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

PamW

(1,825 posts)
4. Why not do the calculation for yourself?
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:18 AM
Sep 2013

madokie,

Why not do the calculation for yourself? You can use your own sources to find out the area of the oceans, and the average depth in miles; so you can calculate the volume, and hence the mass of the ocean water.

TEPCO dumped 1,000 tons. Calculate what fraction that is compared with the mass of the water already in the ocean.

Also consider that the water in the ocean isn't radioactivity free. The water itself contains Tritium produced by Mother Nature high in the atmosphere. The water also contains salts of Uranium and Thorium

A colleague of mine has a collection of "fossils"; things like shark's teeth. He takes them around to the science classes at area schools, along with a radiation detector. Sure enough; those shark's teeth are radioactive, and the children and teachers want to know why.

When the shark was alive, it was swimming in the seawater, and ingesting the seawater. Its body was extracting the minerals in that seawater in order to make teeth. Some of the minerals in seawater are salts of Uranium and Thorium which are naturally radioactive. So the shark's teeth are radioactive.

If people really did the calculations and found out just how much radioactivity is in the environment already, courtesy of Mother Nature; they'd wonder why people are concerned about the relatively trivial amount of radioactivity represented by 1,000 tons of slightly radioactive water.

PamW

Recommendations

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

Did you know that you get as much background radiation chervilant Sep 2013 #1
Quite a bit more in fact. FBaggins Sep 2013 #3
O, it's you, again... chervilant Sep 2013 #19
Breaking this down... caraher Sep 2013 #20
Well, "alls I know" is: chervilant Sep 2013 #21
Just trying to help out FBaggins Sep 2013 #29
Applause! I concur! PamW Sep 2013 #30
Thank you PamW ..... oldhippie Sep 2013 #32
No, chervilant Sep 2013 #31
Minimizing?? Denying???? PamW Sep 2013 #33
If its ever been shown that nuclear energy is not a sane way to make our electricity madokie Sep 2013 #2
Why not do the calculation for yourself? PamW Sep 2013 #4
I'm pretty sure that nothing in nature is even close to what man has made madokie Sep 2013 #5
Why don't you LEARN instead of guessing WRONG!! PamW Sep 2013 #7
I didn't say it was the only thing madokie Sep 2013 #9
Why??? PamW Sep 2013 #12
PamW madokie Sep 2013 #13
I see... PamW Sep 2013 #14
You can go straight to madokie Sep 2013 #15
So "I'm done with you" really translates to... FBaggins Sep 2013 #16
Another "my mind ( sic ) is made up; don't confuse me with the facts... PamW Sep 2013 #17
There's a more relevant calculation in this case. FBaggins Sep 2013 #6
IQ Test PamW Sep 2013 #8
Pretty much everybody has the horsepower. It's just multiplication. phantom power Sep 2013 #10
It's the "word problem" aspect that gets 'em FBaggins Sep 2013 #11
I agree, but... caraher Sep 2013 #18
When I see posts like yours: chervilant Sep 2013 #22
But she's right ..... oldhippie Sep 2013 #24
Really? chervilant Sep 2013 #25
Yes, Really. oldhippie Sep 2013 #26
And, I from yours. n/t chervilant Sep 2013 #28
I see it more as a challenge.. PamW Sep 2013 #27
And the danger from doing that is ... Nihil Sep 2013 #23
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»1,000 Tons Of Polluted Fu...»Reply #4