General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So it turns out that nadinbrzezinski was correct re Fukushima [View all]FBaggins
(26,735 posts)It's laughable that you then go on to pretend that if people would just show you where you were wrong... you would admit it. I would VERY much like to see an example of that.
''It is not a health risk to humans.''
As has been pointed out to you several times, that only supports your statement if "it" is "plutonium in general"... rather than referring to the specific detection of plutonium that is the subject of the article. It clearly wasn't. You've never been able to support otherwise.
You've been given several analogies. If you're on well water then you almost certainly have arsenic in your tap water (quite likely if you're on a municipal supply as well). The county health authorities are likely to tell you that "it is not a health risk to humans"... and they would be correct to do so. You would be dishonest (particularly after correction) to claim that the county said instead that "arsenic is not dangerous"
The plutonium that they found wasn't a health risk to humans - because the levels were consistent with those that people in Japan have lived with for decades from fallout. You've just never been able to come to terms with the reality that plutonium from weapons testing (and actual combat use in the case of Japan) is massively higher than the largest amount that Fukushima could have released. Radioiodine release from Fukushima is a worthwhile topic... and obviously the cesium release was quite substantial and worthy of ongoing study and evaluation... but no matter how much you prefer to care about plutonium, it just isn't a big deal when talking about Fukushima because the failure modes just didn't lend themselves to plutonium releases.