Radioactive waste in the Pacific

[Lucille]

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/science/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant-cleanup-ice-wall.html

 

[WebSlave]

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.

 

[PatBugs]

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.

 

[Lucille]

Everything I see via Google

I think a lot of what we see via Google is meant for us to see. Frankly, if there were a really bad problem, I don't think we would necessarily get the full story on the internet.

 

[PatBugs]

I think a lot of what we see via Google is meant for us to see. Frankly, if there were a really bad problem, I don't think we would necessarily get the full story on the internet.

Okay, but is there any reliable information anywhere saying there's a massive problem? Despite the efforts of the tobacco companies we know about lung cancer, and despite the efforts of the oil companies we know about climate change. I'm not sure why this would be any different.

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.

 

[PatBugs]

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.

 

[Lucille]

facts

And everyone knows that facts one reads on the internet are true.
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.

 

[WebSlave]

I tend to trust scientific organizations without political motives, ....

There is such a thing?

 

[Lucille]

An interesting recent NYT article, not about radioactivity, but about facts

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/b...d-by-syngenta-an-agrochemical-giant.html?_r=0

 

[PatBugs]

And everyone knows that facts one reads on the internet are true.
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.

Okay, but since we can't post a book here, logically everything we're posting is on the internet somewhere. Simply being on the internet doesn't make a source inherently inherently unreliable - reliability comes from the actual source. Like I said, I'm open to reliable sources that say there's some problem we're not being told about (like a respected international group of scientists in the link I posted).

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...kushimas-frozen-wall-heres-why-it-should-work

There is such a thing?

Fair enough. I more-so just meant not Greenpeace and not Exxon-Mobile's in-house scientific unit. A scientific body of national or international standing and not just one person, one study, or a bunch of out of context quotes and data.

An interesting recent NYT article, not about radioactivity, but about facts

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/b...d-by-syngenta-an-agrochemical-giant.html?_r=0

But it's actually not about facts... it's about one person, and their experience with a company. Indeed, the agri-business has a lot to gain by pointing to other causes of colony collapse disorder, but there's also plenty of legitimate data that says other factors are at least present (mites, fungus, viruses and other pathogens, climate change, etc).

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/10.1002/bies.201000075/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12112/pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-013-0870-2

Here's an article from the same seems to indicate it is pesticides:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343513000493

And another that links any of 9 pesticides/fungicides to one specific parasite:

http://qz.com/107970/scientists-discover-whats-killing-the-bees-and-its-worse-than-you-thought/

And finally one that thinks it's the mites:

http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/2010/03/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

 

[Helenthereef]

As someone living in the South Pacific, when we talk of radioactive contamination, we are still thinking of the atom bomb trials on Bikini Atoll.... I wonder how the Fukushima contamination levels compare to that?

 

[WebSlave]

As someone living in the South Pacific, when we talk of radioactive contamination, we are still thinking of the atom bomb trials on Bikini Atoll.... I wonder how the Fukushima contamination levels compare to that?

The problem would be finding an "authority" that we would find trustworthy and honest. Seems like that is pretty tough to find these days.

 

[Mech]

I owned and ran a commercial boat out of San Francisco in the late 70's.
I have always heard of the drums of nuclear waste that was dumped off shore.
I refuse to eat lingcods and that had a green tint to them.
They would fry to white meat when fried.
This contamination has been here for decades.
Nothing new.

 

[Mech]

Lots of good fish have a green tint to the uncooked meat.
Most are stellar on your plate.
Andy

 

[Mech]

I won't eat them

 

[WebSlave]

The problem is that I just do not trust the "mainstream" media even a little bit. Seems that not only are they engaged in a fair amount of fake news, they are also not above just squelching stories when they are ordered to do so.

IMHO.