recognition. Ten "Three Mile Island" events wouldn't become worse than Chernobyl just because there were three reactors. The specifics of the incident matter.

and as I posted up thread the head chief of the plant says there is NO technology that can handle the problems

Again... so? That isn't what he said - which was really just that (just as at TMI) they would have to develop the technology once they knew what it had to do. Perhaps one unit can be easily flooded and most of the fuel remains in the RPV... then they can use options very similar to the TMI defueling. Perhaps the one next to it cannot be flooded and they'll have to develop something entirely different that has to operate remotely at a distance. We won't know for years... but none of that tells you that Fukushima is worse than Hiroshima... let alone the hundreds of nuclear explosions that were performed in the Pacific. You say that three reactors melted completely... but almost everything (99.999+%) that melted down is still there in the containment. Hiroshima was in no sense contained... nor could there ever be a technology that could clean it up.

[Octafish]

67. What kind of person are you to belittle those who see Fukushima as a global catastrophe?

The technology to even gauge the extent of the problem doesn't exist, let alone clean up the three meltdowns.

[FBaggins]

69. A rational one, committed to helping others live in reality.

You should visit some time. I'm sure that we could arrange for a temporary visa.

Fukushima is in no sense a global catastrophe. The earthquake and tsunami were a catastrophe for much of Japan... and Fukushima was a catastrophe for the plant and surrounding area... but it was in not a global catastrophe, nor does it present the slightest possibility that it could become one.

The technology to even gauge the extent of the problem doesn't exist

Don't be ridiculous. The extent of the problem is pretty well understood. The specifics of how to clean it up cannot be known for a number of years (and there's a slight chance that it will be impossible). But the extent of the problem (that is, the specifics of the release and potential additional release) are pretty firmly understood.


You drive your car with the oil light on because you're in a storm and don't want to stop. It starts to run rough and warning lights go on all over the place. You pull over and it's clear that the car has overheated and pressure is venting from the radiator nd you can't get the engine to turn over. You're lucky enough to get out of the car just as some flash flooding undercuts the side of the highway and your car slides into a deep ravine (but luckily, out of the water). You call in your mechanic and want to know when you can get the car back on the road and how much it will cost.

He tells you that there's no way to know any of that (or even if it can be fixed) until he can get the engine open and see whether the valves are damaged... or the rings... or the pistons may even be locked in the block and the thing is a total loss. He can't even begin to tell you when he'll be able to answer the question because he doesn't know when/if he can get the ca out of the ravine.

Now... that's not an identical situation, because the mechanic doesn't have to develop new tools to work on the engine once he gets it open, and so many cars have overheated that he knows well what the possible failure points are and how much work is needed in each case... but you would still look pretty silly telling someone else that the technology doesn't even exist to determine what's wrong.

Not to contradict the head of the cleanup, but it isn't as much a technology problem as an engineering problem.

[Octafish]

70. Sideshow via crap allegory and ad hominem is revealing.

Radiation is spewing non-stop into the environment, including the Pacific Ocean. No one knows the location, let alone physical state of the reactor cores and how much radiation they are releasing or have released. Robots sent to look don't return. Ice walls don't work. No place exists to safely store the waste. Untold tax dollars and, more importantly, four years have been wasted on make work and public relations projects. That's also sideshow, but you don't mind.

[PearliePoo2]

76. The Fukushima mess is the poster boy of FUBAR

No end in sight.
No way to stop the leaks.
No current technology for a fix.
They continue to dump it into the Pacific Ocean.
They don't even know where the cores are for sure.
fuck..what a mess
Oh yeah and I can see Victoria, BC from my backyard, so I'm taking this very up-close and personal.

[wordpix]

80. so much for the "well planned" nuke industry

That isn't what he said - which was really just that (just as at TMI) they would have to develop the technology once they knew what it had to do.

[Octafish]

68. COMMENTARY: ‘Wishful thinking’ of nuclear insiders must not be allowed to be reborn

By TOSHIHIDE UEDA/ Senior Staff Writer
The Asahi Shimbun, March 24, 2015

FUKUSHIMA--Four years have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami triggered a triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in March 2011.

“Am I really living in a leading nation of the world?” I have been asking myself ever more often after I moved to this northeastern city, capital of the prefecture of the same name, in spring 2014.

At least 120,000 residents of Fukushima Prefecture still remain evacuated. Simply driving along National Route No. 6, which runs north to south across evacuation zones, or in its environs will let you see, whether you like it or not, many telltale objects such as dilapidated houses, a huge number of bags filled with refuse from the decontamination efforts, and debris left in the open.

A joint survey conducted recently by The Asahi Shimbun Co. and Fukushima Broadcasting Co. showed that 69 percent of Fukushima Prefecture residents believed that little or no foundation has been laid for post-disaster rebuilding. That finding is not surprising at all.

Just as disaster areas remain in such a plight, a subcommittee of the industry ministry began meeting on Jan. 30 to discuss what energy sources should be used, and to what extent, to cover Japan’s electricity demand in the years to come.

“I believe Japan’s (nuclear) safety regulation system has become a global standard,” the minutes of the proceedings quote one former industry ministry official as saying during a subcommittee meeting. “I just hope the public will fully understand that safety standards that are at the world's top level are now in place.”

Those remarks stupefied me.

CONTINUED...

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/column/AJ201503240005

[wordpix]

79. maybe not as bad as 7 billion humans destroying every ecosystem

on the planet, except for a few remnants in national parks and other preserves