Somehow, burying it on the beach like this doesn't seem like the best solution, sheesh, at least dig a hole!
Scroll down for more dead Humpbacks
http://www.coronadonewsca.com/news/coronado_city_news/el-ni-o-weather-washes-dead-humpback-whale-ashore/article_1e5376f8-e633-11e5-a766-abab91d1a3ec.html?mode=image&photo=0
https://www.longislandpress.com/2016/04/26/humpback-whale-found-dead/
https://www.longislandpress.com/2016/06/06/dead-humpback-whale-found-off-westhampton/
The radiation from Fukushima was maybe 1e-9 the total radiation in the ocean from natural sources. So why is 1e-9 of anything important? Thats like saying a single dollar bill can affect Trumps total wealth.
ReplyDeleteITs actually not at all like saying that, we all know that its the isotopes that are important, what is the content of that .000000001. Since that around the content of a profitable mineral ore when considering the u 235 content around 1-3 milligrams per metric ton of ore...if there was that much extra in the ocean shouldn't we be mining it for its radioactive metals to concentrate back into fuel? basically my question is are we getting internal plutonium doses along the coast from the sea winds? They get them in ireland and UK from sellafield to this day and there is more leukemia on their coast in people. and the leukemia is not from the water or the fish in the water, their doses were from the crops which are coated with the sea salts and other evapo-concentrated minerals brought inland by the wind. The animals eating these crops also contribute to the internal doses received.. with you its always whats 1 gamma ray.. or 1 electron gonna do.. cmon man.. its not 1 more electron if its a particle of metal emitting like a "machine gun" within a lung or a pancreas or ur gonads... rant off... you should know what the importance of 1e-9 is now though...
ReplyDeleteYou should know the oceans contain a vast amount of natural uranium. Thus it contains a vast amount of natural fission products. These are the same isotopes you people gripe about. I dont prescribe to TATAL. It has no basis in science. Its dose that matters, not the single radioactive atom attacking our roughly 1e27 atoms. You fail to recognize our natural radioactive world. Now when you think we are imune to background radiation what do you think constitutes that radiation?
DeleteYou cant be serious. There are tens of thousands of confounders and you want to surmise leukemia from some stray atoms? Cmon man. Thats not even science.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCome on Nukist, we know that spontaneous fission is quite rare, 1 in a million, 1 in a billion. Those are present but do not bio-magnify in Chitin or organs to be a drop in a swimming pool.
DeleteBut 10 Bq/M3 can biomagnify to 1,000,000 times that or more. AND THAT MATTER.
Its rare compared to other reaction channels, yet the sheer volume and mass of uranium in the ocean doesnt make it trivial, like emissuons from Fukushima.
DeleteI dont believe tou understand that radiation doesnt buomagnify in that manner. Whoever told you that fed you a line. The source term is fixed regardless of who eats who. Its pretty much a function of the initial reaction rates. Geez didnt you take physics?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIts highly unlikely that there is any man made dose of any significance contributing to a cancer. UNSCEAR 2012 reiterated that the application of minute radiation quantities to large populations to arrive at a "collective dose" in order to infer any cancers was incorrect. Thus the basis of that application, as antinukes love to do, is in fact, without merit. Considering the tens of thousands of more potent man made chemicals and toxins in the environment, why quibble over minute quantities that have not been proven harmful.
DeleteOn bioaccumulation - a fish eats something that has a content of x Bq/kg and so on, the magnitude of the original source term doesnt change.
Its highly unlikely that there is any man made dose of any significance contributing to a cancer. UNSCEAR 2012 reiterated that the application of minute radiation quantities to large populations to arrive at a "collective dose" in order to infer any cancers was incorrect. Thus the basis of that application, as antinukes love to do, is in fact, without merit. Considering the tens of thousands of more potent man made chemicals and toxins in the environment, why quibble over minute quantities that have not been proven harmful.
DeleteOn bioaccumulation - a fish eats something that has a content of x Bq/kg and so on, the magnitude of the original source term doesnt change.
did i say milligrams...oh shucks i know you are gonna be all like but wait you thats only 1e-8 dang it... but really we arent talking about ores or rocks here, we are already talking about concentrated and fissionable u235 and plutonium being aerosol-ized and blown into the atmoshpere and leeching into the water.. also the other transmuted bs that comes out of corium-concrete-seawater-reactions... i would be willing to bet that the amount of atoms in a given dose of spider venom compared to your vaunted 7e27 atoms in a human bag of water is even smaller than 1e-9 parts of the whole
ReplyDeleteEzcuse me but U235 wasnt blown up and aerosoled. No 186 keV gamma in the spectrometry. Thus no U235.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlso U235 puts out a 143 keV, 205 keV gamma as well. These energies were absent from spectrographic info. The Pu signature in the atmosphere is most likely from weapons testing and Chernobyl. Uranium oxide, the fuel in LWRs doesnt aerosol without carrying U235, which wasnt found. Thus neither U235 from Fukushima or aerosoled uranium oxide was likely. Sorry, the physics tells the story, not some crackpot theory.
ReplyDelete