5 ms·
At the Very Least, Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over
- corin_ 13y agoCan anyone point to a good overview of the entire situation from a respectable source? This page just screams of conspiracy theory, however true (or not) it might be.
- jchrisa 13y agoThat's what I'm looking for and why I posted it...
- jaxbot 13y agoI think a lot of the website above is meant to spark hysteria, which really makes me question the credibility of it all. Some respectable sources do hint that something is definitely wrong, however: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130821-fukushima-latest-leak-how-is-it-different/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/13082... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23779561 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/radioactive-ground-water-fukushima-nears-sea-20044298 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/radioactive-gr... http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8zQ1XO1xx-kecg-sVibcWavdk5g?docId=CNG.cc92f361e099a730888da0cdf78b3598.151 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8zQ1XO1x...
- ucha 13y agoTo give you an idea about how serious this article is: the first map that is supposed to show radiation levels... actually shows wave height.
- zsombor 13y agoConsidering the impact of fishing perhaps a bit of paranoia will do good for the biosphere. Still I must point out that whatever radiation is released or will be released from Fukushima, is nothing compared to what nuclear weapons testing had done in the last century: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY so enough scaremongering.
- lutusp 13y agoIf I wanted to discredit those who sincerely worry about the long-term consequences of Fukushima, make them look like tin-hat-wearing paranoids, I could do no better than the linked article, which is not a balanced report but an editorial filled with intended and unintended inaccuracies. Fukushima is a very serious problem, and many countries are reconsidering their commitment to nuclear power as a result, including Germany, which intends to phase out nuclear power entirely. But the linked article is absolutely counterproductive, exhibiting every irresponsible, sensationalist trait imaginable. A counterpoint: "Fukushima fallout: Germany abandons nuclear energy" : http://www.smh.com.au/world/fukushima-fallout-germany-abandons-nuclear-energy-20110530-1fczb.html http://www.smh.com.au/world/fukushima-fallout-germany-abando...
- mcguire 13y agoA couple of excerpts: "* Tissue samples taken from 15 bluefin caught in August, five months after the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, all 15 contained reactor byproducts cesium-134 and cesium-137. "* The 15 fish tested were only exposed to radiation for a short time. But bluefin arriving in California now will have been exposed to the Fukushima radiation for much longer." That seems to refer to http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/march/bluefin-tuna-secrets-030413.html http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/march/bluefin-tuna-secret..., which includes the following statement: "(Madigan stressed that the Fukushima radiation found in bluefin tuna is significantly lower than naturally occurring radioactive isotopes normally found in the fish.)" If you are familiar with the term "journalistic credibility", check this update; it should bring a chuckle: "It started with the graphic that I posted. It turns out, unknowingly to me, that it was an image from NOAA that showed the Tsunami wave height that had been edited to look like the Pacific Ocean Fukushima radiation path. I’m going to look for updated information and will change the graphic and accompanying information as soon as I have time to look for it..." The author helpfully reminds us, "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of radiation..." FLEE DENVER NOW!
- corin_ 13y agoAccidentally voted you down rather than up, apologies.