Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

phantom power

(25,966 posts)
Sun Aug 25, 2013, 12:09 PM Aug 2013

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

Or, more accurately, how bad it is, and why. I mean an explanation involving measurements, and numbers. For example, rough order of causation:

How much radioactive material is being picked up by this water? What kinds of radioactive material?

When it reaches the sea, how fast does it diffuse? What concentrations are being measured in the region, at various distances from the point of entry?

How much of this material is being picked up by organisms, particularly fish being harvested?

What concentrations of radioactive substances are being measured in fish caught in the region?

What is the expected human health impact of ingesting said radioactive substances, in the measured concentrations?

Even some measurements on the last two would be really useful. The world isn't at the mercy of Tepco to obtain this data. I assume somebody, somewhere is actually collecting data on seafood.

Because otherwise, the entire world is just making shit up. My wife would call it "grab-ass chemistry"

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
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
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»I would like to see an ex...»Reply #0