Fukushima Fuel Pools - A Serious Threat To Humanity?

[Alhazred The Sane]

http://marinedebris.wa.gov/


http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/tsunamidebris/faqs.html

... highly unlikely ... harmful levels of radiation ... NOAA is not involved in any radiation testing or tracking.

So, nothing definitive so far.

 

[Cairenn]

This is directed at the fish but there is a lot of other good info on the radiation from Fukushima

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/09/02/are-your-days-of-eating-pacific-ocean-fish-really-over/

 

[Pete Tar]

The 'unexplained lesions' in seals and polar bears is an alarming one.
One guy thinks it's sunburn (in the case of seals anyway)

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130313/could-alaskas-mystery-seal-illness-be-arctic-sunburn
"I suspected right from the beginning it was UV radiation," Wright said in an interview from his Anchorage-based office this week. "I was expecting there would be consequences for an ozone hole that had formed over the Arctic."

although

When told about Wright's theory, Kathy Burek-Huntington, an Eagle River veterinarian who's assisting with the federal study of sick seals, said, "I think that that's pretty unlikely."

If sunburn were the culprit, she'd expect a more straight-forward pattern to the injuries, such as burns or lesions on the top of the head or the back -- areas where seals would be most likely to get sun exposure.

Still, the team of scientists Burek-Huntington is assisting has been looking into whether something called photo-sensitization is an aspect of the mystery illness. They wonder whether some other illness in the body is producing light-sensitive blood chemicals, similar to what can happen with hepatitis.

Some skin injury patterns detected on seals support this theory, with lesions consistently found on the eyes, mouth and flippers. Yet, severe hepatitis hasn't been found in the sick seals. And so the mystery deepens.

One theory? A large algal bloom started in 2009 and which has continued every summer since in the Kotzebue Sound / Chukchi Sea is also being investigated as a factor. Could the bloom cause some chemical reaction in the Arctic animals that in turn has creates photo-sensitivity? Possibly.

"We don't have a complete answer yet," said Burek-Huntington, conceding that while many causal agents have been ruled out, there's much work yet to be done.
Preliminary tests to determine whether exposure from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant accident in Japan have also not revealed any answers. More tests on tissue samples for radionuclides associated with the event are being conducted, but those done so far have not yielded any direct connection.

ETA more recent article..

The first of Alaska's sick seals began to appear in summer 2011. Mostly ringed seals, covered in lesions, were being discovered hauled out on Arctic shorelines. The ones still living were lethargic, and in some cases already dead. Two years later, fewer and fewer cases are being documented, and at least one Alaska researcher believes the fatal illness may have run its course. But scientists are still unsure what caused the unusual mortality event among Arctic pinnipeds.

"They've done all the viral tests, all the bacterial, they've looked into radioactivity, and they've come up with a garden variety of things that are typically found in animals that are sick, but nothing that was a smoking gun,"
...

In 2012, there were far fewer cases reported, and many animals reportedly spotted with lesions were suspected to be possible survivors of the previous year's outbreak, since the affliction didn't appear to be as severe.

And the improvement has apparently continued. An updated on the event issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in early 2013 said that no new cases had been reported for the year, and NOAA spokeswoman Julie Speegle updated that Friday, saying that the agency had documented "no new confirmed cases in 2013 to date."
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130819/has-mystery-illness-alaska-seals-run-its-course

Nothing on the polar bears though.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Not too big an earthquake, but worrying nonetheless:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/25/magnitude-7-3-earthquakehitsoffjapansfukushima.html

 

[JRBids]

It's mentioned radiation *may* have been leaking before the tsunami itself due to the initial earthquake.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/fukushima-may-have-leaked-radiation-before-quake.html

Here's a list for you Cairenn if you're feeling up to trawling through 28 reasons someone wants people to be scared.
Many seem to be redundant and they're all based on speculation.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/10/28-signs-that-west-coast-is-being.html
The title is blatant fear-mongering.
I do think it wise to be informed on possible areas of danger, but many out there have a compulsive need to hype any danger to apocalyptic proportions, it sells.

Well, I guess they can stop chemtrailing now.

 

[Grieves]

Not too big an earthquake, but worrying nonetheless:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/25/magnitude-7-3-earthquakehitsoffjapansfukushima.html

A lot of silence on it in the wake of the initial announcement that everything was "A-ok" on the 25th. I get the eerie impression we're going to hear about more initially undiscovered leaks in the near future... and now there's this.

The idea is that the part of Tepco responsible for the clean-up would be split off, while the rest of the corporation would be allowed to return to its core business of generating electricity, says the BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Tokyo.

Pretty mind-blowing. At a time when the whole Nuclear industry at least should be putting their all into solving this thing, It's being suggested that the corporation with the most responsibility should go back to business as usual, while the arm of their business that's mishandling the crisis is hacked off.

 

[Cairenn]

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/?fb_source=pubv1

They have a great debunk on this.

 

[Pete Tar]

A lot of silence on it in the wake of the initial announcement that everything was "A-ok" on the 25th....

If things are okay, why would you expect there to be more announcements?
You've found a way to make things being fine suspicious.

 

[Grieves]

If things are okay, why would you expect there to be more announcements?
You've found a way to make things being fine suspicious.

First off, things aren't fine at Fukushima. This is a fact. The plant is still in crisis, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. An earthquake, even if only slightly, is obviously going to exacerbate that crisis. A brief announcement the very day of stating that 'Nope! Everything's fine..!" followed by five days of relative silence on the issue is perturbing from people who have consistently misrepresented the severity of the crisis. I'd at least expect a "Well, these were the complications, this is how we dealt with/are dealing with them" in the following days... instead the first piece of real news we get out of Fukushima since then is that Tepco's clean-up crew is going to be amputated for Tepco like a diseased limb.

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/10/28/more-fukushima-scaremongering-debunked/?fb_source=pubv1

They have a great debunk on this.

A debunk on what...? That Fukushima is in crisis? Or that it's actually a major environmental danger..? You realize you're citing a play-write blogger?

 

[Pete Tar]

First off, things aren't fine at Fukushima. This is a fact.

Jesus. Of course there is still a problem being dealt with. They make a statement saying the earthquake did not exacerbate the situation. Then because they *don't* make more statements, you presume it's suspicious.

A debunk on what...? That Fukushima is in crisis? Or that it's actually a major environmental danger..? You realize you're citing a play-write blogger?

None of those.
Debunking the ridiculous hysteric shameful scare-mongering and misleading article that was being shared on the internet.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Debunking the ridiculous hysteric shameful scare-mongering and misleading article that was being shared on the internet.

I like Dr. Andrew David Thaler's characterization of that article.

At its best, it's an illogical piece of post-modern absurdism. At its worst, its empirically false and intentionally misleading, rife with out-of-context quotes and cherry-picked data. The author had 28 chances to make a single reasonable point, and every single one rang hollow.

...and his conclusion.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was an unparalleled environmental catastrophe and we will be seeing fallout from it for years to come. I honestly can not think of any reason to fabricate a bunch of paranoid talking points to make it seem worse.

The West Coast of the United States is being fried. It's being fried by over-fishing, agricultural run-off, runaway development, and a host of other issues, but it's not being fried by Fukushima, and articles that promote that fallacious argument are distracting us from the dominant causes of environmental degradation on our coasts: Us.

http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=15903

 

[Grieves]

Debunking the ridiculous hysteric shameful scare-mongering and misleading article that was being shared on the internet.

I like Dr. Andrew David Thaler's characterization of that article.

Cool... but the guys screaming 'the runoff is killing the fish!' and the guys screaming 'the fish hardly notice the runoff!' both have their own angles that they're playing, and both are presenting a lot of misleading figures, and neither have much to do with the serious threat Fukushima continues to pose, given the situation there is tenuous, and error or prolonged delay could lead to a considerable up-scaling of the disaster, potentially to an extreme.

The West Coast of the United States is being fried. It's being fried by over-fishing, agricultural run-off, runaway development, and a host of other issues, but it's not being fried by Fukushima, and articles that promote that fallacious argument are distracting us from the dominant causes of environmental degradation on our coasts: Us.

I got a chuckle out of this bit. How is runoff from a damaged nuclear reactor not within the purview of 'us' within this man's mind..? His later comment seems to explain this a little better:

To put things in perspective, the Fukushima disaster released approximately one ten-thousandth of the total radiation produce by the world's coal power plants annually. That number will either be reassuring or terrifying, but, really, it should be both.

He just so happens to conclude with an intellectually dishonest rib on the coal industry. Hmm. Wonder what that could signify.

In any event, whether massive, constant runoff of highly radioactive waste for three years equates to a major problem for the pacific (I'm assuming that it does, even as some argue she's a big tough old Gal who'll pull through just fine, as some stereotype of an unrepentant abusive husband might suggest) the crisis at Fukushima, which again could easily escalate with as little as an unfortunate turn in the weather, is being miss-managed and is receiving far too little support. If ever there was a time for Nations to set their bullshit aside and strap down to get a problem solved right, it's in this instance. Instead, the operation is being increasingly isolated, even potentially from the company that's responsible.

Jesus. Of course there is still a problem being dealt with. They make a statement saying the earthquake did not exacerbate the situation. Then because they *don't* make more statements, you presume it's suspicious.

Saying the Earthquake didn't exacerbate the situation is worth questioning when the information to come out of Tepco and the Japanese government has very often been misleading or dishonest. So yes, when updates stop surfacing for a while, only for the critical project with unquantifiable time restraints to get delayed, yeah, I get suspicious. I'm a suspicious fellow, I guess. I suppose I should be more trusting of the tangled web of mafia-bullied/partnered/controlled contractors overseen by a corporation hungry for a way out and a Government too proud to ask for help, and the underpaid, overworked, and sickly people who are in many cases being forced to do the job.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

the guys screaming 'the fish hardly notice the runoff!' ... are presenting a lot of misleading figures,

Can you give some examples where Dr. Andrew David Thaler presents misleading figures?

I got a chuckle out of this bit. How is runoff from a damaged nuclear reactor not within the purview of 'us' within this man's mind..?

He's saying that claiming the west coast is being fried by Fukushima is fallacious fear mongering that distracts from the demonstrably real problems troubling the west coast.

 

[Grieves]

Can you give some examples where Dr. Andrew David Thaler presents misleading figures?

I did. Here it is again.

To put things in perspective, the Fukushima disaster released approximately one ten-thousandth of the total radiation produce by the world's coal power plants annually. That number will either be reassuring or terrifying, but, really, it should be both.

The use of 'released' alone, as if to suggest the Fukushima leaks have all been stopped, is misleading enough... but the comparison is ludicrous, and links to the 'Fukushima is equal to 76 million bananas' article, which is a ridiculous piece drawing nonsensical parallels, especially that of it's title. Seriously? Bananas? And who the fuck is to say what the effect of dumping 76 million bananas off the coast of Japan would be? What in the world is the point of such comparison..?

 

[Trigger Hippie]

but the comparison is ludicrous, and links to the 'Fukushima is equal to 76 million bananas' article, which is a ridiculous piece drawing nonsensical parallels, especially that of it's title. Seriously? Bananas?

He explicitly said that Fukashima released 1/10,000 the annual radiation produced by the world's coal plants, then he linked to an article that makes the same claim. Are these figures incorrect?

The radiation that fossil fuel plants spew into the environment each year is around 0.1 EBq. That's ExaBecquerel, or 10 to the power of 18. Fukushima is pumping out 10 trillion becquerels a year at present. Or 10 TBq, or 10 of 10 to the power of 12. Or, if you prefer, one ten thousandth of the amount that the world's coal plants are doing. Or even, given that there are only about 2,500 coal plants in the world, Fukushima is, in this disaster, pumping out around one quarter of the radiation that a coal plant does in normal operation.

 

[Grieves]

He doesn't 'liken', he directly extracted that information from the 'Banana' article. The Banana article seems to base it's claims in this article by the Scientific American.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Here are calculations from a site which advocates nuclear power, and is critical of coal, based in the same article. His original calculations, not surprisingly, came out to suggest that the coal industry pulls off a Fukushima disaster once every six months. He got his calculations wrong at first however... by a considerable margin... and was forced to change the results if not the sentiment. I don't know where Banana-man is getting his figures on coal from, as he makes absolutely no effort to cite their sources. He's also using inaccurate figures where his measure of the leaks is concerned.

The nuclear accident in Japan has many reports of total radiation release. Several are listed in Wikipedia. To be VERY generous to the coal industry, lets take the largest airborne release I was able to find (Iodine and Caesium together) = 270 PBq. Then add the largest water release reported 27 PBq for a total of 297 PBq.
But the release continues... at a reported rate of 200 million Bq/h in September. At this rate the total release from the accident will double after 170,000 years. But clean-up and recovery efforts along with natural decay means that rate can not possibly be sustained.
But for my calculation, I will assume the release from Fukushima is double what has been reported or 600 PBq. This is totally unfair to science as well as the nuclear industry, but let's roll with it.
So to summarise:
Coal = 1.067 PBq/yr
Fukushima = 600 PBq (unjustifiably doubled by me)
Therefore: every 600 years worldwide coal combustion releases as much radiation as was released from the nuclear accident at Fukushima (in reality, it's more like every 300 years). Or in one typical lifetime, coal use will result in the release of around 20% of the activity released from the Fukushima accident.

http://nuclearaustralia.blogspot.ca/2011/12/coal-1-fukushima-every-6-months.html
It's an embarrassing mistake to make, but at least the guy is honest about it. I'm surprised that article hasn't been pulled from the site outright.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

He doesn't 'liken', he directly extracted that information from the 'Banana' article.

I know. That's why is said he 'linked' to it.

I don't know where Banana-man is getting his figures

Neither do I. So let's use the figures from your article.

6140000000 metric tons of coal burned /yr = 6768191449 short tons
6.77 billion tons @ 0.00427 millicuries/ton = 28900177.5 millicuries = 28900 Ci
if 1 curie = 37 000 000 000 becquerels
Then burning coal produces 1.0693×10¹⁵ Bq per year or 1.07 PBq
Also, assuming 200 million Bq/h is leaked into the Pacific, this equates to 1.752×10¹² Bq per yr.

So, the initial explosion released (into the atmosphere) 300 times the total radiation produce by the coal industry in one year.

The largest water release was 27 times the total radiation produce by the coal industry in one year.

The current total yearly radiation leaked into the Pacific is 571 times less radiation than what's being produced by burning coal.

Did I get that right?

 

[Grieves]

I know. That's why is said he 'linked' to it.



Neither do I. So let's use the figures from your article.

6140000000 metric tons of coal burned /yr = 6768191449 short tons
6.77 billion tons @ 0.00427 millicuries/ton = 28900177.5 Millicuies = 28907.9 Ci
if 1 curie = 37 000 000 000 becquerels
So burning coal produces 1.0695923×10¹⁵ Bq per year or 1.07 PBq
Also, assuming 200 million Bq/h is leaked into the Pacific, this equates to 1.752×10¹² Bq per yr.

So, the initial explosion released (into the atmosphere) 300 times the total radiation produce by the coal industry in one year.

The largest water release was 27 times the total radiation produce by the coal industry in one year.

The current total yearly radiation leaked into the Pacific is 571 times less radiation than what's being produced by burning coal.

Did I get that right?

I'm not sure, especially about your last point. Just the same, Banana-man is talking out of his ass so far as I can tell, and Dr. Andrew seems to be quoting fart-song. I'm not saying there aren't inaccuracies and lies among the doomsayers, but it's not a good idea to relax and shrug it off because some guys who 'seem' to know what they're talking about say everything is honky-dory. Nobody even really knows how much has leaked/is still leaking, it's all estimates based on shaky figures.

It's also intellectually dishonest to run comparisons between the cumulative radiation output of an entire globe-spanning industry and the radiation output of a single damaged facility over the course of the year. The argument is akin to: "What do you mean there's too much Vodka being consumed at this frat-house? Why, the regional average for all alcohol consumption is 1.6 million liters a year, which is 571 times more than we've consumed this year! Thus, the drunks pouring out of our Frat-house aren't causing any problems."

 

[Mick West]

It's also intellectually dishonest to run comparisons between the cumulative radiation output of an entire globe-spanning industry and the radiation output of a single damaged facility over the course of the year. The argument is akin to: "What do you mean there's too much Vodka being consumed at this frat-house? Why, the regional average for all alcohol consumption is 1.6 million liters a year, which is 571 times more than we've consumed this year! Thus, the drunks pouring out of our Frat-house aren't causing any problems."

Sure, if people were just talking about local pollution. But they are talking about the entire pacific, or the entire Northern hemisphere. So the comparisons are valid.

 

[Grieves]

Sure, if people were just talking about local pollution. But they are talking about the entire pacific, or the entire Northern hemisphere. So the comparisons are valid.

If the figures that seem to suggest several hundred years worth of the modern coal-industry's global radiation output has already been released by Fukushima are accurate, how so? The coal industry in't even that old, let alone the modern coal industry. If there's any truth to those figures at all, obviously the comparison holds no water, as the radiation released by Fukushima already outweighs that of the coal industry's entire history.

 

[Mick West]

If the figures that seem to suggest several hundred years worth of the modern coal-industry's global radiation output has already been released by Fukushima are accurate, how so? The coal industry in't even that old, let alone the modern coal industry. If there's any truth to those figures at all, obviously the comparison holds no water, as the radiation released by Fukushima already outweighs that of the coal industry's entire history.

TH's figures suggest it's the other way around. 1/571th the amount the coal industry released. I have not checked them.

[Edit] I see the claim is that the initial release was higher. .... Must do some math...

 

[Trigger Hippie]

TH's figures suggest it's the other way around. 1/571th the amount the coal industry released. I have not checked them.

[Edit] I see the claim is that the initial release was higher. .... Must do some math...

I used the numbers from an article Grieves provided.

http://nuclearaustralia.blogspot.ca/2011/12/coal-1-fukushima-every-6-months.html

 

[Trigger Hippie]

but it's not a good idea to relax and shrug it off because some guys who 'seem' to know what they're talking about say everything is honky-dory

Everything I've read to date can be summed up like this: Fukashima is a disaster on a local scale, insignificant on a global scale, but we're not out of the woods yet. This same sentiment has been repeated at least a half dozen times in this thread alone.

Banana-man is talking out of his ass so far as I can tell, and Dr. Andrew seems to be quoting fart-song.

They're attempting to help people understand the significance of the the numbers by using comparisons. So if you don't like the banana example, and you don't like the coal example, let's compare the Fukushima leak to the natural level of radiation in the Pacific ocean.

Potassium-40 is the most common radionuclide in the oceans, found in concentrations of 11 Bq/L. There are 6.6×10^20 litres in the Pacific ocean. So that means there are 7.26×10^21 Bq from naturally occurring potassium-40 alone. Assuming Fukushima is leaking 1.752×10^12 Bq per yr. (as per the article you provided)...

Then that means the Fukushima leak is increasing the radiation in the Pacific ocean by 0.000000024 % a year over the radiation that's already naturally present.

Naturally this assumes the radiation is uniformly distributed and my number and calculations are correct. Not completely realistic, but I hope it illustrates to some degree how really small the leak is on an oceanic scale.

So once again... Fukashima is a disaster on a local scale, insignificant on a global scale, but we're not out of the woods yet.

 

[Grieves]

I used the numbers from an article Grieves provided.

http://nuclearaustralia.blogspot.ca/2011/12/coal-1-fukushima-every-6-months.html

And I admittedly can't make any claim as to the veracity of these figures other than to say many were derived from the Scientific American article, which itself contained corrections that gave clearer context to the comparison. I only give them a bit more authority because of the gravity of the correction made, the seeming intent of the blog as a Nuclear advocate, and how drastically it alters the original context of the piece.

Naturally this assumes the radiation is uniformly distributed and my number and calculations are correct. Not completely realistic, but I hope it illustrates to some degree how really small the leak is on an oceanic scale.

So once again... Fukashima is a disaster on a local scale, insignificant on a global scale, but we're not out of the woods yet.

I think this is a potentially grave underestimation of the crisis when shared by those in the power to set policy. The life-systems of this planet are not regionally bound, do not share or consider national borders, and vital components cycle from ocean to ocean rather perpetually. Indeed, widely dispersed throughout the entirety of the pacific ocean, fully spread and diluted through every cubic liter, the effects such amounts of radiation could have on those life-cycles may well be non-existent. But that's not what's happening and we know it's not. And migratory species don't have Geiger-counters. 'Hey, the ocean's big..!' has been the go-too response for worries about chemical and waste dumping, and here it is again to downplay a crisis. In the bigger picture, you suggest, the water can take it. And yeah, I agree. Not so much on the things swimming through it now, though. I get the impression they're already in a whole lot of trouble, and will only be put in greater jeopardy by this event.

Across the globe, 1,851 species of fish — 21 percent of all fish species evaluated — were deemed at risk of extinction by the IUCN in 2010, including more than a third of sharks and rays.

We're currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural "background" rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1].

That all said, the topic of this thread is the fuel-pool problem and the danger -it- poses.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

And I admittedly can't make any claim as to the veracity of these figures

Well, if you claim that Banana-man is talking out of his ass, Dr. Andrew is quoting fart-song, and you're not willing to stand behind your own reference at Nuclearaustralia, then what figures are you willing to support?

The life-systems of this planet are not regionally bound, do not share or consider national borders, and vital components cycle from ocean to ocean rather perpetually. Indeed, widely dispersed throughout the entirety of the pacific ocean, fully spread and diluted through every cubic liter, the effects such amounts of radiation could have on those life-cycles may well be non-existent. But that's not what's happening and we know it's not.

Inevitably there will be hot-spots until the radiation is completely diluted. Hence the closure of local fisheries off the coast of Japan.

And migratory species don't have Geiger-counters. 'Hey, the ocean's big..!' has been the go-too response for...

Seawater everywhere contains many naturally occurring radionuclides, the most common being polonium-210. As a result, fish caught in the Pacific and elsewhere already have measurable quantities of these substances. Most fish do not migrate far from home, which is why fisheries off Fukushima remain closed. But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, can swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan. However, cesium is a salt taken up by the flesh that will begin to flush out of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters less affected by Fukushima. 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.

-- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

That all said, the topic of this thread is the fuel-pool problem and the danger -it- poses.

Fukushima is a disaster on a local scale, insignificant on a global scale, but we're not out of the woods yet.

 

[Grieves]

Well, if you claim that Banana-man is talking out of his ass, Dr. Andrew is quoting fart-song, and you're not willing to stand behind your own reference at Nuclearaustralia, then what figures are you willing to support?

See the rest of your partial quote. I'm admittedly not an overly math-minded person. The Nuclearaustralia piece simply has an actual source for it's figures. And, as it began as a piece espousing this whole 'coal industry makes Fukushima crisis look like a drop in the bucket' notion, but had to take a stark turn in the opposite direction when a mistake was found in it's math, it speaks toward the uncertainty surrounding that claim.

Inevitably there will be hot-spots until the radiation is completely diluted. Hence the closure of local fisheries off the coast of Japan.

And how does that protect the fish..? I wasn't speaking to the danger to people cracking cans of fish, I was talking about the danger to oceanic ecosystems themselves.

Seawater everywhere contains many naturally occurring radionuclides, the most common being polonium-210. As a result, fish caught in the Pacific and elsewhere already have measurable quantities of these substances. Most fish do not migrate far from home, which is why fisheries off Fukushima remain closed. But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, can swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan. However, cesium is a salt taken up by the flesh that will begin to flush out of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters less affected by Fukushima. 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.

-- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

this is regarding whether the fish are safe for human consumption. The references to dose are regarding what a human receives from eating that fish. He does not speak toward what effect it might have on the health and reproductive cycle of the animal itself. When a person goes through radiation therapy, their system may be flushed of the radiation in the days or weeks afterward, but they typically experience grueling symptoms first, and impotence can endure for some time. Fish don't exactly have doctors to manage their symptoms and beds to fall into/support systems in place if they happen to get a surprise dose of radiation on their passage through the pacific.

Fukushima is a disaster on a local scale, insignificant on a global scale, but we're not out of the woods yet.

Every single environmental disaster on the ocean, every single oil-spill and chemical dump has been 'insignificant on the global scale', where narrow and short term interests are concerned. The long term still looms, and is getting harder to ignore.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

See the rest of your partial quote. I'm admittedly not an overly math-minded person. The Nuclearaustralia piece simply has an actual source for it's figures.

Dr. Andrew David Thaler's article, the one you quoted to start this exchange with me, also has sources. You can find them both here:

http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=15903

I'd be happy to discuss any of them.

Fish don't exactly have doctors to manage their symptoms and beds to fall into/support systems in place if they happen to get a surprise dose of radiation on their passage through the pacific.

But the dose of radiation on their passage through the pacific is much lower than a single dental x-ray.

 

[Pete Tar]

Well I guess if the thread is about the *fuel pools* and not the amount of slightly radioactive water being released, then we would have to examine the current state of the containment, not argue the amounts of radiation in comparison to less obvious sources of radiation that are more pervasive.

This may be an issue...

Missing reactor cores: Since the accident at Fukushima on March 11, 2011, three reactor cores have gone missing. There was an unprecedented three reactor 'melt-down.' These melted cores, called corium lavas, are thought to have passed through the basements of reactor buildings 1, 2 and 3, and to be somewhere in the ground underneath.

Harvey Wasserman, who has been working on nuclear energy issues for over 40 years, tells us that during those four decades no one ever talked about the possibility of a multiple meltdown, but that is what occurred at Fukushima.

It is an unprecedented situation to not know where these cores are. TEPCO is pouring water where they think the cores are, but they are not sure. There are occasional steam eruptions coming from the grounds of the reactors, so the cores are thought to still be hot.

The concern is that the corium lavas will enter or may have already entered the aquifer below the plant. That would contaminate a much larger area with radioactive elements. Some suggest that it would require the area surrounding Tokyo, 40 million people, to be evacuated. Another concern is that if the corium lavas enter the aquifer, they could create a "super-heated pressurized steam reaction beneath a layer of caprock causing a major 'hydrovolcanic' explosion."

A further concern is that a large reserve of groundwater which is coming in contact with the corium lavas is migrating towards the ocean at the rate of four meters per month. This could release greater amounts of radiation than were released in the early days of the disaster.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/19547-fukushima-a-global-threat-that-requires-a-global-response

Answer to thread topic, potentially yes, but not as of yet.

 

[Cairenn]

A science based discussion of this.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/the-most-dangerous-manmade-lava-flow/#more-155251

 

[Bemused to Death]

This doesn't seem encouraging re the fallout:

http://enenews.com/abc-radio-cancer...range-officials-wont-release-basic-data-audio

TONY EASTLEY, Host: One of the terrible legacies of the radioactive fallout from the Russian disaster at Chernobyl is now being visited upon people in Japan. Researchers in Fukushima are uncovering higher than expected rates of thyroid cancer in children. [...]

MARK WILLACY, ABC's North Asia correspondent: Before the nuclear meltdowns, health authorities estimated thyroid cancer rates among Fukushima's children at between one and two cases in every million. Since the disaster [...] about 200,000 children tested, there have been 18 confirmed cases of thyroid cancer and 25 more suspected cases – an unexpectedly high rate.

AKIRA SUGENOYA, Mayor of Matsumoto City and thyroid surgeon who spent years treating children in Ukraine and Belarus after Chernobyl: When I look at Fukushima now the number of thyroid cancer cases in kids is quite high. The doctors in Fukushima say that it shouldn't be emerging this fast, so they say it's not related to the accident. But that's very unscientific, and it's not a reason that we can accept. [...]

GERALDINE THOMAS, Imperial College London: Following Fukushima I doubt that there will be any rise in thyroid cancers in Japan. [...] If you look for a problem, especially if you use an incredibly sensitive technique, which is what the Japanese are actually doing, you will find something.

WILLACY: [...] But as Foreign Correspondent discovered, Fukushima's health authorities are acting almost in secret, even refusing our request for a simple age breakdown of the thyroid cancer victims, citing privacy reasons. This refusal to share basic data has aroused the suspicions of thyroid specialist Akira Sugenoya.

SUGENOYA: I'm still very angry. I think they have this data, so it's very strange why they won't release it.

WILLACY: And it's not just the thyroid data that has been kept secret, so too were the initial meetings of the Fukushima panel charged with screening the region's children. For parents like Tomoko Koike, who are worried about the effect of the fallout on their young children, it smells like a cover up.

TOMOKO KOIKE: I do not think they're telling us everything. I cannot trust what they say. [...]