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

paleotn

(22,747 posts)
48. Seems reading comprehension....
Wed Jan 15, 2014, 07:01 PM
Jan 2014

...isn't one of your strong suites. The amount of background radiation received by simply eating, drinking, breathing and just walking around is relatively small, but so is the radiation received in the US from Fukushima via air, seawater, fish etc., simply because of the size of the accident and its distance from the US. THAT'S my point that you apparently don't get!

You're surrounded by ionizing radiation by simply living. Even from the the number of BEDs (banana equivalent doses) we're exposed to annually. Yes, a BED is a bit of a joke, but all of the amounts of ionizing radiation we're exposed to per year adds up. The average amount of radiation found in bananas is around 3,520 pCi / kg, mostly in the form of beta particles produced by the decay of K-40. That's a very, very tiny amount per banana, but does tend to send the worriers and the unbalanced into hysterics, thus its use by those of us who like to point and laugh at the hysterical.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

Though also tiny, our own bodies contain ionizing radiation sources withing our organic molecules, K-40 being one of them. C-14, as a tiny % of the carbon in every one of your cell's DNA, being another. That's right, a tiny portion of our own carbon atoms are magically decaying into nitrogen 14, and within our own DNA for god's sake! Scared yet?

The vast majority of the natural annual radiation dose received by every single American is from geologic sources (radon) and medical procedures, around 5.5 mSv per year. As a reference, just those two sources are vastly higher than anything we in the continental US will receive from Fukushima in a year. How am I so certain? Because we've been down this road once before. Chernobyl. Terrible for the Ukraine and parts of central Europe, but had no measurable affect on North America.

Fukushima will change life for the worse in Japan for many years to come. That underscores the fact that nuclear power should be curtailed since when things do go wrong, they go horribly wrong. However, going bonkers in the western US about radiation problems that simply don't exist doesn't help matters. It tends to paint all of us anti-nukes as nuts.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

on to the next feed-stock for the Soylent factories phantom power Jan 2014 #1
But it has nothing to do with Fukishema... zeemike Jan 2014 #2
Agreed yorokmok Jan 2014 #7
Maybe there we just a lot of pizzas ordered underpants Jan 2014 #8
Anchovies. ANCHOVIES! OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #10
Oh underpants Jan 2014 #19
I eat a tin of anchovies and a tin of smoked oysters for breakfast every day. OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #21
You know you don't do that. loudsue Jan 2014 #49
Fisheries off Japan aren't having similar problems. jeff47 Jan 2014 #13
no problems off japans coast? questionseverything Jan 2014 #24
One fish is not an entire fishery. jeff47 Jan 2014 #26
more from the article questionseverything Jan 2014 #29
You should try actually reading posts jeff47 Jan 2014 #32
Is this sarcasm? another_liberal Jan 2014 #30
That post was not mine, but it still wasn't Fukushima jeff47 Jan 2014 #35
Your logic does seem convincing . . . another_liberal Jan 2014 #36
Japan has sardines fisheries too. (nt) jeff47 Jan 2014 #38
in 2012 questionseverything Jan 2014 #45
Yes, but the fishery is still there. jeff47 Jan 2014 #46
Yes it is sarcasm zeemike Jan 2014 #47
Is everyone afraid to mention the word "pollution"? gtar100 Jan 2014 #3
You nailed it. Must never mention business. Blinders on! n/t freshwest Jan 2014 #15
The Domino Effect of Overfishing on Ocean Habitat: Many Species at Risk dixiegrrrrl Jan 2014 #4
K&R DeSwiss Jan 2014 #5
k and r --bookmarking for later reading. niyad Jan 2014 #6
This article suggests that the phenomena is not new nor unexpected grantcart Jan 2014 #9
You win the thread. Greed and overfishing, followed by protestations of 'IDK why! Help!' n/t freshwest Jan 2014 #16
Big Problem with that RobertEarl Jan 2014 #34
There is absolutely no scientific problem with the explanation, grantcart Jan 2014 #42
You bring up a good point RobertEarl Jan 2014 #43
This article is pegging my BS meter clayton72 Jan 2014 #11
This AP article? bananas Jan 2014 #18
I think this is a lie MyNameGoesHere Jan 2014 #12
Radiation, Japan, fish decline packman Jan 2014 #14
The sardines Berlin Expat Jan 2014 #22
Unbelievable, only one thread even mentions Fukishima! WORLDWIDE blackout of obvious cause. joanbarnes Jan 2014 #17
beause it has happened before and the reason is well known. grantcart Jan 2014 #20
with nuclear power questionseverything Jan 2014 #27
No one is saying radiation is good..... paleotn Jan 2014 #31
A banana expert? RobertEarl Jan 2014 #44
Seems reading comprehension.... paleotn Jan 2014 #48
So, you'll quit with the BED bullshit? RobertEarl Jan 2014 #52
If Fukishima is the cause, why have fisheries off Japan not collapsed? jeff47 Jan 2014 #33
They quit fishing off the coast of Japan RobertEarl Jan 2014 #37
Hey Robert! Looks like your time-traveling radiation took out another fishery jeff47 Jan 2014 #39
As usual you have no data RobertEarl Jan 2014 #41
Please stop posting crap from ENE as if it's a legitimate source of information. I am sick ChisolmTrailDem Jan 2014 #23
Nothing to do with Fukashima.... paleotn Jan 2014 #25
Wasn't there an enormous sardine cluster in Monterey Bay in the fall? Arugula Latte Jan 2014 #28
It is of note that Cs was high the last time the stock crashed RobertEarl Jan 2014 #40
Guess you missed these parts...... paleotn Jan 2014 #50
No. Didn't miss it RobertEarl Jan 2014 #53
Facts can sometimes help .... but it depends on posters intent ... MindMover Jan 2014 #51
Intent, indeed RobertEarl Jan 2014 #54
To make informed factual posts ... so to avoid MindMover Jan 2014 #56
What is absurd RobertEarl Jan 2014 #57
I will leave the absurdities to the absurd ... as for denial ... MindMover Jan 2014 #59
My defensive platitudes RobertEarl Jan 2014 #60
Skeptoid doesn't understand entropy bananas Jan 2014 #58
Here's the problem, mm RobertEarl Jan 2014 #62
These scientists aren't cognizant of the devastating oceanic ecosystem effects of kestrel91316 Jan 2014 #55
I'm sure it's nothing. Enthusiast Jan 2014 #61
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #63
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Shock as sardines vanish ...»Reply #48