Fukushima

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 31, 2018.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,696
    The last thing I heard was the Japanese Government was planning on releasing contaminated water into the ocean...
    Does anyone here understsnd the situation...should we be happy that the problem is under control or should we stop buying stuff that comes from the ocean.
    Should we be regarding the situation as a threat to human survival?
    Alex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,355
    Nope. There's already nuclear waste in the water from natural processes and nuclear testing during the 1950's and 1960's. We've done OK.

    The water to be released contains an isotope of hydrogen (tritium) that occurs naturally. The water being released has far more tritium than normal water, and it's over the limit for normal wastewater releases. But diluted in that much water, it will not even be measurable here in the US.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,400
    They are taking a guesstimated risk that whatever ecosystem damage the release does will not cascade or end up focused on something critical.
    They do not have much of a base of knowledge to guess from - the ecosystems involved are poorly understood.
    They are counting on dilution over time, in other words, to limit whatever harm is done by the initial release. And the Pacific Ocean is very large - it's not a bad gamble, considering the alternatives.

    The risk to humanity in general is minuscule. And they don't have much choice - once something like Fukushima is built, fate has a hostage.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    That's good news, we wouldn't want anything to spoil their whaling.
     
  8. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,652
    We'll be fine.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,696
    I worry.
    I think of things like DDT and how it was all ok but caused unexpected problems.
    Certainly DDT solved some big problems and its effect has now been forgotten.

    Alex
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,355
    Well, the "good" news is that tritium occurs naturally. When cosmic radiation increases (due to the area of space we pass through, nearby supernovas etc) more tritium is generated in our atmosphere; when it decreases the concentration of tritium goes down. So in a way the biome has some "experience" with changing levels of tritium. Thus as long as we keep its concentration low, it's something we've lived with before.

    That's not to say that it's good or anything, just that it is a known hazard. Unlike DDT, which didn't exist before we created it.
     
    sweetpea likes this.
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,055

    couple of points to consider
    1. the "leaking of radioactive contaminant[including water] has never stopped and there is significant radialogical damage to the pacific ocean from it.
    2. any discussion about dumping radioactive water into the ocean is in fact about dumping "more" radioactive water into the ocean.
    3. the main issue is trying to find somewhere to put all the radioactive water they are collecting and it is a money issue. not an ecology issue.
    4. the idea of dilution & dispersion seems to be used as a way to marginalise the issue, however, i have not seeen any official ideas about dispersing the radioactive water over vast areas of the sea.
    5. The world profits for the Japanese tech which makes computer parts which drives the entire world.
    This means the entire world is accountable as a consumer for the Japanese economy.
    Leaving japan out in the cold to deal with this issue is like declaring that the 9/11 attack on the usa is solely the usas' problem and any action they take is a threat against all other countrys.

    6. the underlying issues around cost of energy production and the refusal of many countrys to address energy security as a cost per voter issue to force governments to own and fund energy production so it is not left with complete financial disasters where private corporations can just go bankrupt and walk off leaving entire citys layed to waste.
     
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,055
    the effect has been forgotten because they waited for all those effected to die off before they concluded their reports.
    the global economic crash of 2008 helped the modern world forget about many things.
    modern slavery in the usa is a big issue but you never hear about that in the news because it makes the rich elite feel uncomfortable while they try and spend all your tax money on themselves.
     
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,696
    If it were up to me I would transport as much of the bad water to Antarctica so it could be stored and not run all over the place.

    I also suspect that the NP lobby probably plays down the problem so they stay first in line to save the planet.

    Besides DDT ...remember when smoking was cool and not harmful...and remember asbestos....but not doubt we are being told the truth and best practices are in place.
    Alex
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,355
    What is the "significant radiological damage to the pacific ocean?"

    From the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry:

    ==========
    Overall, the radioactivity levels in the marine biota near Fukushima were lower than predicted by some early studies immediately following the accident, and exposures were too low for acute effects at the population level to be observed in marine organisms ranging from microalgae to mollusks to fish. . . .More recent studies have shown variable levels in individual fish, though they too confirm that population-level effects have not been observed.
    ==========
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,355
    Well, except it's sort of melting too. And the process of transporting it would probably do a lot more damage than the water ever would.
     
  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,055
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fukushima-emergency/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    who are these people and who owns the company ?
    who gives it money and pays for it ?
    https://translate.google.com/transl...onmental_Toxicology_and_Chemistry&prev=search

    why are you quoting them ?
    are they a national science organisation made up of volunteer scientists ?

    here is NOAA
    accidental advantages
    https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=20593
    Seafood information
    what really astounds me is how many modern people & familys have Tuna as a basic compulsory high value Protein in their Diet, and the apparent global disregard for any scientific ongoing monitoring to maintain the critical food source.

    its like someone driving around with a car full of children with no license no insurance no seat belts no air bags and never checking the tires or the brakes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,355
    What do you think that chart represents?
    "SETAC is a not-for-profit, worldwide professional organization composed of about 5,400 individuals and institutions in over 80 countries dedicated to the study, analysis and solution of environmental problems, the management and regulation of natural resources, research and development and environmental education. SETAC’s mission is to support the development of principles and practices for protection, enhancement and management of sustainable environmental quality and ecosystem integrity."

    "The SETAC North America Endowment Fund was established in 2005 to develop and grow invested funds in order to annually generate investment proceeds for use in supporting technical, scientific and educational activities consistent with the society’s mission. Contributions to the fund are received through a combination of current and planned (future) gifts by SETAC members, their home organizations and other philanthropic groups. Fundraisers at the annual meetings, generous contributions by legacy donors, and all the smaller contributions from hundreds of SETAC North America members have allowed the fund to grow so that we can reserve the principal in the fund and use proceeds to support activities consistent with SETAC’s mission. We have been able to support students at the annual meetings and Pellston Workshops, as well as early-career scientists."
    Because peer reviewed research in scientific journals trumps Youtube videos made by some guy.
    From your link: " For public health, the levels of radiation are very low and far below levels that are considered cause for concern. "
    I agree that overfishing is a big problem.
     
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,055
    just found this
    17 October, 2018
    https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/fake-map-fukushima-disaster-radiation
    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukushima-radioactive-water-leak/
    what is the sustainable global tuna catch amount in tons ? (myth?)
     
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,055
    heading back to the thread header...
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2019
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,400
    One reason for that is its inherent humility - it doesn't make wild extrapolations of safety or lack of harm from the limited findings it reports.

    It's good that the basic predictions of dilution and small influence on a few key resources important for human safety are being borne out. But as two thirds of the bad stuff Fukushima released has never been accounted for, and the ecology of the Pacific Ocean is so little and poorly known, reassurance can be only contingent and partial.

    Fact is they don't have much choice. They are taking a risk because they must, and taking what they hope is the lowest risk based on what little knowledge they have. It's the kind of situation building nukes creates.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,355
    Agreed. It is, however, far less risk than alternatives (like coal) entail.
    That's true of every power source out there. Can science accurately account for all - even most - of the uranium and thorium emitted by power plants? Or the dopants in discarded solar panels? Or the toxic metals in storage batteries? Nope. Fortunately, we have pretty good estimates.
     
  22. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    I should have made it more clearer in my post#4. I was talking of Japan's recent decision to restart commercial whaling in July.
    www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46682976
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,400
    Losing track of the point source concentrated release from Fukushima, and all its effects, is another level of poor estimate though.
    If the same general thing happens to one of the Fukushima designs in the Mississippi or Great Lakes drainage, it's not going to look like somebody lost a truckload of car batteries in a bridge accident.
     

Share This Page