5 ms·

What? Any radio-isotopes that made into the ocean would be spread so thin that eating banana is gonna give you more radiation than you get in San Diego. Even th

by anfilt 6y ago

What? Any radio-isotopes that made into the ocean would be spread so thin that eating banana is gonna give you more radiation than you get in San Diego. Even the radiation levels in the surrounding areas of the reactors was quite low. Almost all the radiation stayed on the reactor site.

pvaldes 6y ago
> Any radio-isotopes that made into the ocean would be spread so thin that eating banana is gonna give you more radiation Let me introduce yourself this little marvel of biology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation "We don't found" and "does not exist" are different terms. "Report couldn't prove damage" would be a much better title, or at least closer to truth. With bioaccumulation is the same, our knowledge of marine biology and marine ecosystems is still poor in lots of cases. Californian woman get pregnant also, as japanese women do, so this spiral goes a little deeper than the "is just like a banana so people is safe" simple claim. This is not a simple problem. Nobody can't accurately evaluate the final effects of a process that is very complex, is still running, and is far from ending. This is plain lying in the face of people. "We are still grasping the surface of this" is not the same as "didn't happened".
- user-the-name 6y ago
  > "We don't found" and "does not exist" are different terms. "Report couldn't prove damage" would be a much better title, or at least closer to truth. You are the one who just said "Waters radiation near the plant was measured at several million times the legal limit". Was that or was that not the case?
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    Radiation in the sea can be positively measured. What the report claims is like somebody claiming that there is not radiation in the sea because they couldn't found it in a sample. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the worse is that the report authors seem to be very, very carefully, circumnavigating the evidence, that is not so difficult to find in fact. An example that fish eaters (AKA 100% of Japanese people) could find interesting: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-4-431-55537-7.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-4-431-55...
    - user-the-name 6y ago
      You made a specific claim, "Waters radiation near the plant was measured at several million times the legal limit". That is a lot stronger than "Radiation in the sea can be positively measured". What are you basing this claim on?
      - pvaldes 6y ago
        International Atomic Energy Agency. NOAA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Woods Hole Oceanographic, Japanese Fisheries agency, Japanese Ministry of Technology MEXT, Fukushima prefecture, etc etc... and the own TEPCO reports. Is not a secret than Iodine-131 exceeded by 5 millions the legal limit and Cesium-137 in seawater raised from 0.1 to 100000. Consult the bibliography.
        user-the-name 6y ago
        Where?
        pvaldes 6y ago
        In the bibliography.
        user-the-name 6y ago
        I am asking you for a direct link to a source that backs up your claim of "millions of times" higher radioactivity.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  Claiming that study results you don't like are simply lies without providing any counterevidence doesn't make for a convincing position. > Nobody can accurately evaluate the final effects of a process that is very complex, is still running, and is far from ending. We face a significantly more serious global process that is very complex and has no end in sight that threatens to destabilize human civilization and result in countless deaths. Barring a miracle in energy storage technology or the invention of nuclear fusion the choice we have in decarbonizing the global energy mix is nuclear fission.

by anfilt 6y ago

pvaldes 6y ago

> Any radio-isotopes that made into the ocean would be spread so thin that eating banana is gonna give you more radiation Let me introduce yourself this little marvel of biology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation "We don't found" and "does not exist" are different terms. "Report couldn't prove damage" would be a much better title, or at least closer to truth. With bioaccumulation is the same, our knowledge of marine biology and marine ecosystems is still poor in lots of cases. Californian woman get pregnant also, as japanese women do, so this spiral goes a little deeper than the "is just like a banana so people is safe" simple claim. This is not a simple problem. Nobody can't accurately evaluate the final effects of a process that is very complex, is still running, and is far from ending. This is plain lying in the face of people. "We are still grasping the surface of this" is not the same as "didn't happened".

user-the-name 6y ago
> "We don't found" and "does not exist" are different terms. "Report couldn't prove damage" would be a much better title, or at least closer to truth. You are the one who just said "Waters radiation near the plant was measured at several million times the legal limit". Was that or was that not the case?
- pvaldes 6y ago
  Radiation in the sea can be positively measured. What the report claims is like somebody claiming that there is not radiation in the sea because they couldn't found it in a sample. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the worse is that the report authors seem to be very, very carefully, circumnavigating the evidence, that is not so difficult to find in fact. An example that fish eaters (AKA 100% of Japanese people) could find interesting: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-4-431-55537-7.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-4-431-55...
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    You made a specific claim, "Waters radiation near the plant was measured at several million times the legal limit". That is a lot stronger than "Radiation in the sea can be positively measured". What are you basing this claim on?
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      International Atomic Energy Agency. NOAA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Woods Hole Oceanographic, Japanese Fisheries agency, Japanese Ministry of Technology MEXT, Fukushima prefecture, etc etc... and the own TEPCO reports. Is not a secret than Iodine-131 exceeded by 5 millions the legal limit and Cesium-137 in seawater raised from 0.1 to 100000. Consult the bibliography.
      - user-the-name 6y ago
        Where?
        pvaldes 6y ago
        In the bibliography.
        user-the-name 6y ago
        I am asking you for a direct link to a source that backs up your claim of "millions of times" higher radioactivity.
Hammershaft 6y ago
Claiming that study results you don't like are simply lies without providing any counterevidence doesn't make for a convincing position. > Nobody can accurately evaluate the final effects of a process that is very complex, is still running, and is far from ending. We face a significantly more serious global process that is very complex and has no end in sight that threatens to destabilize human civilization and result in countless deaths. Barring a miracle in energy storage technology or the invention of nuclear fusion the choice we have in decarbonizing the global energy mix is nuclear fission.