Environment & Energy

Downwinder

(12,869 posts)

11. Nothing to worry about. it won't bother you for thirty years.

Reply to oldhippie (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 25, 2013, 03:51 PM

Aug 2013

If it is a problem then, you can get more radiation to treat it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I would like to see an explanation of why water flowing thru/from Fukushima is bad [View all] phantom power Aug 2013 OP

and I am sure that if you are really interested, you can find the answers to all those questions. niyad Aug 2013 #1

Google is never the friend to an ideologue... Cooley Hurd Aug 2013 #3

Google is actually why I ended up writing this post. phantom power Aug 2013 #5

Whereas your post... Xipe Totec Aug 2013 #15

wow--NOT ONE actual, scientific article giving the information you specifically requested? that is niyad Aug 2013 #16

In other words if they didn't measure it, it didn't happen? How convenient. Xipe Totec Aug 2013 #2

If you don't measure it, you don't know what's happening. phantom power Aug 2013 #8

Willful Ignorance. nt Xipe Totec Aug 2013 #12

Are you fucking kidding? NickB79 Aug 2013 #20

Your approach sounds an awful lot like the way BP defends the Gulf Spill kristopher Aug 2013 #13

the thing is, I'm not asking anybody to take Tepco's (or BP's) word for anything. phantom power Aug 2013 #27

Just who the hell do you think is OBSTRUCTING comprehensive and effective monitoring... kristopher Aug 2013 #29

Hillarious FBaggins Aug 2013 #32

The OP is complaining about a lack of data kristopher Aug 2013 #33

So? FBaggins Aug 2013 #35

why haven't people simply walked up to the facility and started sampling? CreekDog Aug 2013 #34

Tepco lied for months about this to get right-wingers elected bananas Aug 2013 #14

So, what's the alternative? Don't measure it at all? NickB79 Aug 2013 #21

Are you being deliberately dense? Xipe Totec Aug 2013 #24

Have you seen this? pscot Aug 2013 #4

There are 1.3x10^22 Becquerels of tritium in the ocean. 13 billion trillion. phantom power Aug 2013 #7

The EPA limit on tritium in drinking water is 740 Bq/L. phantom power Aug 2013 #9

40 trilliion Bq of tritium diluted in 10 cubic kilometers of sea water gives an increase of 4 Bq/L. GliderGuider Aug 2013 #25

Silly person ..... oldhippie Aug 2013 #6

Nothing to worry about. it won't bother you for thirty years. Downwinder Aug 2013 #11

Well, yes, corporations do make shit up and have been for a long time. mbperrin Aug 2013 #10

I've been wondering the same thing, but never had the balls to ask the question in this place. GliderGuider Aug 2013 #17

Sad a simple question like that elicits such responses. joshcryer Aug 2013 #19

I never thought that asking for scientific data would be such a big deal GliderGuider Aug 2013 #23

I aint afraid to go back to prison phantom power Aug 2013 #28

is seawater being pumped thru the reactors? quadrature Aug 2013 #18

I did find this lately regarding tuna radioactivity NickB79 Aug 2013 #22

3% higher? We're doomed, I tells ya! GliderGuider Aug 2013 #26

Don't forget this one ... Nihil Aug 2013 #30

We'll eat them anyway - there just aren't that many ocean fish left... nt GliderGuider Aug 2013 #31

why should tuna on the west coast have higher concentrations at all? CreekDog Aug 2013 #36

Obviously... it shouldn't. FBaggins Aug 2013 #37

From what I've read so far, I agree. GliderGuider Aug 2013 #38

We're seeing that here too (unfortunately) Nihil Aug 2013 #39