4 ms·

> Is a fact that radioactivity kills people. No need to demonstrate it statistically. We have enough empirical evidence. Actually, no. It is highly unlikely th

> Is a fact that radioactivity kills people. No need to demonstrate it statistically. We have enough empirical evidence. Actually, no. It is highly unlikely that 100 tons per day (steady state rate) of this water being introduced to the Pacific would make a meaningful difference to anyone. Bear in mind that mixing 100 tons of water with a single cubic kilometer of water is a dilution factor of 10,000,000x. The ocean contains a LOT more than 1 km^3. ;-) To educate you a bit about low levels of ionizing radiation (hormesis): >> In a Chinese study which has compared area with average radiation exposure of 2.31 mSv/y with a similar area with 0.96 mSv/y average exposure, the cancer mortality rate was lower in the high-background group (High Background Radiation Research Group 1980). However, this difference was statistically significant only in the oldest-aged group (40–70 years of age), i.e., in those individuals who have the greatest lifelong exposure to high background levels of radiation. In the other large-scale Chinese study, the cancer mortality rate was lower in the area with a relatively high background radiation (74,000 people), while the control group who lived in an area with low background radiation (78,000 people) had a higher rate of cancer mortality (Wei et al. 1990). In a similar Indian study, the cancer incidence/mortality rates was significantly less in areas with a high-background radiation level than in similar areas with a low background radiation level (Nambi and Soman 1987). "Radiation Hormesis: Historical Perspective and Implications for Low-Dose Cancer Risk Assessment" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889502/

pvaldes 7y ago
> The ocean contains a LOT more than 1 km^3. Is not so simple. There is not such thing as "one ocean", the sea is composed of several water masses, that are layered and often travel thousands of miles without mixing with the rest. In some parts this water is streamed directly again the coast in a narrow band that extends 1000 Km long so instead to face the open sea your water visits each small village in the coast one by one. At other times of the year the same water will travel to US. It depends a lot of the location, wind, month, year, etc... But people don't want to hear this normally.
- Recurecur 7y ago
  Nonsense. At the coast, where Tepco is dumping the water, mixing is extreme due to wave and tidal action. Any water near the surface is also mixed rapidly due to wind action and upwelling. The only water that's fairly static is deep, cold water. If some of the Tepco contamination goes in that direction, it'll be even better, since it won't be nearly as radioactive by the time it surfaces again...
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    Maybe Tepco should hire some oceanographers, that we are talking about tidal area is in itself deeply wrong. We had talked here in the past about people discovering that radioactive substances were sticking to the sand and accumulating in some points when nobody (and if somebody not TEPCO), suspected this outcome. If the alternative is spreading it under the rug and by all the beach and coastal area, just keep the damned thing inside a container. And we are not taking in mind that deliberately contaminating the ocean is typified as a environmental crime in most countries, this radioactive water is lethal to marine organisms but... whatever. They are allowed to do anything they want.

pvaldes 7y ago

> The ocean contains a LOT more than 1 km^3. Is not so simple. There is not such thing as "one ocean", the sea is composed of several water masses, that are layered and often travel thousands of miles without mixing with the rest. In some parts this water is streamed directly again the coast in a narrow band that extends 1000 Km long so instead to face the open sea your water visits each small village in the coast one by one. At other times of the year the same water will travel to US. It depends a lot of the location, wind, month, year, etc... But people don't want to hear this normally.

Recurecur 7y ago
Nonsense. At the coast, where Tepco is dumping the water, mixing is extreme due to wave and tidal action. Any water near the surface is also mixed rapidly due to wind action and upwelling. The only water that's fairly static is deep, cold water. If some of the Tepco contamination goes in that direction, it'll be even better, since it won't be nearly as radioactive by the time it surfaces again...
- pvaldes 7y ago
  Maybe Tepco should hire some oceanographers, that we are talking about tidal area is in itself deeply wrong. We had talked here in the past about people discovering that radioactive substances were sticking to the sand and accumulating in some points when nobody (and if somebody not TEPCO), suspected this outcome. If the alternative is spreading it under the rug and by all the beach and coastal area, just keep the damned thing inside a container. And we are not taking in mind that deliberately contaminating the ocean is typified as a environmental crime in most countries, this radioactive water is lethal to marine organisms but... whatever. They are allowed to do anything they want.