Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Fukushima Info

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...

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".

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.

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.

You can find substance to support any position or belief. Many times, It all boils down to what you want to be true.

http://www.cfact.org/2014/01/07/true-facts-about-ocean-radiation-and-the-fukushima-disaster/

http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp

"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.

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.

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.

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.

I'll worry far more about Radon gas contaminating homes too well sealed...

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".

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

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.

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-whelan

And

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?pdu5us9xrutj89d

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.

Most of the highly populated world is in an earthquake and or tsunami zone.

ewest, there you go again spoiling a perfectly good story by introducing facts.

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

well i guess this settles it...
gosh I may wanna stock up on this stuff!


Fukushima Bottled Water Wins Award

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.

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

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.

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.

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.