4 ms·

You're making another pathetic attempt to deflect by conflating different isotopes and including the ones that last days or seconds and ones that don't bioaccum

• Manuel_D 4y ago
  Neither of your links really help your point: The first one was a study that detected safe levels of radiation in the water. One scientist speculated about bioaccumulation, but didn't actually test fish for radiation. It's been 25 years, we should be seeing radioactive fish by now. That's the study you should cite: actually finding evidence of radioisotope bioaccumulation, not merely speculating about it. You can't expect me or anyone else to prove the negative that no fish sticks are affected. If it exists, that on you to find. The second article covers a judgement that's about to be issued. In fact, the title is, "European court case judgment on Sellafield due soon". But why didn't you linkt to an article that actually gives the judgement? Because the country sueing over Sellafield lost! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/may/30/energy.nuclearindustry https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/may/30/energy.n...
  • Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Still the thing you said could never possibly happen, and exactly the thing I said happened of current reprocessing output being safe for now, but far too filthy to expand -- especially before they were held to account. And this is from an amount of effluent orders of magnitude lower tha what you are proposing. And looks like you just proved that those overreacting greens don't have power to do anything after all. Must have been the abysmal economics and the fact that various nuclear programs achieved their goal of having enough plutonium that ended the growth. They also eventually conceded and put in incredibly expensive equipment to limit the Tc99 because it was provably building up to levels that would be unsafe in the long term from just one plant.
    • Manuel_D 4y ago
      > Still the thing you said could never possibly happen No, it didn't. Fish stocks are not showing bioaccumulation. Water radiation levels show less than a fraction of one percent of hazardous levels of radiation. What's happening is exactly what I said was happening: safe levels of radiation, barely above background levels, are being detected and activist groups are trying to baselessly portray this as an ecological disaster. Never have you found ocean tests finding concentrations of radiation at unsafe levels. Never have we found fish contaminated with radiation above background levels. All you've been doing is posting studies finding radiation nowhere near hazardous levels. The only one of us that actually posted tests results on fish is me, and they were no different from background radiation levels. > And looks like you just proved that those overreacting greens don't have power to do anything after all. Must have been the abysmal economics and the fact that various nuclear programs achieved their goal of having enough plutonium that ended the growth. Or maybe there's no international conspiracy, maybe the lawsuit failed because there's no contamination? If radiation rises from 0.01% of the level capable of causing any health impacts to 0.1% of the level capable of adverse impact there is no basis to the lawsuit. If it rose to a concentration capable of health impacts then there'd be grounds for a lawsuit. If they could actually find fish that are getting contaminated there would be grounds for a lawsuit. Neither of these have been shown. What's your evidence for this conspiracy besides the fact that the outcome is not what you wanted? At this point you've repeatedly demanded that I prove the negative that bioaccumulation and ocean hotspots aren't occurring. You keep posting sources that don't support the claims you're making, due to an inability to distinguish between speculation and observations. And this is twice now you've referenced belief in a conspiracy to cover up waste releases. I don't think there's much more this conversation can add except more and more back and forth of you positing tests showing safe levels of radioisotopes and making unsubstantiated claims about fish contamination, followed by me explaining that an order of magnitude increase from a millionth of the safe levels of radioisotopes to one hundred thousandths the safe concentration isn't contamination and that for all the talk about bioaccumulation nobody is able to find radioactive fish stocks.
      • Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Having fun repeatedly building that exact same strawman and pushing it over there?