4 ms·

Fukushima possibly contaminating the entire Pacific, making any seafood from there not able to be eaten, is not as bad as a little more CO2? By the way, not 1

Fukushima possibly contaminating the entire Pacific, making any seafood from there not able to be eaten, is not as bad as a little more CO2? By the way, not 1 word in the article, filled with all sorts of scary quotes, about diatoms and their role in CO2 sequestration.

craigyk 13y ago
Fukushima hasn't released anywhere near enough radioactivity (in quantity or kind) to worry about making all seafood in the Pacific inedible.
- tsotha 13y ago
  It didn't even make the seafood off the coast of Japan inedible.
  - patrickg_zill 13y ago
    "Today only 16 types of fish are considered safe to catch here, compared with 150 types they caught before the disaster. " (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599433/japanese-fishermen-face-new-setback-with-latest-fukushima-leak/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599433/japanese-fish...) South Korea has banned importation of all Japanese fish from 8 prefectures in the areas near Fukushima.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      Considered by whom, based on what evidence?
comicjk 13y ago
> possibly Except that's not possible, even for a Chernobyl-level release of radioactive material. You might as well suggest that Chernobyl made all food from Britain to Afghanistan inedible. We can detect material from Fukushima in the Pacific, but only because we have the technology to detect radiation in infinitesimal amounts.
- patrickg_zill 13y ago
  You do know, that even now, there are wild boars (hunted for sport in Germany) that cannot be eaten due to too-high levels of radioactivity, right? see http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0401/Radioactive-boars-in-Germany-a-legacy-of-Chernobyl http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0401/R... And I have suggested nothing of the sort about Chernobyl rendering all food inedible... the type of accident, the fact it is water-borne rather than wind-borne, and that there is nearly 10 times the amount of nuclear material at Fukushima (1600 tons) vs Chernobyl (180 tons) make for a very different situation. (I am not even including the spent fuel rods which Reuters amongst other news sources, claims are very dangerous if not handled properly: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/fukushima-nuclear-plant-cleanup_n_3752046.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/fukushima-nuclear-p... ) Besides, it has been more than 2 years and no covering of Fukushima has been done, whereas in Chernobyl they erected a cover over the reactor within 6 months. What we do know as part of the historical record, is that the operator, TEPCO, has been lying or at least, shading the truth, about the severity of the situation all along.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Fukushima contaminated seafood to a very minor degree. The studies I read about determined that a standard serving size of affected tuna (an apex predator) was 1/20th of the BED [1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
lutusp 13y ago
> Fukushima possibly contaminating the entire Pacific, making any seafood from there not able to be eaten ... This false view has been partly inflamed by an "environmental" website that posted an alarming picture of Fukushima radiation spreading across the Pacific -- except the posted picture was actually of the tsunami wave's height, not radiation, spreading across the Pacific. Fukushima isn't going to release nearly enough radiation to poison the Pacific Ocean. Maybe it will release just enough radiation to force changes in the nuclear power industry. Nothing else has worked.
- patrickg_zill 13y ago
  You are making a straw man argument, conflating a bad map with supposed bad science... Japan's own testing showed contamination even in 2011, by cesium isotopes, some 2000km out to sea from Fukushima. The answer is, that you don't know.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > You are making a straw man argument, conflating a bad map with supposed bad science... The map was bad, and the science was worse, but there's no meaningful connection between them, certainly not in my presentation. > Japan's own testing showed contamination even in 2011, by cesium isotopes, some 2000km out to sea from Fukushima. Yes, measurable with specialized equipment, but not significantly above the natural background radiation level. This is not to diminish the seriousness of Fukushima -- it is very serious -- but it's not going to render the Pacific's fish unsafe. That's a fantasy. > The answer is, that you don't know. The figures are easy to collect and easy to interpret, and they have been. The claim that the Pacific's fish will become inedible is not connected to reality. http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989 http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989 Quote: "By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima. Moreover, the dose from Fukushima cesium is considered insignificant relative to the dose from naturally occurring polonium-210, which was 1000 times higher in fish samples studied, and both of these are much lower relative to other, more common sources, such as dental x-rays." > The answer is, that you don't know. You're the one who doesn't know, even though the information is easily accessed.
UnFleshedOne 13y ago
Actually this contamination might be a good thing for the Pacific. It won't be enough to seriously harm the critters (in terms of populations), but it might significantly reduce fishing, allowing the whole ecosystem to recover.

craigyk 13y ago

Fukushima hasn't released anywhere near enough radioactivity (in quantity or kind) to worry about making all seafood in the Pacific inedible.

tsotha 13y ago
It didn't even make the seafood off the coast of Japan inedible.
- patrickg_zill 13y ago
  "Today only 16 types of fish are considered safe to catch here, compared with 150 types they caught before the disaster. " (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599433/japanese-fishermen-face-new-setback-with-latest-fukushima-leak/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599433/japanese-fish...) South Korea has banned importation of all Japanese fish from 8 prefectures in the areas near Fukushima.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    Considered by whom, based on what evidence?

comicjk 13y ago

> possibly Except that's not possible, even for a Chernobyl-level release of radioactive material. You might as well suggest that Chernobyl made all food from Britain to Afghanistan inedible. We can detect material from Fukushima in the Pacific, but only because we have the technology to detect radiation in infinitesimal amounts.

patrickg_zill 13y ago
You do know, that even now, there are wild boars (hunted for sport in Germany) that cannot be eaten due to too-high levels of radioactivity, right? see http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0401/Radioactive-boars-in-Germany-a-legacy-of-Chernobyl http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0401/R... And I have suggested nothing of the sort about Chernobyl rendering all food inedible... the type of accident, the fact it is water-borne rather than wind-borne, and that there is nearly 10 times the amount of nuclear material at Fukushima (1600 tons) vs Chernobyl (180 tons) make for a very different situation. (I am not even including the spent fuel rods which Reuters amongst other news sources, claims are very dangerous if not handled properly: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/fukushima-nuclear-plant-cleanup_n_3752046.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/fukushima-nuclear-p... ) Besides, it has been more than 2 years and no covering of Fukushima has been done, whereas in Chernobyl they erected a cover over the reactor within 6 months. What we do know as part of the historical record, is that the operator, TEPCO, has been lying or at least, shading the truth, about the severity of the situation all along.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Fukushima contaminated seafood to a very minor degree. The studies I read about determined that a standard serving size of affected tuna (an apex predator) was 1/20th of the BED [1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

lutusp 13y ago

> Fukushima possibly contaminating the entire Pacific, making any seafood from there not able to be eaten ... This false view has been partly inflamed by an "environmental" website that posted an alarming picture of Fukushima radiation spreading across the Pacific -- except the posted picture was actually of the tsunami wave's height, not radiation, spreading across the Pacific. Fukushima isn't going to release nearly enough radiation to poison the Pacific Ocean. Maybe it will release just enough radiation to force changes in the nuclear power industry. Nothing else has worked.

patrickg_zill 13y ago
You are making a straw man argument, conflating a bad map with supposed bad science... Japan's own testing showed contamination even in 2011, by cesium isotopes, some 2000km out to sea from Fukushima. The answer is, that you don't know.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > You are making a straw man argument, conflating a bad map with supposed bad science... The map was bad, and the science was worse, but there's no meaningful connection between them, certainly not in my presentation. > Japan's own testing showed contamination even in 2011, by cesium isotopes, some 2000km out to sea from Fukushima. Yes, measurable with specialized equipment, but not significantly above the natural background radiation level. This is not to diminish the seriousness of Fukushima -- it is very serious -- but it's not going to render the Pacific's fish unsafe. That's a fantasy. > The answer is, that you don't know. The figures are easy to collect and easy to interpret, and they have been. The claim that the Pacific's fish will become inedible is not connected to reality. http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989 http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989 Quote: "By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima. Moreover, the dose from Fukushima cesium is considered insignificant relative to the dose from naturally occurring polonium-210, which was 1000 times higher in fish samples studied, and both of these are much lower relative to other, more common sources, such as dental x-rays." > The answer is, that you don't know. You're the one who doesn't know, even though the information is easily accessed.

UnFleshedOne 13y ago

Actually this contamination might be a good thing for the Pacific. It won't be enough to seriously harm the critters (in terms of populations), but it might significantly reduce fishing, allowing the whole ecosystem to recover.