Forums36
Topics41,056
Posts558,968
Members18,562
|
Most Online3,612 Jan 10th, 2023
|
|
8 members (GhostRiver, catscratch, SCFarms, FishinRod, James Herndon, Shorthose, ewest, Bigtrh24),
869
guests, and
396
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 904 Likes: 12
Lunker
|
OP
Lunker
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 904 Likes: 12 |
Fukushima Radiation in the Pacific Well I am just going to throw this out there for everybody to chew on... The implications are enormous for all of us. Just for starters, how do you view the value of the aquatic resources in your private pond or lake in light of the contamination of the Pacific Ocean? I have more questions but I will take my turn...
It's ALL about the fish!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,800 Likes: 72
Hall of Fame 2014
|
Hall of Fame 2014
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,800 Likes: 72 |
Very scary Todd.
My gut tells me it is much worse than the public knows.
I have cut back on eating salt water fish, but I really have no idea if that is sound logic. Of course they are probably not going to tell us whether eating salt water fish is a more direct health risk because they probably don't want to damage certain industries.
I suppose there are all kinds of additional ways this could be very bad long-term news for our health.
It almost gets to the point of "so what?" For example...a nutty co-worker told me once "you do know that "Martians control everything here on earth and they may soon end it all". I said "Rich if that is true...what can we do about it?....what's done is done...it is what it is". He said "well what are you gonna do about it?". I replied "well I am probably gonna go fishing this weekend and then go have a chicken fried steak for dinner".
Fishing has never been about the fish....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,657 Likes: 879
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Lunker
|
Moderator Ambassador Field Correspondent Lunker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 28,657 Likes: 879 |
While I agree that it is alarming, according to that article it is still 500 times below the standards for drinking water.
AND as Zep pointed out, other than limiting/reducing our seafood intake, what can be done about it? It's not like we can filter it out..........
I saw also noted in the article that the EPA proposed to raise the allowable limits of radiation, but nowhere was there a link to what it was and what it is now. So, did the proposal flop or was it put into place?
I'm not going to get in to the discussion on whether I think what the government decides for us is safe/appropriate or not, and I think that if this thread turns that way the thread will be deleted.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,187 Likes: 29
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,187 Likes: 29 |
To me it is amazing how sensitive the tests are. What is fascinating is how a disaster may be used to benefit science in tracking where ocean life travels.
The radiation levels are ridiculously low, and taking a single flight will nuke you far more than eating one of those fish. Air flight is typically well above the protection of the thicker atmosphere, so there is a surprising amount of radiation over 30K feet.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980 Likes: 15
Ambassador Lunker
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980 Likes: 15 |
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 998 Likes: 57
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 998 Likes: 57 |
"The solution for pollution is dilution."
I think dilution in extreme volume of the oceans will eventually reduce the concentrations down to the normal background levels found in nature. It is already extremely reduced from the lethal levels that were dumped at the time of the event.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 352
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 352 |
From what I understand, the bio-accumulation of radiation within the ocean's food chain is the real danger. Little creatures who ingest and absorb radioactive material are then eaten by small fish which are in turn eaten by larger fish, and so on.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,692
Hall of Fame 2015 Lunker
|
Hall of Fame 2015 Lunker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,692 |
My first thoughts about the title of this thread is it might be related to some sort of Asian fish.
The Genie is out of the bottle on a lot of things, and do not anticipate anyone calling it quits soon.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 998 Likes: 57
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 998 Likes: 57 |
I always wondered how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were re-inhabited after the war. Seems like the half life was much shorter than what I thought it was.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099 Likes: 23
Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame Lunker
|
Ambassador Field Correspondent Hall of Fame Lunker
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,099 Likes: 23 |
I'll worry far more about Radon gas contaminating homes too well sealed...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,533 Likes: 277
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
|
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,533 Likes: 277 |
Don't believe all you read on the net !
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980 Likes: 15
Ambassador Lunker
|
Ambassador Lunker
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,980 Likes: 15 |
Don't believe all you read on the net ! Or in a book or periodical, or hear from a colleague, or see on television, or even told to you by your mother or minister. I tell our boys to "research ALL sides to the best of your ability, and try to make an informed decision. Don't take my word on it, and don't believe as I do simply because I do. If you have questions, ask. If you have doubts, research".
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668 Likes: 57
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668 Likes: 57 |
Todd, thanks for posting, maybe just maybe we will learn that nuclear plants are not the way to go to for energy. If this plant does not show the risks, then what does. The possibility of contamination of water, soil and air is not good.
Tracy
Do not judge me by the politicians in my City, State or Federal Government.
Tracy
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,058 Likes: 7
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,058 Likes: 7 |
Like DDT its all good right now. Its all diluted.
What aspects of testing do we not know and are not testing for currently?
Don.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,533 Likes: 277
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
|
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,533 Likes: 277 |
From a prior thread http://forums.pondboss.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=329942&page=1 Not so the EPA books were cooked by politicians see Ruckelshaus. Suggest you look into the matter and see what DDT's ban did to many millions in south Africa and India as disease surged (now dead or sick). During his early tenure in the EPA, the agency issued a ban on DDT, against the advice of the EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney The National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the U.S. surgeon general were among those who dismissed these charges and came out in support of continuing to use DDT to fight disease and protect crops. A federal hearing was held on the safety of DDT, and in April 1972 Judge Edmund Sweeney concluded that not only was DDT safe, but it was an essential chemical. Two months later, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, William Ruckelshaus – who had never attended a single day’s session of the EPA’s hearings and admitted that he had not read the transcripts — overturned the judge’s decision, declaring, without evidence, that DDT was “a potential human carcinogen” and banned it for virtually all uses. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246562/deadly-war-against-ddt-elizabeth-m-whelanAnd http://www.mediafire.com/view/?pdu5us9xrutj89d
Last edited by ewest; 12/09/15 11:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 998 Likes: 57
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 998 Likes: 57 |
I am generally in favor of N-Plants but putting one in a earthquake/tsunami zone was a bad idea. With that said the companies that own these plants are under pressure to make a profit and hold down expenses. My brother who retired from being a control room manager & engineer had some stories to tell.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,533 Likes: 277
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
|
Moderator Hall of Fame 2014 Lunker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,533 Likes: 277 |
Most of the highly populated world is in an earthquake and or tsunami zone.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088 Likes: 96
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088 Likes: 96 |
ewest, there you go again spoiling a perfectly good story by introducing facts.
John
I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088 Likes: 96
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,088 Likes: 96 |
Most of the highly populated world is in an earthquake and or tsunami zone. I don't know if it will ever be perfected and commercialized, but the LFTR (called lifter) nuclear reactor sure has some positive attributes and could go a long way towards safety concerns. Like not needing to be near a big body of water for cooling. Would sure make construction placement more flexible. LFTR reactor
Last edited by snrub; 12/09/15 12:31 PM.
John
I subscribe to Pond Boss Magazine
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,800 Likes: 72
Hall of Fame 2014
|
Hall of Fame 2014
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,800 Likes: 72 |
well i guess this settles it... gosh I may wanna stock up on this stuff! Fukushima Bottled Water Wins Award
Fishing has never been about the fish....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,186 Likes: 44
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,186 Likes: 44 |
Go read about the passive cooling system that was not installed because it was deemed non essential. That cost would have had a very good chance of cooling the reactor passively so the plant could have been shutdown correctly after humans had the chance to asses the damages.
Decision have consequences.
But we only have to look at the FAA and the NTSB to see a plethora of examples of money vs lives.
Looking at our ponds is no different, we all look at cost vs benefits. That is why we are here on PB, we want to learn to make better decisions.
It applies universally, Learn before or after you make a decision.
Brian
The one thing is the one thing A dry fly catches no fish Try not to be THAT 10%
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668 Likes: 57
|
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,668 Likes: 57 |
Highflyer, As a pilot, I understand most plane accidents are due to pilot error. (I lost my license due to medical). Humans screw up, like venting contaminated air at 3 mile island. Screw ups Nuclear plants happen. Tbar, I bet your brother can tell of some close call screw ups.
Tracy
Do not judge me by the politicians in my City, State or Federal Government.
Tracy
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,058 Likes: 7
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,058 Likes: 7 |
Ewest I am no expert but have see how much the wild life has come back since the ban here in Canada of DDT. My Dad told me about how there was all kinds of bald eagles, red tail hawks, sparrow hawks, barn owls, screech owls, and snow owls. All my life I have no memory many of these at all.
This last deer hunt with my dad and three boys I pointed out three bald eagles, one sparrow hawk how just about landed on us. A barn owl is just about every block. One snow owl on a fence post. Didn't see any screech owls.
Dad said that it is great to see them coming back. Back from what? Where did they go? What was the greatest change?
Don't get me going on this neonicotinoids
Cheers Don.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,800 Likes: 72
Hall of Fame 2014
|
Hall of Fame 2014
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,800 Likes: 72 |
Highflyer, As a pilot, I understand most plane accidents are due to pilot error. (I lost my license due to medical). Speaking of flying and accidents...in your opinion pilots Brian and TGW1...about how many pilots out 10 commercial captains could have made the safe landing on the Hudson River that Captain Sully did a few years ago? I am a novice airplane crash "student"....they fascinate me....and I've always thought that maybe 2 in 10 typical commercial pilots could have actually pulled off what Captain Sully pulled off with skill and a bit of luck.
Fishing has never been about the fish....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,186 Likes: 44
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,186 Likes: 44 |
Mark,
There is a difference here. Captain Sullivan's decision to land on the water was the hard part.
The fact that the water was very calm made it easier to land on. Further since it was daytime, that also reduced the problems faced. The bridges and boats also had to be calculated, but most pilots can land on a smooth surface.
Again, it was the decision to do so right away which was hard.
Ten out of ten can make the landing, but before he did it, I would say that only 3 or 4 out of ten would have tried that first. Most would have thought about a landable surface like an airport before looking at a water landing. That time spent could have been the difference.
Brian
The one thing is the one thing A dry fly catches no fish Try not to be THAT 10%
|
|
|
Moderated by Bill Cody, Bruce Condello, catmandoo, Chris Steelman, Dave Davidson1, esshup, ewest, FireIsHot, Omaha, Sunil, teehjaeh57
|
|