3 ms·

Read the article, this is essentially non-news with a jarring headline. Wow, an already extremely rare isotope in seawater is now 40% higher in concentration. D

Read the article, this is essentially non-news with a jarring headline. Wow, an already extremely rare isotope in seawater is now 40% higher in concentration. Do you know what a very small number * 1.4 is? Another very small number. It has no health effects of any kind and no appreciable affect on the earth or humanity in any way.

godelski 8y ago
Not to mention > levels some 3,000-times higher than those found in the Bering Sea are considered safe for human consumption under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
joe_the_user 8y ago
These contaminants stories spread unnecessary paranoia among those with an already irrational fear of things like radiation. Then they create complacency among those who notice we're talking microscopic amounts and changes. But the thing is that this release of radioactive elements can still cause substantial problems, not everywhere you detect traces but specific areas where various factors reconcentrate such light or heavy radioactive elements - the top of the food chain and tbe arctic come to mind but I'd guess we'll find others.
- opportune 8y ago
  Cesium is highly soluble in water, which in my layman understanding means it won't bioaccumulate nearly as much as nonsoluble/large substances like mercury and pesticides.
  - devoply 8y ago
    The issues with all of these things that are pragmatic is that the additive effect of all the little things we have done in the past 100 years over the course of a very small period of time say 10,000 yeas. So 100 fold is significant. Progress and growth is an addiction and we're blinded to any other facts in the face of that. For most of history we have basically 0% or negative growth... then all the sudden you had massive growth say 3-10% each year which was to say the least impossible a few hundred years before. To maintain this sort of monstrous growth you need to create energy and that means pollution... which adds up over time as many of our technologies are based around things that are not natural and don't break down.
    - lstodd 8y ago
      Cesium-137 half-life is ~30 years. So in 10000 years any additives will fade to what, something like 10^-100 of what they've been when introduced?
      - devoply 8y ago
        Yes I actually did some more research and it seems that even in the case of Chernobyl this is not a concern in the long run. In that Plutonium is not a concern in general which has a half-life of up to 300,000 years. And most other elements decay after a few decades. So in the case of nuclear meltdowns the concerns are limited to the century in which they happen mostly. https://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-3/3-chernobyl-environment.htm#2p0 https://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-3/3-chernobyl-envi... https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/r... I still think the issue exists with other contaminants but with at least nuclear energy it seems the long term effects of its use in terms of disasters and even spent fuel are very limited.
        petre 8y ago
        Except Pu is toxic and accumulates in the bone marrow, compared to Cs which is excreted. Unit 3 at Fukushima was the only one fueled with MOX fuel containing 6% Pu.

godelski 8y ago

Not to mention > levels some 3,000-times higher than those found in the Bering Sea are considered safe for human consumption under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

joe_the_user 8y ago

These contaminants stories spread unnecessary paranoia among those with an already irrational fear of things like radiation. Then they create complacency among those who notice we're talking microscopic amounts and changes. But the thing is that this release of radioactive elements can still cause substantial problems, not everywhere you detect traces but specific areas where various factors reconcentrate such light or heavy radioactive elements - the top of the food chain and tbe arctic come to mind but I'd guess we'll find others.

opportune 8y ago
Cesium is highly soluble in water, which in my layman understanding means it won't bioaccumulate nearly as much as nonsoluble/large substances like mercury and pesticides.
- devoply 8y ago
  The issues with all of these things that are pragmatic is that the additive effect of all the little things we have done in the past 100 years over the course of a very small period of time say 10,000 yeas. So 100 fold is significant. Progress and growth is an addiction and we're blinded to any other facts in the face of that. For most of history we have basically 0% or negative growth... then all the sudden you had massive growth say 3-10% each year which was to say the least impossible a few hundred years before. To maintain this sort of monstrous growth you need to create energy and that means pollution... which adds up over time as many of our technologies are based around things that are not natural and don't break down.
  - lstodd 8y ago
    Cesium-137 half-life is ~30 years. So in 10000 years any additives will fade to what, something like 10^-100 of what they've been when introduced?
    - devoply 8y ago
      Yes I actually did some more research and it seems that even in the case of Chernobyl this is not a concern in the long run. In that Plutonium is not a concern in general which has a half-life of up to 300,000 years. And most other elements decay after a few decades. So in the case of nuclear meltdowns the concerns are limited to the century in which they happen mostly. https://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-3/3-chernobyl-environment.htm#2p0 https://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-3/3-chernobyl-envi... https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/r... I still think the issue exists with other contaminants but with at least nuclear energy it seems the long term effects of its use in terms of disasters and even spent fuel are very limited.
      - petre 8y ago
        Except Pu is toxic and accumulates in the bone marrow, compared to Cs which is excreted. Unit 3 at Fukushima was the only one fueled with MOX fuel containing 6% Pu.