Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NOAA Study: Radiation From Fukushima Very Dilluted, Seafood Safe

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the actually-the-seafood-is-now-even-more-delicious dept.

Earth 267

JSBiff writes "Ars Technica is reporting on a study by NOAA scientists who surveyed the ocean near Fukushima, which concludes that while a lot of radioactivity was released into the water, as would be expected, it diluted out to levels that pose little risk to wildlife or humans, and that the seafood is safe to eat. Perhaps we needn't worry so much about "millions of gallons of radioactive water" being released into the ocean, like it's a major environmental disaster, as it's really not — the ocean is many orders of magnitude larger than any accidental release of radiation which might happen from a nuclear plant."

cancel ×

267 comments

Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (5, Insightful)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560109)

I wonder which will prevail ?

I lied. Heh. I wish I wondered.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (4, Interesting)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560199)

Actually, which will prevail? Politically motivated scaremongering or corporations manipulating safety data to prevent a drop in stock price.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (4, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560661)

Scaremongering it is.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560699)

Actually, which will prevail? Politically motivated scaremongering or corporations manipulating safety data to prevent a drop in stock price.

[citation needed]

Seriously, unless you have some evidence to back that up, simply claiming scientific fraud because you happen to disagree with the results is not a valid argument, sorry. The scientists give hard numbers to justify their conclusions, even mentioning that the released contamination was on the high sides of the estimates. Fortunately, the ocean is really, really big, so even an apparently massive amount of contamination (relatively speaking) amounts to an extremely diluted concentration.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (5, Insightful)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561213)

"simply claiming scientific fraud because you happen to disagree with the results is not a valid argument, sorry." - while this is true a philosophy class, in the real world it falls down. In the real world, there are plenty of scientists whose results can be discounted a priori. I automatically discount anything a "scientist" employed by a tobacco company has to say about cigarette safety, or that an oil company scientist has to say about global warming or the safety of fracking. It's too easy for them to cause bias in their results in ways that are nearly impossible for a non-expert to figure out.

In this case, the results were from NOAA, which doesn't have a horse in the race, as far as I'm aware.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561243)

Also, there's an ocean current that carries the contaminated water eastward away from Japan. That has to help.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (3, Informative)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560261)

Obligatory xkcd http://xkcd.com/radiation/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (1)

BisexualPuppy (914772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560417)

obligatory shut up, you french.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (2)

borrrden (2014802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560665)

The Tokyo one seems mislabeled as milli instead of micro (especially going by the block sizes). I think there would be a huge problem with 40 millisieverts.....

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561039)

I think you're right, especially considering the other Fukushima figures. 40mSv also appears as "approximate total dose at one station at the north-west edge of the Fukushima exclusion zone" in the orange area.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561253)

If you're basing radiation safety procedures on an internet PNG image and things go wrong, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560415)

If you're worried about contaminated fish, worry about mercury, from fossil fuel usage. Eating fish every day is basically a no-no these days thanks to the LACK of nuclear power.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560763)

And replacing something unsafe with something unsafe is just as stupid.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560907)

It's not stupid if there is no safe option. Our choices are something unsafe or something else unsafe. The rational thing to do is evaluate the problems with both and compare them.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561077)

Failing to realize that there are different degrees of safety, and that nuclear is much, much safer than coal, is even stupider.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560969)

If you're worried about contaminated fish, worry about mercury.

Like the meltdown spewage, mercury is also very dilute. In fact, only a few hundred tons of mercury can contaminate an entire ocean. How? Through bio-accumulation. The concentration of organomercury compounds in sea creatures can be millions of times higher than that of the water they live in.

This article only seems to address the low level of nuclear waste in the water. It doesn't analyze how much those materials might get concentrated as they move up the food chain.

So I wouldn't stop worrying about the meltdown quite yet.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (4, Insightful)

squizzar (1031726) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561009)

Nuclear material will decay, mercury will not.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (1, Insightful)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560467)

But I need to be OUTRAGED by something!!!

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (0, Troll)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560501)

Buy Fukishima Nori today!!!! Then surf in Hawaii!!!!!!!

Every thing is fine.... We don't have decent wars any more and smoking is down, just consume.

meh [youtube.com] , Let's trust a body that gets funding from a body that uses bi-products for deterrence....

But I'm assuming of course, given that we know current known nuclear power* is inefficient and only has enough usable fuel for the next half a century or so, that you're not some dick head with a vested interest in nuclear power for your own wallet regardless of the danger to the rest of us?

Waste?(answer that first : waste?)

*Not including thorium - but again, waste?

I love engineers, but every so often, a few of us should be lined up and shot.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560641)

I love engineers, but every so often, a few of us should be lined up and shot.

LOL thanks for volunteering...

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560755)

wot? iz this 4chan?

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (1)

Hartree (191324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561057)

You're giving it that much credit?

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (1)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561001)

I'm being a bit more specific, AC. I want to know inputs and outputs of a process. If I am to live in a country with any sense of freedom, I must know inputs and outputs..... and not random wankery. But thanks for trying.

Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (5, Interesting)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561093)

Where do we put the waste from fossil fuels? Remember, a lot of those byproducts are toxic or carcinogenic, too. But we just pump them into the atmosphere.

Fossil fuels make a lot of moderately deadly waste that just goes everywhere. Nuclear power makes a little waste, which is admittedly very deadly, but we know exactly where it is. So far as storing it, the only reason it's a problem at all is that we're so scared of radioactive waste that we end initiatives to safely store it. How sick is that? If we had Yucca Mountain, we could stop storing nuclear waste at the plants and put it out in the middle of Fuckall Nevada under a mountain! How much safer can you get?

radiation is from coal (5, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560151)

Unless they were doing a lot of extra work to match isotopes, most of the "bulk" radiation in the ocean from power generation is from burning coal.
There's really quite a bit of U in coal, and if you burn a gigatons of the stuff a ppm here and there starts to add up.

Re:radiation is from coal (4, Insightful)

miknix (1047580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560269)

It is interesting to see that even with all of current scaremongering about nuclear power, the oil spills still were orders of magnitude MORE dangerous to oceanic wildlife than the Fukushima radioactive leak. This should be something to think about..

Re:radiation is from coal (1, Insightful)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560691)

What do we do with the waste? It's mostly ( >90% ) more dangerous than ore. The biggest problem with Fuckishima (sic) is the ponds of waste. Scaremongering aside, when solar is cheaper for a country than nuclear, why go with nuclear? (as is the case in my country)

Re:radiation is from coal (1)

miknix (1047580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560963)

I'm not a nuclear supporter. In fact, I live in a country where more than 50% of energy already comes from renewable sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Portugal [wikipedia.org]

Still, I find the nuclear power less problematic (or cleaner) than fossil fuel, hence my comparison above.

Re:radiation is from coal (4, Insightful)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561089)

Yeah, but a decent infrastructure in hot salt works for most of the world, including your country. There's no need for fission or even coal

Re:radiation is from coal (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560703)

It is interesting to see that even with all of current scaremongering about nuclear power, the oil spills still were orders of magnitude MORE dangerous to oceanic wildlife than the Fukushima radioactive leak. This should be something to think about..

They aren't done cleaning up (and disposing of) all the square miles of land that was contaminated though, let alone the facility itself as it is pretty unusable as a power plant so the whole thing needs to be chopped up and processed as hazardous waste. Unless, of course, you think we are safe to just pitch it in the ocean since "its not as bad as an oil spill..."

Re:radiation is from coal (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560733)

Add to the fact that this accident didn't even come close to Chernobyl, and that didn't come close to the 20 above ground nuclear blasts performed on Bikini Atoll in the 1940s and 1950s, including the first hydrogen bomb and residual contamination to a Japanese fishing boat and crew that inspired the movie Godzilla.

Re:radiation is from coal (-1, Troll)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560785)

meh [youtube.com] It's fine

Re:radiation is from coal (-1, Troll)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560939)

meh [youtube.com] It's fine

Re:radiation is from coal (-1, Troll)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560923)

meh [youtube.com] It's fine

Oh, yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560155)

Oh yeah, fine. But a small point-- it's a straw man, as nobody is drinking the sea water, but billions of plants and animals are bio-concentrating the minerals. Your basic clams end up with like 110,000 times the radioactivity of the surrounding seawater, because all they do, all day long, is filter seawater.

Re:Oh, yeah, but... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560193)

I am Clamman! I was bitten by a radioactive clam and developed mutant powers such as sitting around doing nothing underwater!

Re:Oh, yeah, but... (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560521)

I am Clamman! I was bitten by a radioactive clam and developed mutant powers such as sitting around doing nothing underwater!

Whatever gets us out of mom's basement!

Re:Oh, yeah, but... (2)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560601)

I think all guys are bitten by that clam! It happens to expedite us moving out of mom's basement.

Re:Oh, yeah, but... (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560273)

basic clams end up with like 110,000 times the radioactivity of the surrounding seawater

I'm sure you're right that that kind of concentration happens, but I'm gunna guess the NOAA folks have some idea what they're talking about when they make claims like this.

In the seafood samples, the additional radioactivity from the cesium and silver was less than the naturally occurring sources, typically only about a third. The net result is that the 137 in fish was about 150 times lower than the legal limits in Japan. Even if all the isotopes were considered, the fish would be safe to eat.

As if science meant anything: (1, Funny)

Hartree (191324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560189)

Momentarily there will be people posting to assure you that it's a major disaster and that the huge death toll has been covered up by the International Nuclear Advocacy Mafia (tm).

Re:As if science meant anything: (3, Funny)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560637)

Oh great another **AA group. International Nuclear Advocacy Association. Suing for sharing of nuclear isotope test results.

How about all those tasty apex predators? (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560207)

How about those tasty apex predators that bioaccumulate contaminants? I won't (on purpose anyway) be drinking seawater any time soon, but I might be eating tuna....

Re:How about all those tasty apex predators? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560301)

If you eat tuna, you should be concerned about mercury. Coal plants are contaminating oceans with mercury all over the world. Mercury bioaccumulates, not all the radioactive elements do.

Re:How about all those tasty apex predators? (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560495)

I'm an apex predator, you insensitive clod! Tuna are a level down on my pyramid. (And I must admit, I'm doubtless tasty.)

Re:How about all those tasty apex predators? (-1, Troll)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560799)

meh [youtube.com] It's fine

It's all relative (4, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560217)

1 million gallons of dirty water sounds bad--until you dilute it into 350 quintillion gallons of clean water.

And hey, compared to all the fecal matter you're eating with your seafood, a little cesium is nothing.

Re:It's all relative (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560647)

The ocean isn't nothing but a toilet for fish.

Re:It's all relative (1)

jouassou (1854178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560805)

The problem would rather be if you kept leaking radioactive material over time, leading to a long-term heightened radiation level. I guess that's the problem with not cleaning up around Kola Peninsula [wikipedia.org] in time.

"Dilluted"? (1)

oGMo (379) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560221)

Is pickled radiation any less harmful?

Re:"Pickled"? (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560371)

If not, background radiation would be lethal and we'd all be in a jam. Lord preserve us!

Re:"Pickled"? (1)

NF6X (725054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560565)

Whoosh.

Re:"Pickled"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560909)

Reread StoneyMahoney's post a couple of times.

You jelly?

Re:"Pickled"? (1)

Dunega (901960) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560975)

Whoosh.

Natural radiation levels (1)

zerosomething (1353609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560223)

Here is one set of numbers on natural sources of exposure. http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/natural.htm [umich.edu]

Re:Natural radiation levels (1, Informative)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560307)

Here is a much more readily comprehensible chart courtesy of XKCD. [xkcd.com]

Re:Natural radiation levels (-1, Redundant)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560821)

meh [youtube.com] It's fine

Conveniently ignoring the fact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560255)

Ignoring the fact that radiation bio-accumulates up the food chain! Sure, seafood not showing rads noowwwww, but give some time for those fish to eat those other fish who ate the radioactive plankton. It ain't as simple as "water was diluted" when isotopes have long half-lives.

Re:Conveniently ignoring the fact (3, Interesting)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560335)

Oh, I'm sure the NOAA people never thought of that, or thought to check higher predators in the food chain. Right.

I don't claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that various living things don't absorb everything in the environment around them - they chemically reject certain elements or compounds they have no use for. My further understanding is that the main isotope of worry after a few months is Cesium-137, and Strontium. If I understand correctly, cesium and strontium tend to react like calcium, and tend to concentrate in bones and teeth, which most predators don't digest - they digest the meat and soft tissues, and leave the bones.

So, bioaccumulation may not be much of an issue, if the radioactive materials are all in the bones. Again, I'm no biologist or radiation health expert, but that's what I've heard.

Re:Conveniently ignoring the fact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560621)

Seems to me one of the biggest factors being ignored here is that it didn't just go into a bay or other such area where the water will just sit. Its not like the Gulf Of Mexico which tends to churn within the Gulf. It went into the ocean with lots of currents such that it was quickly mixed and diluted. The rants about filtration and concentration seem completely unwarrented simply because those which do filter won't be filtering the radition as most of it has long since been pushed into the massive ocean itself.

Re:Conveniently ignoring the fact (4, Interesting)

nojayuk (567177) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560999)

Cesium doesn't linger in the human body. It has a biological "half-life", that is half the cesium taken in will be excreted between 50 to 120 days depending on what sort of tissue is collects in (bone, muscle, fat etc.). Strontium can collect in the bones but again it gets excreted over a period of time. Very little strontium was released from the Fukushima reactors as it is not particularly mobile unlike cesium compounds which make up nearly all of the radioactive contamination remaining in the environment since the short-lived iodine-131 (also mobile) died away.

Seawater is naturally radioactive due to potassium-40 (10 Bequerels/litre) and rubidium-87 (about 1 Bq/litre). Potassium is biologically conserved in the body and maintained at roughly stable levels absent disease. Measurements of seawater samples taken about 200km off Fukushima Daiichi a couple of months ago resulted in a combined value of cesium-134 and cesium-137 of around 0.1 Bq/litre, or 1% of the radioactivity from naturally-occurring potassium. It's possible some of the cesium-137 detected in these tests is not from the Fukushima reactors but residue from the 150 megatonnes or so of atmospheric thermonuclear weapons tests fired off by the US in the Pacific in the 1950s and 1960s.

Re:Conveniently ignoring the fact (4, Interesting)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560455)

Sure, but I don't think it's like Minimata Bay (the textbook example of toxic bioconcentration).

Firstly, the important isotopes will not be heavy metals. Therefore

  * They will not tend to accumulate in marine life as they will be excreted as fast as they are ingested
  * They will not tend to accumulate in the local bottom sediment, but be dispersed more rapidly

Secondly, radioisotopes decay, unlike mercury.

Yeah sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560299)

Go to the atolls which were nuked in the Pacific, and go ahead and eat the coconuts.

Re:Yeah sure (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561031)

Fukushima wasn't nuked. Your analog is off by many orders of magnitude.

With the implicit assumption (0)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560323)

That the pollution will mix and spread out evenly over the ocean... That really depends on mixing effectiveness.

Wrong - did you read the article? (4, Informative)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560377)

I know, I know, this is slashdot, but there IS a link to a fine article summarizing the study. The study, in this case, wasn't a "statistical model" sort of study - they actually went around in a boat for months, sampling water, wildlife, etc. No assumptions - actual empirical evidence.

Re:Wrong - did you read the article? (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560593)

There are many assumptions. The scientists are assuming that random samples are indicative of a population, all the contaminated water has mixed evenly, and that the animals sampled didn't just migrate south for the winter. They assume that their instruments function properly, that they're reading them correctly, and that all the cables are properly connected. They assume that there are no magical cleansing fairies underwater removing radiation from the fish before testing. They assume that the world will still exist and be populated tomorrow, so that people will care about the results.

Many assumptions, and all reasonable. :)

Re:Wrong - did you read the article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560629)

doctored evidence

no way they'd be allowed to publish anything that would endanger the profits of the fisheries

Re:Wrong - did you read the article? (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561065)

So basically you are saying you will dismiss out-of-hand any report that doesn't say "OH MY GOD! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!"?

Re:Wrong - did you read the article? (2)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561115)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability [wikipedia.org]

The hypothesis being for example; Some fish in the human food chain is heavily contaminated by pollution from Fukushima.

 

Re:With the implicit assumption (-1, Redundant)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560835)

currents? What? Don't exist? meh [youtube.com] It's fine

Safe? (2)

kimvette (919543) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560359)

Oh, sure, they'll keep saying it's safe until Godzilla rises from the sea and wreaks havoc on Tokyo!

Homeopathic? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560361)

So is the fish and sea water in Japan now homeopathic and going to make people immune to radiation?

Re:Homeopathic? (1)

zerosomething (1353609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560461)

No no. I thought Homeopathy dilution (delusion) makes it more potent. So that means we are all going to die of radiation poisoning if we even breathe the ocean air.

Re:Homeopathic? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560931)

No no. I thought Homeopathy dilution (delusion) makes it more potent. So that means we are all going to die of radiation poisoning if we even breathe the ocean air.

But just think, after that you will be completely immune to radiation poisoning... Ah, the miracles of ancient medicine!

Re:Homeopathic? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560471)

Patent that and sell it NOW and make a lot of money off the gullible idiots. Homeopathy makes my eyes roll, but it's not my place to tell a moron they can't Darwin themselves while spending ridiculous amounts of cash on purified water.

Re:Homeopathic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560863)

"while spending ridiculous amounts of cash on purified water"

    If you're spending that much money get a one gallon distiller and do it yourself. They're are about $100 and worth it to know where it's coming from.

Re:Homeopathic? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561023)

Patent that and sell it NOW and make a lot of money off the gullible idiots. Homeopathy makes my eyes roll, but it's not my place to tell a moron they can't Darwin themselves while spending ridiculous amounts of cash on purified water.

Let's be honest, placebos are effective (to a certain extent) so long as they are believed in. In that regard, what is the exact harm in a "medicine" that works as long as you believe in it, and a belief system around it sufficient to maintain that reality? Are Big Pharma and blockbuster prescriptions really that appealing that they should be our only choice? Consider that wine tastes better the more you spend on it, and depression is almost entirely curable with a placebo (to the extent that medication will work at all). Are you saying that there is something wrong with using this sort of science to our benefit? Belief is a hell of a drug.

Re:Homeopathic? (-1, Redundant)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560869)

meh [youtube.com] It's fine

In other news NOAA quit eating seafood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560399)

in other news NOAA employees have decided to quit eating seafood

Thoughts (1, Troll)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560443)

Given the propensity of government to lie or manipulate the truth, I don't believe a word of what the NOAA says. Everyone should look at this with a very healthy dose of skepticism.

Re:Thoughts (0)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560881)

meh [youtube.com] It's fine

Re:Thoughts (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561133)

That video shows just about what you WANT to happen - the radioactive isotopes spread out over a VERY large volume of ocean (and growing), and is getting diluted down to incredibly, incredibly small values.

Thing about radiation is we can detect it at insanely low levels. Doesn't mean that just because we can detect it, it's dangerous or causing anyone or anything any harm.

Re:Thoughts (1)

Orgasmatron (8103) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561067)

The water is just sitting there. Anyone that wants to can go check it for themselves.

Re:Thoughts (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561081)

So given your propensity to dismiss anything that doesn't conform to your paranoid fantasies, I wouldn't bother arguing with you.

GODZILLA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560493)

I felt that this whole "Crisis" was overblown as an attempt to dissuade the middle east that Nuclear Power is the solution for the near future.

Show me, don't tell me (1)

Wansu (846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560541)

Let's test that the way they did long ago. The ones who are reporting the seafood to be safe should be required to eat it.

We'll watch them for a few months to see whether they become ill.

Re:Show me, don't tell me (-1, Redundant)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560905)

meh [youtube.com] It's fine

Say whatever you like. Im not eating it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560599)

After all the coverups and bullshit. I find it hard to believe anyone.

So I will go with the tried and tested way. If it's suspect, don't go near it.

Typo in TFT - "Dilluted" (1)

Insightfill (554828) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560633)

Sorry to be pedantic: "Diluted" - one "el".

Really - it's hard to tell with all of those vertical lines. I once worked for a company that had "illlinois" in the letterhead. Everyone ignored the spell-check alert because it was trendy to do it all in lower-case and they figured that the error was just the first letter missing the cap.

Department of Commerce Study (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560709)

This is fine, but we shouldn't forget that NOAA is part of the US Department of Commerce, the Cabinet department of the United States government concerned with promoting economic growth, and they will not tell us anything that might possibly slow down the buying and selling of things. Oh, like seafood.

perhaps you mean diluted ? (1)

goffster (1104287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560723)

as opposed to dilluted

Seaweed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39560747)

For those of us who actually eat seaweed, what are those levels like?

Any scholarly studies on this?

This just in... (1)

NicknameAvailable (2581237) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560917)

Hippies are still worthless fear mongering pieces of crap that would all be just like Charles Manson - if they were that talented in controlling people.

Comparisons (3, Insightful)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39560987)

Wikipedia says that an estimated 520 tons of radioactive water were dumped into the sea. That rounds out to a shade under 60,000 gallons of water. Compare that to the volume of the whole Pacific Ocean (174400000000000000000 gallons) and you start to see just how minor the release was in the grand scheme of things. Just to really show the difference, if we use the same ratio in terms of distance and make the Fukushima release as the height of a common housefly, then the Pacific Ocean is a trip to Pluto, halfway back, and a bit more besides.

color me skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39561043)

...but I remember them saying there was no harmful radiation hitting populated areas and people didn't need to evacuate. We were told there was not going to be a meltdown and things were going to be fine.

So sorry if I don't want to eat Japanese fish for a while.

and I thought all they had were giant jellyfish (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39561155)

I thought all they had were giant jellyfish around Japan the last couple years. People don't eat those, which may be part of why that's all that's left.

Environmental Engineering 101: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39561207)

The solution to pollution is dilution.

We got an answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39561223)

We now have an answer for all our environmental dump! the ocean! thanks for the research scientists!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...