3 ms·

Well a lot of countries did (and some still do) send liquid radio active wast into the oceans. Supposedly it's all fine "because it get's diluted enough". But

Well a lot of countries did (and some still do) send liquid radio active wast into the oceans. Supposedly it's all fine "because it get's diluted enough". But guess what, increased health issues of people "close" to the place it gets released clearly show that this isn't really the case. At least for the people close by. But then it might be true on the bug picture and it just needs time to be diluted, in which case a one-time release (instead of continual ones I'm speaking about) might be fine. More importantly is to learn from all the problems which made the catastrophe worse. A recurring theme is "known" problems not have been known by the people operating it (i.e. they didn't reach them) and emergency plans having gaps. So like always it's more a human then a technical problem. But then human problems always happen.

jshmrsn 6y ago
“But guess what, increased health issues of people "close" to the place it gets released clearly show that this isn't really the case. At least for the people close by.” Do you have a link/source for this?
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  https://www.waterworld.com/home/article/16205804/caffeine-in-puget-sound-sends-researchers-back-to-square-one https://www.waterworld.com/home/article/16205804/caffeine-in... This doesn't talk about the health problems because in this case that wouldn't quite make sense, but it does show that minerals/substances/chemicals/whatever can locally concentrate around an area even when it's connected to the ocean.
  - nanis 6y ago
    > The researchers said little is known about the effects of caffeine on wildlife, but the caffeine in Puget Sound is so diluted it probably has a minimal effect.
BurningFrog 6y ago
> But guess what, increased health issues of people "close" to the place it gets released clearly show that this isn't really the case. At least for the people close by. What's good source for this claim?
- dathinab 6y ago
  There seems to be a survey of the European Commission that implies increased cancer risk around La Hague putting it in relation to the wast disposal. I say it seems because due to articles quoting studies quoted by articles and only listing the article as source and paywalls I can't trace it back without spending a lot of time and or money. But looking at searches for medical/scientific papers you find very mixed result. Ranging from "there are more cases, but it's statistically not significant" to there is a statistical significant increase but it's not that strong and it's not possible to prove that it's because of radiation exposure (or radiation exposure alone). Generally it seems that the articles I read had a very different interpretation of "close". As e.g. one of the studies I found, found increased cases for people in a 10km radius around the was disposal factory, which might very well be related to other things then them pumping some of the wast into the sea. Widening the radius caused increases to be non statistic significant, which seems to match with other studies I would. But disclaimer: I just did a very short dive into it. E.g. I looked only at the abstract & summary/conclusion of papers etc. and spend maybe 20min on it or so. So not very reliable. EDIT: Looking more into it finding like following quote become more common: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9006467/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9006467/ > There is some convincing evidence in childhood leukaemia of a causal role for environmental radiation exposure from recreational activities on beaches. New methods for identifying the environmental pathways, focusing on marine ecosystems, are warranted.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Thanks for putting in the work! Sounds like the state of this is, as so often "there seems to be an effect, but more research is needed" :)

jshmrsn 6y ago

“But guess what, increased health issues of people "close" to the place it gets released clearly show that this isn't really the case. At least for the people close by.” Do you have a link/source for this?

Judgmentality 6y ago
https://www.waterworld.com/home/article/16205804/caffeine-in-puget-sound-sends-researchers-back-to-square-one https://www.waterworld.com/home/article/16205804/caffeine-in... This doesn't talk about the health problems because in this case that wouldn't quite make sense, but it does show that minerals/substances/chemicals/whatever can locally concentrate around an area even when it's connected to the ocean.
- nanis 6y ago
  > The researchers said little is known about the effects of caffeine on wildlife, but the caffeine in Puget Sound is so diluted it probably has a minimal effect.

BurningFrog 6y ago

> But guess what, increased health issues of people "close" to the place it gets released clearly show that this isn't really the case. At least for the people close by. What's good source for this claim?

dathinab 6y ago
There seems to be a survey of the European Commission that implies increased cancer risk around La Hague putting it in relation to the wast disposal. I say it seems because due to articles quoting studies quoted by articles and only listing the article as source and paywalls I can't trace it back without spending a lot of time and or money. But looking at searches for medical/scientific papers you find very mixed result. Ranging from "there are more cases, but it's statistically not significant" to there is a statistical significant increase but it's not that strong and it's not possible to prove that it's because of radiation exposure (or radiation exposure alone). Generally it seems that the articles I read had a very different interpretation of "close". As e.g. one of the studies I found, found increased cases for people in a 10km radius around the was disposal factory, which might very well be related to other things then them pumping some of the wast into the sea. Widening the radius caused increases to be non statistic significant, which seems to match with other studies I would. But disclaimer: I just did a very short dive into it. E.g. I looked only at the abstract & summary/conclusion of papers etc. and spend maybe 20min on it or so. So not very reliable. EDIT: Looking more into it finding like following quote become more common: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9006467/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9006467/ > There is some convincing evidence in childhood leukaemia of a causal role for environmental radiation exposure from recreational activities on beaches. New methods for identifying the environmental pathways, focusing on marine ecosystems, are warranted.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Thanks for putting in the work! Sounds like the state of this is, as so often "there seems to be an effect, but more research is needed" :)