Radioactive waste in the Pacific
When I did an internet search most articles said the radioactive level after the Fukushima disaster has returned to normal, some did not. While there is not much I can do about it, I worry for the health of future people and critters. It seems as if there is a lot of money being spent on a remedy which is temporary as best.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/sc...-ice-wall.html |
As seems typical these days, the source of bad news hasn't been remedied, just the news goes through filters that weed out topics. For our safety and protection of course.
I haven't eaten Alaskan king crab since the Fukushima event. As far as I know, there is still radioactive material going into the Pacific ocean, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to figure out the Pacific ocean current patterns. |
For what it's worth (and without really wanted to dive headfirst into a contentious debate), radiation levels have returned to normal outside of the Fukushima zone. I can see where the concern with fisheries, and specifically bottom feeding animals like red king crab, but everything reliable I've seen says there's no additional risk. Everything I see via Google that does say there's a problems seems to be of the Greenpeace or conspiracy theory slant. Even right after the event the levels of radioactive cesium in the ocean directly around Fukushima were below threat levels for humans, so it's unlikely it posed much threat once diluted by the pacific ocean.
I'm not saying nuclear contamination is awesome, but if you're going to be concerned about a contaminated ocean I'd focus on mercury and other stuff that comes from burning coal. Just remember - to date their have been 0 deaths from radiation exposure at Fukushima. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Like I said, there's plenty coming up from Google saying there is a big problem, but they aren't telling us, but they're all "Organic News" type sites and Alex Jonesian conspiracy theory sites. I tend to trust scientific organizations without political motives, and even the ones who view this as a massive problem aren't being as alarmist as those sites are. |
I kind of botched that response, wish I could edit. I meant to say "reliable information anywhere saying there's a massive problem that's not being reported?" The link I shared below, to an article on the matter from the Union of Concerned Scientists, does indeed treat the problem as serious, but also sticks to the facts. None of the sites claiming there's some kind of cover-up seem to be doing the same.
|
Quote:
I'm glad the scientists are taking this issue seriously, common sense says if they are have trouble containing the source, they will have trouble dealing with uncontained contamination. |
Quote:
|
An interesting recent NYT article, not about radioactivity, but about facts
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/bu...iant.html?_r=0 |
Quote:
I also want to point something else out - the issue of leaving waste is largely contained already. The article you posted hints at this, and explains that the so-called "ice wall" is designed to keep water out of the power plant, not to keep it in. FWIW, here's an interesting article that covers the other side of the story: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/...it-should-work Quote:
Quote:
All that aside, this proves that even when corporations try to hide problems, they tend to find their way to light. There's a mountain of peer-reviewed data out there that says pesticides play at least some part, though there's no scientific consensus on anything beyond CCD being the result of a variety of factors. That includes government, independent and corporate scientific groups. Here are a couple articles that look at much or all of the available research to try to reach conclusions: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...201000075/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2664.12112/pdf http://link.springer.com/article/10....393-013-0870-2 Here's an article from the same seems to indicate it is pesticides: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...77343513000493 And another that links any of 9 pesticides/fungicides to one specific parasite: http://qz.com/107970/scientists-disc...n-you-thought/ And finally one that thinks it's the mites: http://www.apidologie.org/articles/a.../03/m09176.pdf I guess my point is that while this is a complex issue, it's highly unlikely that some evil corporate giant (or some other shadow-entity) is hiding the truth, because there are simply too many people looking for it. The worst thing we could do with this, nuclear power, climate change or anything else is assume the answer is whatever is most comfortable, because then we're only making the problem worse. Cheers :) |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.