This message was self-deleted by its author

[RobertEarl]

This message was self-deleted by its author (RobertEarl) on Wed Oct 29, 2014, 01:16 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[RobertEarl]

1. Massive pool of warm water

Gov’t Scientists: “Something very unusual occurring” off west coast of US, Canada — “Unprecedented in historical record” — “Will dramatically reduce productivity” in 6,500 sq. miles of ocean — Anomaly extends “across Pacific to Japan” — “Who knows what will happen?” (MAP)

Fishletter Issue 335, July 24, 2014 (emphasis added): There is a massive pool of warm water in the Gulf of Alaska, NOAA scientist Nate Mantua said in an email. It is unprecedented in the historical record, he added… the past year is way out of the historical range — “so who knows what will happen?“

NOAA Fisheries, Sept. 2014: Scientists across NOAA Fisheries are watching a persistent expanse of exceptionally warm water spanning the Gulf of Alaska that could send reverberations through the marine food web. The warm expanse appeared about a year ago and the longer it lingers, the greater potential it has to affect ocean life… “Right now it’s super warm all the way across the Pacific to Japan,” said Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with NOAA… “it’s a very interesting time because when you see something like this that’s totally new you have opportunities to learn things you were never expecting.” Not since records began has the region of the North Pacific Ocean been so warm for so long… The situation does not match recognized patterns in ocean conditions such as El Niño Southern Oscillation or Pacific Decadal Oscillation… “It’s a strange and mixed bag out there,” Mantua said… warm temperatures are higher and cover more of the northern Pacific than the PDO typically affects… cold near-shore conditions in the Pacific Northwest also don’t match the typical PDO pattern.

[Takket]

41. Absurd

The concept of a leaking reactor having an appreciable system wide effect on the temperature of the ocean us absurd. You might seem done extremity localized warmth within a mile of wherever the water discharges into the ocean, but that it is.

I just took the professional engineering exam last week and I know something of fluid and thermodynamics. I can tell you that anyone promoting the concept if Fukushima warming the Pacific Ocean us nothing more than a quack and should be disregarded as such.

[RobertEarl]

46. Leaking reactor?

Really, that's what you think of Fukushima: Leaking reactor? Not reactors, but reactor? Really, that is your opinion?

There are three melted down reactor cores that they are pumping water over to keep from fissioning. It may, or may not be working - this keep from fissioning. The cores are not leaking. The cores are being washed down with never ending flows of water and that water is going into the Pacific.

24/7/365 for 3 1/2 years now.

Leaking reactor? Gawd.... And you dare label me a quack?

[snooper2]

78. You ever see a carp jump over a beaver dam on the first of the month?

[RobertEarl]

99. Eh?

"Of all the changes introduced by man into the household of nature, large-scale nuclear fission is undoubtedly the most dangerous and profound. As a result, ionizing radiation has become the most serious agent of pollution of the environment and the greatest threat to man’s survival on earth… The danger to humanity created by the so-called peaceful uses of atomic energy may be much greater. "

"…But that nuclear fission represents an incredible, incomparable, and unique hazard for human life does not enter any calculation and is never mentioned."

“The real problems of our planet are not economic or technical, they are philosophical. The philosophy of unbridled materialism is being challenged by events.”
― E.F. Schumacher

[snooper2]

101. I fixed a cracked bell housing with JB Weld once, but then ran out of vitamin D3

[RobertEarl]

103. Thanks for the kicks.

You are like number 3 in my fan club. Try harder, you could be #1!

[FSogol]

79. Agreed. Total nonsense on every level. n/t

[hobbit709]

2. Too bad we don't have unrec any more.

[GeorgeGist]

3. A reasoned rebuttal too difficult?

[hobbit709]

4. Reasoning with that poster is like talking to a brick wall.

[Warpy]

15. Thanks for the warning

Now I will fail to point out to him that one nuke meltdown is not going to heat all those cubic miles water appreciably but that map #2 does show some localized heating, the same kind that exists at other coastal urban centers but which is likely from Fukushima. It is very localized.

[RobertEarl]

20. So

You have come to a conclusion, already? Not interested in anything that does not comport with your limited understanding? Just reject it out of hand because: hobbit.

Make sure you read reply #1, where the science clearly states there is a real anomaly in the N. Pacific.

[Warpy]

25. Read the damned chart.

[snooper2]

83. The canopener strikes again!

Published on Oct 27, 2014
This afternoon another Penske truck managed to get the roof peeled back
by the 11foot8 bridge. Classic canopener. Enjoy, and please drive
carefully.

[bluesbassman]

89. They should bevel that leading edge for more effective shearing.

As designed it just isn't cutting it.

[snooper2]

93. interesting you mention that :)

So, this YouTube channel has been up over six years with the greatness videos-

They added warning lights a long time ago- sensors detect if you are too high and lights start flashing. Just last year the DOT installed some new signage. 2 hours later-

LOL

&list=UUXX0RWOIBjt4o3ziHu-6a5A


in 2011 the railroad company installed the crash beam so trucks would stop hitting the railroad trestle (for your shearing) I guess it could use some sharpening

speeding truck bends 11foot8 crash beam

&list=UUXX0RWOIBjt4o3ziHu-6a5A

[bluesbassman]

95. I remember seeing that one when they installed the lights...

That's really wild.

[Quackers]

91. You really screwed with my mind.

I just got out of the hospital yesterday and then I see this video dated, November 27! How long was I out?!?!

[snooper2]

94. well, the year is 12014, they still haven't fixed all the machines yet- (just like Y2K)

[Brother Buzz]

96. Billy Pilgrim suggests you get unstuck in time

The Gregson Street railroad trestle re-lives events past and future, over and over again. Here's one from five years ago:

[zappaman]

21. See reply #7 n/t

[RobertEarl]

86. Sailor on Fukushima Impact on Pacific: “It’s dead for thousands of miles there was nothing"

Posted by zappaman, link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5705245

Sailor on Fukushima Impact on Pacific: “It’s dead… for thousands of miles there was nothing” between US & Japan — “Like sailing in a dead sea… everything’s all gone” — “Just talking about it makes me feel like I want to cry” — “No birds, no fish, no sharks, no dolphins, no turtles, nothing”

[hobbit709]

90. Why don't you use this post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5705392

Oh that's right-it doesn't blame Fukushima but overfishing.

[zappaman]

97. Whoosh!

As usual.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. No.

The Pacific Ocean has a volume of 414 MILLION cubic miles of water. The energy released from any reactor core, or even three reactor cores, is insufficient to provide any appreciable degree of heating to that volume of water.

[RobertEarl]

11. It isn't the whole Pacific

Just the northern part. As the science says: the warming is unprecedented. Never seen it so warm before. Science also says there is a current that runs from Japan to the west coast of the N. America.

The debris from Japan's tsunami is being found along that coast.

Also, off the coast of N. America is found cesium from Fukushima.

Could be the radiation from that massive amount of radioactive material is creating heat. That is what reactors are made to do: boil water.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Even the North Pacific contains far too great a volume of water to be heated by a nuclear reactor.

It's climate change.

[zappaman]

13. The poster still hasn't discovered this yet...

baby steps...

[RobertEarl]

18. Combination of the two

It adds up. There are three melted reactors and a lot of fuel pool water that has been released. Too, there is the fact that decay of atoms releases heat.

Heat comes from atoms moving about, creating friction. That's how reactors boil water. We now have tons of free reactions in the N. Pacific.

[Xithras]

37. Oh, no no no. You don't understand how nuclear reactions work.

Heat comes from atoms moving about, creating friction. That's how reactors boil water.



No. You need to learn how nuclear fission actually works.

In a high energy environment, uranium gets bombarded until a uranium atom picks up an extra neutron. The now unstable atom fissions (splits) into two new atoms and releases some excess energy. That energy was the binding force in the original atom, and has nothing to do with friction.

Cesium is one of the atoms created by the fission reaction. It cannot spontaneously fission itself into additional atoms, to release even more heat (if that were possible, all nuclear reactions would rapidly become nuclear bombs). It is impossible for there to be any ongoing fission reactions within the ocean itself.

[Calista241]

49. Lol. Great picture.

[RobertEarl]

51. Yep

The energy being released causes friction which creates heat which boils water.

A nuke reactor is a controlled fission. Do you believe fission has stopped? The reactors are out of control. When they went out of control they created so much heat the cores melted down.

I never stated fission was occurring in the ocean. What I said was that the cesium is decaying, releasing energy, and that energy is creating friction which creates heat. The simple way to prove that is that the spent fuel pools create tremendous amounts of heat.

[FBaggins]

68. Friction? Seriously?

A new low.

Quite an accomplishment all things considered.

[uppityperson]

119. "the energy being releases causes friction which creates heat which boils water"?

cessium decaying causes friction in the water?

What?

[FBaggins]

136. You caught that, eh?

Quite the knee-slapper.

[uppityperson]

151. I am going to go rub a couple molecules of h2o together and see if they heat up.

[SidDithers]

74. Ouch. This post made my brain hurt...nt

Sid

[truedelphi]

38. Currents are capable of bringing hot tropical warmth to northern regions

As a natural function, so I don't see where this would be a problem.

Keep up the good work, and sorry there is so much snark.

[SidDithers]

73. "Keep up the good work"...

Sid

[NYC_SKP]

6. No. This is God's way of saying, "Go backeth, and stop multiplying".

"Quit consuming so Me-damned much crap and have a reasonable sized family, for pity sake"

[zappaman]

7. Why are you reposting your old shit that was laughed at and disproven?

Are you that much of a glutton for punishment?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112741728#op

[SidDithers]

27. I prefer the GD version of the thread...

Wherein RobertEarl is shown that the amount of energy needed to heat the "blob" of warm water in his satellite map is on the same order of magnitude as the annual electricity usage of the entire world.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2750608



Sid

[zappaman]

28. There's a word for people who post the same debunked thing in multiple forums.

Can't recall it now but maybe it will come to me...

[NYC_SKP]

8. OBTW, you do realize that radioactive compounds tend to be heavier than water, don't you?

So staying close to the surface doesn't make sense to me.

[zappaman]

10. Shhhh!

Stop it with your silly science!

[RobertEarl]

14. You have a link to that theory?

Because what I have read is that the cesium in the water in the Pacific is being found in the top 200 feet of the Pacific.

The decay of the cesium does cause motion. Colder water is denser, so the decay would be bouncing off that denser water keeping the cesium polluted water on top.

[A HERETIC I AM]

54. "Bouncing Cesium" would make a great name for a rock band.

[Kali]

118. OMG

[RobertEarl]

120. Also

Cesium has a chemical reaction in water. Creating heat.

Cesium in spent fuel pools must have heat removed for years before it can be dry casked. The spent fuel pools at Fukushima burned when the water was drained. If any of you doubt that cesium creates enormous heat, all you have to do is understand a bit about the spent fuel pools.

[truedelphi]

39. I have heard that style of comment utilized to debunk the idea that

Radioactive particles can impact anyone not in the actual locale of a radioactive event.

if that was true, then radioactive particles would not have made their way from where the A-bombs were tested (out in the desert) into towns and cities cross Nevada and Utah. Decades later, huge percentges of towns and city people in those two states were dead of leukemias, rare blastomas, and other radiation-related cancers.

Yes, radioactive particles are heavy, but if incinerated, they can be sub microscopic in size, and then attach to dust, just like anything else that is so small.

[EX500rider]

52. "Decades later, huge percentages of towns and city people were dead of leukemias, rare blastomas.."

....and other radiation-related cancers."

What do you consider "huge percentages" and do you have a non-woo link for that statement?

[RobertEarl]

85. How's this one?

“…Nuclear tests have been carried out at more than 60 locations around the globe, often on the lands of indigenous and minority peoples, far away from those who made the decisions to conduct them. While some test sites have been virtually uninhabited, others have been densely populated. The tests have irradiated people working on the programmes, the downwind and downstream communities, and the whole global population. The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War has estimated that roughly 2.4 million people will eventually die as a result of the atmospheric nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and 1980, which were equal in force to 29,000 Hiroshima bombs….”

http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrophic-harm/the-legacy-of-nuclear-testing

[EX500rider]

87. I am well aware of the results from the Castle Bravo nuke..

...on Bikini Atoll which fell on residents of Rongelap and Utirik atolls. During the 1954 Bravo test, there was a lot of wind shear, and the wind that was blowing north the day before the test steadily veered towards the east. The islanders were not evacuated until three days later and suffered radiation sickness.
However those are not towns and cities cross Nevada and Utah which is what I was responding to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

[RobertEarl]

105. Read again?

The tests have irradiated people working on the programmes, the downwind and downstream communities, and the whole global population.

[truedelphi]

110. I have a non-woo link, only if you consider LA Times to

Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Be in that that category:

article.latimes.com/1993-05-30/news/mn-41579_1_time-bomb

[FBaggins]

111. It is a non-woo reference (though the link didn't work)...

... but it doesn't support the argument. The people involved were comparatively close to the radioactive event (considering the size of the releases) and it was hardly "huge percentages of towns and city people"

The downwinders of US nuclear testing do represent a large number of people (likely in the thousands of extra deaths)... but not a "huge percentage".

Missing from such arguments is a numerical comparison of the known dose ranges involved in the hardest-hit towns compared to the highest civilian doses from Fukushima. It isn't close. Heck... it isn't close to being close.

[truedelphi]

112. FWIW - I repaired the link -

And currently the entire atmosphere of the globe is encircled by five times as much radiation as was in the atmosphere prior to 1946. (Again FWIW)

[RobertEarl]

121. Hard to believe, isn't it, truedelphi

The basic science that we know about the nuclear testing seems to have gone in one ear and out the other with some of the posters here.

Of course we can partly blame the nuke industry, both power and weapons, because those industries are lying manipulators of the truth.

Well, they stopped atmospheric testing, not because they ran out of bombs, and Fukushima told the truth about how unsafe nuke power is. Some people got it. Others? Not yet.

Keep up the good work, truedelphi.

[FBaggins]

124. If it was "basic science"... you would be able to back it up.

Any standard reference would do.

Go ahead... give it a try. You only embarrass yourself with your constant claims to what "science" says without ever citing actual science.

[FBaggins]

123. FWIW... that's not even close to true

currently the entire atmosphere of the globe is encircled by five times as much radiation as was in the atmosphere prior to 1946.

There are a few ways that could be read (radiation outside the atmosphere.... radioactive particles within the atmosphere... actual radiation passing through the atmosphere... etc.) - but not one of them would be anywhere close to the truth.

Fallout from weapons testing (the bulk of what we've added since 1946) is less than 1% of just the average radon dose and a small fraction of other common sources of radiation in the atmosphere (cosmic/uranium in the ground/food sources/etc).

I live in a brick home. My annual dose from that is at least five times the dose received from 1946+ fallout.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/calculate.html

[EX500rider]

149. bad link.

I agree that above ground testing was a bad idea. But not that "huge percentages of towns and city people were dead".

[questionseverything]

76. clinton lake is the cooling pond for the clinton power plant (nukes)

i am no scientist but it is the top 15 or 20 feet that stays warm

i have spent many afternoon diving straight down and hitting the cold water, it is like there is an invisible line

nuclear power plants that are functioning correctly heat the water around them,with the lost fuel associated with the f meltdown,who knows? since that fuel is not under controlled conditions...do we have another accident in the past to compare this to?

[NYC_SKP]

81. Heat rises. Warm water stays at the top. It's a natural phenomenon.

All thermal power plants use water to cool down, every coal or gas or nuclear plant needs to cool down the water that had been heated into steam.

That's why you'll find plants near an ocean lake or river.

Wherever warm mixes with cold, the warm tends to stay at the top as it is less dense than cold water.

[questionseverything]

82. so you accept the theory that nuke plants raise water temps, correct?

the question is how much and does "lost fuel" burn hotter or the same as "fuel properly contained"?

looking back at your original post i see it was about radioactive particles "sinking" not warm water ,my bad

[NYC_SKP]

84. Coal plants, Natural Gas plants, Nuclear plants, all thermal plants heat water.

The water that is used to cool is not the water that is used to make the steam, heat exchangers are involved.

The EPA and others are very much concerned with the impacts of taking cool water and returning warmer water in its place.

Diablo Canyon and the natural gas plant at Oxnard both pump about 1,000,000 gallons of warm water into the ocean every minute.

It changes the ecosystem in the immediate vicinity but then dissipates into the ocean, different life forms move in.

The nuclear aspect doesn't influence the properties of the water.

[GliderGuider]

9. I'm pretty sure that's just the effect of the sun near the equator.

If you click the interactive section of the map that includes Japan, you will notice that the ocean off the coast there is significantly cooler than the ocean further south.

Your conclusion is a classic example of mistaking apparent correlation for actual causation.

[RobertEarl]

16. Not a conclusion, just a theory.

Japan has had a lot of rain recently; two hurricanes. Rain is a lot cooler than seawater. Rain running off Japan could be creating that record.

[GliderGuider]

19. You're really stuck on this idea, aren't you?

Look at the thermal map. Does it really match what one would expect from runoff cooling a super-heated sea around an island?

[RobertEarl]

23. There is a current off Japan's coast

It is created by an upwelling of cold water and then flows to the east. It is a well known scientific observation that is news to you?

Yes, the massive amounts of cold rain falling on a mountainous area like Japan and running off, would definitely cool down the near shore waters.

[MineralMan]

106. It's not a theory. It's a guess, based on no scientific principle

known to man. It's an incorrect guess, too, based on a lack of information and knowledge. You clearly do not understand physics, and are allowing advocacy websites to influence your thinking, instead of learning actual science so you'd understand why you're incorrect.

It's a shame, really. You can write coherently, but you write based on incorrect information and odd guesswork. There are people here trying to educate you on the physics of this, but you're not listening too them. That's too bad.

[zappaman]

17. LOL!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112741728#op

[SidDithers]

22. Dude. Really? Again?...nt

Sid

[zappaman]

26. LOL!

[linuxman]

24. I doubt it.

I don't have a degree in fluid/thermodynamics, but I pretty sure that this isn't heating the oceans.

We really need to get someone working on those thermal vents. Truckload of cement perhaps...

[RobertEarl]

29. They tried an ice wall around the melted reactors

They can't make it freeze, the water in the ground is so hot. It was a nice try, but: fail.

The key to this theory is that the atoms decaying in the Pacific are causing friction which creates heat. The scientists tracking the easiest found decaying atoms - cesium - have stated that the cesium is found only in the top 200 feet of the ocean.

[truedelphi]

40. A truckload of cement isn't going to do it.

That was already explained during the earlier times when the media occasionally cared enough to talk to experts.

[MineralMan]

30. That is patently absurd.

The laws of physics make it so.

Please stop posting absurdities. Thank you.

[KT2000]

31. this is very curious

when you have posts about Fukushima, the same people come out of the woodwork and hurl personal insults, then those same people trade posts amongst themselves battering you in the third person, then they post individual insults directly at you again.
It is a pattern that keeps repeating against you and other posters they do not agree with - myself included. They don't share actual information - just insults.

[RobertEarl]

32. I call it weird

It's like they have their hair on fire.

The only good thing about them is they do kick the threads.

[KT2000]

33. True - Kick again!! n/t

[Logical]

35. Why not respond to this post then.......

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5724072

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. It's not 'curious'; it's tedious

The links to the previous threads by the same poster, in which they were shown to not have the faintest idea about physics and the scale of energy they were claiming, have already been posted. After a few days, another map was posted in which the 'heated ocean' was on the other side of Japan. The obvious non-linkage of that to Fukushima didn't faze RobertEarl, sadly. They are impervious to reason, logic, mathematics or common sense. It's threads like this that have made several people think RobertEarl is a plant designed to make the anti-nuclear case look as bad as possible by posting so much rubbish.

[RobertEarl]

57. Heh

There are people who think I am a plant? Hahahaha

Just look at some of the idiotic posts on this thread from my detractors and you can tell who is a plant, and that I am a real person, using the scientific method and factual observations to explain phenomenons.

I am using reason, logic, mathematics and common sense. Just because you won't read it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Really, the more some of you post, the more I realize why the planet is being rapidly destroyed.

[nationalize the fed]

64. It's an epidemic in the US right now

not just on DU but almost everywhere- US Messageboard, Reddit, etc.

Every discussion board seems to be devolving into grade school mentality. It's disgusting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Have you looked at the claims RobertEarl makes? Have you tried to get him to do any math?

You'll find he ignores basic numbers and reality to try to keep his ridiculous ideas alive. Threads like this are a complete waste of time. I bet you know that Fukushima is not producing measurable warming of thousands of square miles of ocean.

I also bet that you realise that the warming that is seen is to do with global warming and greenhouse gases. When RobertEarl blames it on a magical nuclear reactor millions of times more powerful than the one at Fukushima, he is diverting attention from the real problem. Isn't that the 'disgusting' thing here?

[SidDithers]

71. It's because message boards are overrun with trolls, zombies and socks...

There are posters who have been banned, and keep coming back. There are posters who keep changing their names, over and over and over and over.

I'd submit that it's the ones who keep changing their identities, pretending to be someone else, that are the ones with the grade school mentality.

Sid

[SidDithers]

72. Posting riduculous nonsense invites, and deserves, ridicule...

DU ain't beanbag.

Sid

[Logical]

34. is this your analysis? nt

[Takket]

42. Absurd

The concept of a leaking reactor having an appreciable system wide effect on the temperature of the ocean us absurd. You might see some extremity localized warmth within a mile of wherever the water discharges into the ocean, but that it is.

I just took the professional engineering exam last week and I know something of fluid and thermodynamics. I can tell you that anyone promoting the concept if Fukushima warming the Pacific Ocean is nothing more than a quack and should be disregarded as such.

[quaker bill]

43. Plutonium is not unknown.

The chemistry of plutonium is quite well known.

Radiation does produce heat. It produces a very well known amount of heat. If there were sufficient radiation in a volume of water to produce actual heating in a chunk (even a small chunk) of the Pacific ocean, this would indeed be rather newsworthy, if for nothing else, then for all the fatalities involved.

Thermoclines do exist as an entirely natural phenomena. Chemoclines also exist naturally. The problem with relating any of these to Fukushima is simply scale. There is simply not enough matter or energy involved to produce either at the scale described.

The real science going on there is plenty bad enough, wafting this level of consistent BS over it takes no one anywhere.

[RobertEarl]

44. Fukushima = How many Hiroshima bombs

Do you know?

There is one estimate of close to 10,000 Hiroshima bombs

Plutonium... they were storing plutonium in the Waste Isolation Treatment Plant -WIPP- in New Mexico. They claimed the plant would be safe for a thousand years. It blew up after 15. I don't think they know plutonium that well.

[hobbit709]

45. Neither do you.

[Recursion]

47. What do you mean by "="? Same amount of radioactive material? Same amount of radiation?

(And, again, I urge you to read up and figure out that those are two different things.) Same amount of entropy gain/heat liberated?

[zappaman]

48. "There is one estimate of close to 10,000 Hiroshima bombs."

[Calista241]

50. Well, I estimate it was a million Hiroshima bombs. So there!

[ROFF]

56. More like 3.1415926 hiroshima bombs.

NT

[quaker bill]

58. How many kilos would that be?

If I recall correctly, a critical mass is about 2.2 Kg. Most of mass and volume of the nukes used in WWII was conventional explosive used to bring the mass together and compress it. I don't think they did, but let's say they went generous and used 3 Kg. They would not have wanted to go too generous because as you exceed critical mass in a bomb, the shielding to keep it from going critical on its own would become a technical problem.

So while I think the estimate is wildly inaccurate, let's posit for a moment that there is 22,000 Kg there. Now the odds are pretty huge that if there were that quantity of plutonium in a reactor, the accident would have quickly removed a very big chunk of Japan. But let's keep going with it for a moment. A cubic foot of water weighs about 30Kg so a cubic mile of water weighs roughly 4,415,938,560,000 Kg. So now we suspend disbelief for just another moment and dissolve the entire 22,000 Kg in one cubic mile of water. You would get a plutonium solution 0.000005 grams per Kg (liter) of water. This is roughly 5 parts per billion, not something you would want to drink for sure, but the salt would kill you first and many times over.

There are in fact 100s of millions of cubic miles of water in the Pacific. This is the problem with mass difference. Evenly divided, even 10,000 Hiroshima bombs dilutes out to near homeopathic orders of magnitude. There would only be a thousand or two plutonium atoms per cubic mile of water, odds are strong at this dilution that most random 1 liter samples would not have even one plutonium atom in it.

The math just does not work. There simply is not enough mass to cause the problems you posit.

[RobertEarl]

59. The question

Stated better from me would be 'energy released'.

As in the energy released from Fukushima would equal how many Hiroshima bombs released energy.

But first recognize this theory has only to do with a fraction of the Pacific. Probably just 10% mol.

The main mass released is not plutonium, it is cesium. Cesium has a half life of 30 years, so that means half would decay in 30 years. When it decays it releases energy. That release of energy creates heat. Spent fuel pools create lots of heat, so there should be no doubt his cesium in the ocean is acting any different.

Being that there has never, ever, not ever even once, such a mass of cesium released into the Pacific, this is a new experiment foisted on the planet. So, if someone doesn't quite get it, well, that's understandable.

There are also a number of other radioactive materials in the water now.

One report I saw says that it appears the cesium is remaining concentrated ie, not dispersing as was expected.

So there is a lot to consider with this mess, and much to be discovered.

Back to the question: How much energy has been and is being released from Fukushima as a comparison to the energy released from the Hiroshima bomb?

[RobertEarl]

60. Consider also

That it has been claimed that cesium from nuclear tests in the Pacific have been found all over the Pacific. That has been proven. So now, in the last 3 and 1/2 years, we have added considerably more.

Only this time it was deposited at a central point - not exploded in the atmosphere - and that the well known current has carried into a corner of the Pacific. That corner would be the North East Pacific.

[quaker bill]

69. I am pretty sure that cesium

from the nuke tests by now is found in minute quantities everywhere, if you look hard enough. I am sure it is in mother's milk at some small level.

You still have not dealt with the mass differential question. Since we know that Cs is product of the nuclear chemistry, there is never more of it than the starting material. As the amount of Cs rises, the amount of Plutonium decreases, at a 1:1 rate. You end up with the same number of atoms, just a different mixture of isotopes. Eventually over time 1000 or so a cubic mile.

The math indicates that if you cover a mountain with windmills, more electricity will be produced eventually than removing the mountain and burning the coal under it. It is only a question of time.

A modest hurricane releases a Hiroshima bomb's energy roughly every minute it exists. They sometimes exist for a week or more at 1440 minutes a day....

[sir pball]

116. Ten thousand Hiroshima bombs would definitely make a difference.

Little Boy yielded 21kt, 88MJ (per Wikipedia). 880,000 MJ is 2.1e14 kilocalories; 1 kcal will raise the temperature of 1 liter of water 1 degree C.

The Pacific has a volume of 5.8e20 liters...divide 2.1e14/by 5.8e20 and we get a temperature increase of 3.6e-7 degrees C, or 2e-7 degrees F.

That's 0.0000002 degrees F, it is detectable! Put it in a plume that's one-tenth of one percent of the ocean and it gets even more detectable! And that's disregarding the friction of the nuclear decay..

[RobertEarl]

117. Yes. The nuclear decay

Then add the chemical properties of cesium in water. You keep looking there on wiki. And you might learn something.

Nuclear scientists are learning all the time about atoms and chemical properties of man made isotopes..

Now add the sun's radiation into the mix. Into a mix the ocean has never before experienced. People coming to conclusions shows they think they know it all. I've not come to any conclusions, just theorizing. It's called using the scientific method. I see some on DU aren't really keen on it. Oh well.

[sir pball]

122. Who needs wiki when you have a higher education?

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Granted, I left the field after a few years working for the Feds at Brookhaven and realizing exactly how much paperwork is involved in labwork, but that's beside the point...the point being I had, and have, a special interest in nuclear chemistry and I God damn well guarantee I know better than you do, as do many better and brighter minds than mine who did use the Scientific Method to work out what's going on here.

Yeah, cesium metal in water is fun, and quite energetic - but there isn't even a kilo of Cs in the fuel at Fukushima, barely enough to boil a bathtub. And of course in terms of decay heat, whole cores of entirely spent fuel with cesium levels far beyond anything the still-live cores at Fukushima have are kept in Olympic-sized pools with no heating issues at all.

Actually, Family Guy did do a very simple and approachable explanation of precisely this situation:

[RobertEarl]

135. "No heating issues at all"

Yeah, well, those pools are in good shape and let's hope they stay that way.

Because if they end up like the many pools in Japan power plants that the water drained out and the spent fuel burned...

Just got to love how all the nuke experts tell just a fraction of the truth when it comes to their precious 'safe' nuke plants.

Meanwhile Fukushima burns, the ocean is polluted with tons of man made toxic elements, 160,000 people forced to leave their homes, health issues rising from the radiation, and who knows what else is happening an an atomic level.

Good job, nukers.

[FBaggins]

125. There's another classic from RobertEarl

I forgot about that one... despite multiple corrections we have this:

Nuclear scientists are learning all the time about atoms and chemical properties of man made isotopes..

As you've been told before... that's nonsense.

Do you know why they give people stable iodine if they're worried about radioiodine exposure? It's because all isotopes of a given element have identical chemical properties. (on edit - with the minor exception of mass differences causing kinetic effects) The stable iodine gets absorbed in the same places (the thyroid in this case) that radioiodine gets absorbed... partially saturating the thyroid and reducing the amount of I131 that then gets absorbed (and thus the thyroid dose).

I've not come to any conclusions, just theorizing. It's called using the scientific method.

Lol! - Nope. That's nowhere close to the scientific method. By that standard, all conspiracy theorizing is really just science.

[Silent3]

53. You have absolutely no sense of scale, do you?

A firecracker will heat an Olympic-sized swimming pool more than all of the energy that was in all of the nuclear fuel in Fukushima is going to heat the entire Pacific Ocean.

But, yes, I know... My annoyed exasperation (and everyone else's) can only mean that I am (and they are) terribly afraid that you could be right! We're mocking you to shut you down! Yes, that's the only possibility! If what you were suggesting were merely jaw-droppingly stupid, we'd of course provide nothing but the most calm, polite, and gentle replies, somehow filled with facts and figures that you couldn't possibly dismiss as conspiratorial cover-up material.

[RobertEarl]

55. First

It isn't the whole ocean, so stop saying that.

It is a fraction of the ocean. And that fraction just the surface. So by you claiming the ""entire Pacific ocean"" right off the bat shows you don't know what you are talking about.

And then you head off on a personal attack. You must be one of them there engineer types?

[Warpy]

61. Go to the second map, click on the southern part of Honshu to get the whole island

Yes, there is an area of warming from just about where the destroyed nuke plants are. However, it is extremely limited and the colder water in the area soon chills it back down.

There is no way for one melted nuclear plant to warm up cubic miles of sea water. None.

And if you look at the maps as wholes, the greatest warming is from New England up through the Canadian Maritime provinces.

This is just one more conflation of coincidence with causation.

[RobertEarl]

63. The gulf stream on the east coast?

yep. there it is. off Japan there is a current also. It flows directly east to the NE pacific. Post #1 has the science about what is happening in the NE pacific.

The dumping of the polluted water at Fukushima has never happened before at this scale. But you have come to a conclusion already? Not very scientific of you.

[Warpy]

65. The Gulf Stream starts to head east off the shore of NC.

If you'd ever been swimming on Cape Cod in July you'd know it never gets that far north.

That increased surface temperature is due to global warming, something especially pronounced in northern latitudes and during late summer.

Fukushima is not heating anything but an area that runs north-south off the coast of Honshu.

Come up with another flag to run up the flagpole, this one is just not going to fly.

[RobertEarl]

104. So, you don't know about the current off Fukushima?

It does not flow N-S. It flows east, to the NE Pacific.

See post #1 for some science about the NE Pacific.

[Warpy]

107. Do learn how to read the map.

Thank you.

[Orrex]

62. Today I had a candle burning in my basement.

That probably explains why my attic was so hot this afternoon.

[Warpy]

66. They'd have better luck heating Lake Michigan

with one of those coil heaters you dunk in a cup of water for instant coffee when you're traveling.

[FBaggins]

70. Simple facts that you ignore

An operating reactor has to dump roughly 2/3 of its heat (only 1/3 is actually converted to electricity). Japan doesn't use cooling towers, so all of that heat is dumped into the ocean.

For decades, they had dozens of reactors dumping that heat into the Pacific every day... but that ended almost entirely three years ago.

Yet somehow (inexplicably)... you believe that three cores are producing dramatically more heat than 30+ active cores did? All without putting out any radioiodine or massive amounts of steam?

What you should really be asking yourself is... With all that waste heat shut down for years now... why isn't the Pacific cooling down?

[NCTraveler]

75. You would be terrified to read about the constant output of hotwater...

from the Turkey Creek reactor. They pump hot water into the Atlantic constantly. Understanding volumes would help you to understand what are possible negative effects and what aren't. Being able to grasp the volume of water in the ocean is important.

[randome]

77. I rest my case.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[sarisataka]

80. Far more plausible theory nt

[Octafish]

88. Certainly, Irradiating the Pacific Ocean

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Which is the main point you are making and so many find time to denigrate, repeatedly. Even if the heat signature of three enormous and out of control nuclear reactor cores is "negligible" compared to the mighty big Pacific, it's still more than would be there if they hadn't melted down post-earthquake tidal wave unthinkable disaster. Ask your detractors if they ever heard of the First Law of Thermodynamics?

The main point is RADIOACTIVITY. Oceans don't like that. Ask Solaris.

Besides, We the People don't have a clue as to what, in which forms, how much, and in what directions the three melt-downs are spewing radiation. Why not? News about nuclear power is censored in Japan, and evidently, the United States.

[FBaggins]

92. Dead wrong... as usual.

Even if the heat signature of three enormous and out of control nuclear reactor cores is "negligible" compared to the mighty big Pacific, it's still more than would be there if they hadn't melted down post-earthquake tidal wave unthinkable disaster.

Nope. Operating reactors already dump most of the heat that they produce (electricity generation typically accounts for only 1/3rd of the heat... the rest is released into the environment). In Japan, those reactors dump that heat into the Pacific.

So no... even if those three cores were "out of control" and still fissioning (which is not possible of course), the amount of heat that they produce would be a tiny fraction of the amount of heat that is not being dumped into the Pacific by the dozens of reactors that Japan shut down.

As it is... all three rectors together barely add up to 1% of the heat produced by a single operating reactor... and most of that heat cannot make it to the ocean.

The main point is RADIOACTIVITY. Oceans don't like that. Ask Solaris.

Don't be ridiculous. The oceans have always been radioactive. All of mankind's nuclear activities combined still add up to only a tiny fraction of that natural radioactivity.

[Octafish]

128. Call me a liar or a nut, I don't care.

Nice diversion, FBaggins. And not at all accurate, either on what I posted or on plutonium.

Who's the real 'internet nut,' FBaggins?

Who's dishonest, FBaggins? Plutonium's all over Honshu. Here's where I quoted TEPCO in the past.

Still stuck on defending the indefensible, I see.

Want more examples? You may find the pattern does reveal someone is dead wrong. That is you, as usual.

[FBaggins]

129. I prefer to assume that you're stuck in ignorance

Dishonesty or disconnection from reality remain possibilities, but as before I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let's take a look at each of these laughers:

Nice diversion, FBaggins. And not at all accurate, either on what I posted or on plutonium.

This was in reply to my:

In fact, there have only been a couple cases where scientists were even able to identify any plutonium as coming from Fukushima... and never in amounts that were any greater than what people commonly face from nuclear weapons testing fallout (or, in the case of Japan, from Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Here's the problem... Nothing in your reply challenges those points. Let's take one of the examples from that blog:

"Leaked TEPCO report: 120 billion Becquerels of plutonium".

The least active of Pu 238/239/240 is 239 with a specific activity of 2.3 billion bq/g. The most active is 238 with 633 billion bq/gm. So that 120 Billion Bq of Plutonium they're talking about is somewhere between two tenths of a gram and 50 grams. That just isn't very much when you compare it to a nuclear bomb (assuming a plutonium device of course). The Nagasaki bomb alone contained over 6,000 grams of plutonium. That's why - even though we know Fukushima released some plutonium (and quite a bit more of an element that decays into plutonium) - it has been rare to be able to identify the Pu of Fuku-fallout. There's just too much of the already-existing Pu fallout from prior events.

The GreenRoad blog that you provided gives lots of examples of people finding Plutonium... what it doesn't do it present evidence that any of it is from Fukushima.

Who's the real 'internet nut,' FBaggins?

Lol... I think I'll just let that thread speak for itself.

Who's dishonest, FBaggins? Plutonium's all over Honshu. Here's where I quoted TEPCO in the past.

It's hilarious that you think that link scores you any points. Once again... the use of parenthesis to entirely change the original quote is dishonest at worst and badly misguided at best. They never said what you continually claim they said. The plutonium they found on the site was not a health risk to humans (since it was no higher than the levels that the Japanese have lived with for decades)... that's entirely different from a claim that plutonium in general is not a health risk.

Still stuck on defending the indefensible, I see.

I don't see the relevance to the current conversation there... nor do I see why you've been holding on to that link for so long (as with the others) when it doesn't make you look very good. It was in response to this post replying to your claim that "War Inc does need plutonium":

They don't get plutonium for bombs from civilian power reactors.

If anything, it's the other way around (plutonium from bombs converted to MOX fuel).

A particularly silly claim when you realize that Japan doesn't make bombs at all.

Not a single one of your points in any of the following posts even attempts to refute any of those three.

Want more examples?

Oh.. yes please. The free entertainment I get from thinking that you actually believe they make you look good is precious. I can't wait to see how you imagine some of those other conversations went.

[Octafish]

130. So, you can't show where I'm wrong.

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Each of my posts is sourced.

In yours, there's not even one link to back you up.

[FBaggins]

131. I just did

It's humorous that you can't seem to see that.

Each of my posts is sourced.

And my refutations have clearly shown that the sources you select do not support your claims.

In yours, there's not even one link to back you up.

Such as? Pointing out that your argument is unsupported by your claimed sources does not shift the burden of proof onto me. You claim they say that plutonium isn't dangerous... I reply that you have yet to provide a single case of them saying that... and you want me to give you a link to prove the negative?

Sorry... the burden of proof remains on you to show them actually saying that plutonium isn't dangerous.

Then there's the claim that the amount of plutonium released is tiny compared to existing amounts of plutonium in the environment. That it's so small that absent very specific scenarios (such as measuring Pu contamination on a fresh leaf that would be free from substantial prior contamination) they just can't find many cases where they can even identify Pu from Fukushima. I gave one such example... you later found a second... and perhaps we'll find some more, but the original statement remains unchallenged: The amount of plutonium released by Fukushima is dwarfed by the levels already in the environment from nuclear explosions. This was always what scientists and engineers expected given the very low volatility of Pu at the temperatures in the cores.

I used your source for what that release amount was. All I did was do the conversion from activity to mass. Do you really need a link to prove the specific activity for the various Pu isotopes? Or do you need a link showing you how to divide?

[Octafish]

132. No. That's what you said, FBaggins.

Why do you need to argue what I did not write or say?

[FBaggins]

133. Care to give an example? Or is that just more avoidance?

Look... this really isn't that complicated. The amount of plutonium released by Fukushima is measurable in grams to tens of grams (which based on your own source... feel free to provide an alternative). If we add in the Pu that's a daughter element of Neptunium239, perhaps we'll see it climb a bit higher...

... but just follow this simple logic chain:

* - A single plutonium bomb contains thousands of grams of Pu239.

* - Virtually all of that Pu survives (and is spread by) the nuclear explosion.

* - We detonated many hundreds of those devices

* - Plutonium 239 has a half life measured in tens of thousands of years. So virtually all of it is still out there in the environment.

All four are simple statements of fact. I would be happy to back up any of them with links if you doubt them.

The conclusion is inescapable. Just as you've been told from day one... unless you're actually on-site at the plant and come upon a concentration of the stuff (in a drain... at the bottom of a vent stack... in the room containing the suppression torus... etc.) you won't be exposed to enough plutonium to present a health risk when compared to the levels that are all around you all the time.

[zappaman]

134. Awesome subthread!

[Octafish]

138. My own personal minder dude. What's the difference between tag team and bullying?

Years of your life, Dude.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x296729

[FBaggins]

146. Did really just link to a thread tying you to UFO and other conspiracy nonsense?

It has always been fascinating to me that you hold on to years-old threads that make you look more than a little unhinged... and then post them as supposed evidence that you've been persecuted.

What's the difference between tag team and bullying?

Can you differentiate between the supposed "tag team" and what you and RE have been doing here and on similar threads?

[Octafish]

148. Still, nothing of substance from you, FBaggins.

BTW: If you really think UFOs are bunk, you don't know very much about that subject.

[FBaggins]

155. Lol... thanks for proving my point.

I think we'll leave it at your version of "the truth is out there!!!"

Best to keep that nonsense in creative speculation where it belongs.

[Octafish]

137. Bottom Line Difference

What I write: Radiation from Fukushima is something serious to worry about, affecting directly everyone on earth.

What you write: Fukushima is nothing to worry about.

Oh, yeah. Almost forgot an example. It's something you demand, yet never provide, a source:

Researchers find plutonium contamination from Fukushima in Europe...

J Environ Radioact. 2011 Dec 27. (Epub ahead of print)

Radionuclides from the Fukushima accident in the air over Lithuania: measurement and modelling approaches.

Lujanienė G, Byčenkienė S, Povinec PP, Gera M.

Source : Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Savanoriu 231, 02300 Vilnius, Lithuania.

Abstract

Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs ranged from 12 ?Bq/m(3) and 1.4 ?Bq/m(3) to 3700 ?Bq/m(3) and 1040 ?Bq/m(3), respectively. The activity concentration of (239,240)Pu in one aerosol sample collected from 23 March to 15 April, 2011 was found to be 44.5 nBq/m(3). The two maxima found in radionuclide concentrations were related to complicated long-range air mass transport from Japan across the Pacific, the North America and the Atlantic Ocean to Central Europe as indicated by modelling. HYSPLIT backward trajectories and meteorological data were applied for interpretation of activity variations of measured radionuclides observed at the site of investigation. (7)Be and (212)Pb activity concentrations and their ratios were used as tracers of vertical transport of air masses. Fukushima data were compared with the data obtained during the Chernobyl accident and in the post Chernobyl period. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs were found to be by 4 orders of magnitude lower as compared to the Chernobyl accident. The activity ratio of (134)Cs/(137)Cs was around 1 with small variations only. The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.

SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22206700

And another one:

Plutonium bioaccumulation in seabirds

Dagmara I. Strumińska-Parulska, Bogdan Skwarzec, Jacek Fabisiak

University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Chemistry, Analytics and Environmental Radiochemistry Chair, Sobieskiego 18, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland

Received 7 April 2011. Revised 5 July 2011. Accepted 16 July 2011. Available online 23 August 2011.

The aim of the paper was plutonium (238Pu and 239+240Pu) determination in seabirds, permanently or temporarily living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea coast. Together 11 marine birds species were examined: 3 species permanently residing in the southern Baltic, 4 species of wintering birds and 3 species of migrating birds. The obtained results indicated plutonium is non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of analyzed seabirds. The highest plutonium content was found in the digestion organs and feathers, the smallest in skin and muscles. The plutonium concentration was lower in analyzed species which feed on fish and much higher in herbivorous species. The main source of plutonium in analyzed marine birds was global atmospheric fallout.
Highlights

► We determined 239+240Pu in seabirds living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea. ► We noticed plutonium was non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of seabirds. ► We found the highest plutonium content in the digestion organs and feathers. ► We found Pu content was lower in birds feeding on fish and higher in herbivorous.

SOURCE: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X11001676

So, given that, I find it most disheartening to learn that research on fallout from Fukushima, does not get funded in the United States -- even after radioactive sulfur from Fukushima was monitored in Southern California.

Ocean water off La Jolla coast being monitored (and not) for Fukushima radiation

By Pat Sherman
La Jolla Light, Feb. 4, 2014

EXCERPT...

In 2011 Thiemens and a crew of UCSD atmospheric chemists reported the first quantitative measurement of the amount of radiation leaked from the damaged nuclear reactor in Fukushima, following the devastating earthquake and tsunami there.

Their estimate was based on radioactive sulfur that wafted across the Pacific Ocean after operators of the damaged reactor had to cool overheated fuel with seawater — causing a chemical reaction between byproducts of nuclear fission and chlorine ions in the saltwater.

Thiemens has, for the past several years, unsuccessfully sought to obtain grant funding to follow-up his research, first reported on Aug. 15 2011 in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

However, he said neither the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board or National Academy of Sciences (of which he is a member) were interested in funding additional research to measure the Fukushima fallout.

“It’s probably one of these things that just fell through the cracks,” Thiemens said. “It doesn’t quite fall under classical (research criteria).”

CONTINUED...

http://www.lajollalight.com/2014/02/04/ocean-water-off-la-jolla-coast-being-monitored-for-fukushima-radiation/

So, there's that to back up what I write.

You? I'll have to take your word on it. As for your OPs on Fukushima, GOOGLE shows the sources, for some reason, tend toward trade groups that support nuclear industry.

[RobertEarl]

141. They are like the three monkeys

Hear no, see no, and say no evil about their precious nuke plants.

The nuclear scientists will be studying the effects for 50 years before they can ever make a definitive declaration about what happened. Even then that will be suppressed.

What we have here are people on DU already in active suppression mode. Acting very undemocratic. And that is all it is: an act. No links, no truth, n nothing but suppression. But we are winning, We are getting the Truth out. See them running around with their hair on fire? Proof we are being successful.

Meanwhile Japan is probably deadly polluted, the pacific not far behind, and the whole world has traces of the Fukushima material in its backyard.

Good job, nukers.

[FBaggins]

154. Alrighty... let's take those in order

In the future... why not avoid the gish gallop and stick to a single point at a time. I'd be happy to provide whatever sources are needed if you keep it to single definable arguments.

What I write: Radiation from Fukushima is something serious to worry about, affecting directly everyone on earth.

What you write: Fukushima is nothing to worry about.

Nope. I never said that it was "nothing to worry about". I have said that the plutonium that scientists estimate was released by Fukushima is nothing for anyone outside of the immediate vicinity of the plant to worry about. And Fukushima (taken as a whole) is nothing seriously "affecting directly everyone on earth". But, of course, that's also what everyone outside of the lunatic fringe has been saying too. Why are you listening to them?

Let's move on to your sources:

Researchers find plutonium contamination from Fukushima in Europe...

You've posted this one multiple times and been corrected each time. You've never been able to defend it.

The report does not say that at all. It does show "Radionuclides from the Fukushima" (radiocesium and radioiodine), but all they said about plutonium was that it was "spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident". That doesn't tie it to Fukushima.

Also... look at the amount. Do you have any idea how ridiculously minuscule 44.5 nBq/m(3) is? A Bq is a single disintigration... and they're talking about .0000000445 of those in a cubic meter. That's one Bq per 20 million cubic meters. Heck... even Caldicott doesn't claim that can do anything.

Do you really want to rest on that as evidence for your point that Plutonium from Fukushima is health threat all around the world? Really?

Let's move on.

Plutonium bioaccumulation in seabirds

You've spammed this one too. I'm not sure how you think it supports any of your prior positions. This study was conducted prior to Fukushima and would necessarily involve the plutonium from prior weapons testing.

Frankly... sometimes I wonder whether you even read some of the stuff you spam as supposed evidence.

Next

Ocean water off La Jolla coast being monitored (and not) for Fukushima radiation

And now I have to wonder even more. What is this... just a copy/paste from an entirely unrelated post? It doesn't even deal with plutonium.


So, there's that to back up what I write.

And now we're back to pointing out that none of what you just posted actually "backs up" what you wrote.

You? I'll have to take your word on it.

Again... avoid the distractions and gallup and stick to a given topic and I'll be happy to give you links to relevant sources. Just stick to one topic at a time.

[FBaggins]

98. Radioactivity of the ocean

The sea plume from Fukushima is reportedly starting to show up off the West Coast. Reported and expected readings are in the single digits of bq/cubic meter. Some think they may briefly tip slightly into the double digits for a brief time.

The natural radioactivity of the oceans average around 12,000-14,000 Bq/m3. That's the level that the oceans "like"... that all ocean life lived in every day prior to Fukushima.

The EPA's drinking water standards are much higher than that.

[RobertEarl]

102. We do have some clues

We have good estimates about the amount of fissionable material that was in the reactors. What we don't know is the exact amount that has been released into the air and ocean.

We also know, via ocean science, about the currents that flow from Japan to the NE Pacific. And we know the cesium from Fukushima is being found in many places in the NE Pacific ocean. Even in the vast expanse of the ocean, they are finding cesium, which means it is widespread. Which means there is a hell of a lot of it in the ocean. More than there ever was, since cesium-137 is man made.

Your point is well taken --- that the information is being covered up by both the Japanese and US. But we have the internet and the information is leaking out.

[FBaggins]

109. Go ahead and dazzle us with that "science" (sic) and math you keep mentioning.

You constantly claim that your nonsense is backed up by science and math... yet you never actually provide any. So here's your chance:

We have good estimates about the amount of fissionable material that was in the reactors. What we don't know is the exact amount that has been released into the air and ocean.

You recently posted links to a pair of estimates for how much cesium there was in the total inventory of the three reactors that melted down. Go ahead and take the larger of the two and assume that all of the cesium was released into the Pacific (not 4%). Then look up the specific activity for cesium 134 and 137 and tell us the mass of cesium that would be involved... and how much heat it produces.

Those two figures are physical constants that are not subject to debate and Fukushima cannot have released more than "all" of the cesium in inventory. From there it's simple arithmetic.

Which means there is a hell of a lot of it in the ocean. More than there ever was, since cesium-137 is man made.

Sorry. That's wrong. Again... it's simple math. Weapons testing released far more cesium than Fukushima did... and while it's "man-made"... it also has a half-life of ~30 years (and an effective half-life well below that). That means that less than half of the peak level (I'd estimate closer to 1/3) is still there.

It would take much more than three reactor meltdowns to overcome the decay of decades-old cesium to hit new peaks.

[RobertEarl]

113. Why don't you dazzle us with numbers?

You make quantity declarations with out the first numerical declaration.

So, you can post some numbers? Like how many tons of cesium were deposited from the nuclear testing.

You claim: "That means that less than half of the peak level (I'd estimate closer to 1/3) is still there."

Can you give a number for the peak level? In tons.

I won't hold my breath.

[FBaggins]

126. Dodging? What a surprise </ sarcasm>

You claim: "That means that less than half of the peak level (I'd estimate closer to 1/3) is still there."

Can you give a number for the peak level? In tons.


Nope. Because no such estimates exist.

Note, however, that the comparison doesn't need such data (unlike your claim). If the half-life of an element is ten years then we know that half as much of the stuff exists as ten years ago (if it's an artificial element that didn't exist in the environment prior to a single-source event). We don't need to know how much was there originally in order to claim that half as much is still around.

The comparison to Fukushima is easy enough because they have been measuring portions of the Pacific for that old fallout for decades now (you've linked to some of those studies) and we can see the decline and compare it to new additions from Fukushima.

Nowhere does such a comparison come within orders of magnitude of backing up your claim.


So... going to give it a shot? Unlike your request this one requires only the ability to do the math and understand enough science to convert the units.

You get one more try. Anyone with the right to claim that (s)he knows anything at all about "science" should be able to do it.

[hobbit709]

127. He can't even understand basic science, much less physics and nuclear physics.

But his mind is made up so that is all he needs.

[RobertEarl]

139. Baggins has declined to answer

Oh, he answered, he basically said half of however much was in the ocean has disappeared, like magic!!

So why don't you take a stab at it, hobbit?

How many tons of cesium were deposited in the pacific from nuclear tests?

And while you are at it, figure how many tons of fission products have left the Fukushima site and are now free in the pacific.

I won't hold my breath waiting for any comment from you having to do with the topic.

[Octafish]

140. I'd like to know what institutions have received funding to study those questions?

I'd also like to know where the public can get accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about radiation from Fukushima?

[RobertEarl]

142. Not from hobbit or baggins

The NRC reports from emails during the event of the explosions and fires, were the last raw truths from Fukushima. Since then, all the info is manipulated and made to be as minimized as possible. And even then, what does make it through the filters is bad news. Like the strontium-90 now being found in increasing amounts.

And increasing levels of cesium-137 in the fish.

[hobbit709]

143. And I won't hold my breath expecting you to use science-real science that is

instead of your crazy crap that has been refuted more than once by more than one poster.

[RobertEarl]

144. So, you give up?

You follow me around on DU, always going off topic attacking me and never the industry that is polluting the world.

Can you say worthless? I bet you can.

[hobbit709]

145. I can see why you were blocked from Environment and Energy.

[RobertEarl]

147. There you go again

The reason I was blocked was because the host wanted to shut me up.

And she was successful, in that group.

And you applaud that and use it in your worthless way to do what?

What pisses the nukers off is that I crush them in debates.

Here I am just a common man and them with years of knowledge and yet they get crushed here on DU.

How many tons of man made radioactive elements were released into the pacific by Fukushima disaster, hobbit?

Do you even care about the massive pollution? The only thing I have seen you care about is me. That tells me that my crushing of the nukers is going places. Thanks for the affirmation.

[hobbit709]

150. the reason you were blocked was because you consistently spouted non-scientific nonsense.

you crush people in debates. When it comes to actual science you are on a par with Sarah Palin.

And questioning your pseudoscience freakouts is not being pro-nuke.
I'm against nukes but I understand the science involved and you don't.

[RobertEarl]

152. How many tons?

You haven't shown you know anything about the science.

You are more interested in me than anything else. It shows in your posts here.

What about the pollution from Fukushima?

On edit: I see you are now anti-nuke. That means I have been successful in educating you about nukes and you have now professed to be anti-nuke!! Another success for me!! One down, many more to go!!

[hobbit709]

153. tons of rock inside your skull? I'd have to take measurements and do some calculations.

We're talking your science abilities here but you always want to compare apples to oranges.

Just like that radiation plume map you posted once.

[FBaggins]

156. Did I miss your answer to #109?

Do you really expect anyone to miss what you're trying to do?

Oh, he answered, he basically said half of however much was in the ocean has disappeared, like magic!!

Um... you do know what a "half life" is... right?

How many tons of cesium were deposited in the pacific from nuclear tests?

I'm not aware of sources of data that provide the necessary information to perform that calculation... whereas the calculation that you've been dodging is very straightforward and you already have all the data that you need.

And while you are at it, figure how many tons of fission products have left the Fukushima site and are now free in the pacific.

Well now... isn't that what you were asked to do and dodged it?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

100. No.

[seveneyes]

108. I boiled an Olympic swimming pool with my Radium dial Timex watch

Then I pissed in it to cool it back down.

[Takket]

114. Numbers

A typical nuclear reactor can hold up to 75 tons of uranium. There are 4 reactors at Fukushima.

Assuming all 4 are full, you would have 600000 pounds of uranium.

Forget the fission... let's go beyond that... The maximum energy that can be obtained from any amount of matter is given by the formula E = mc^2.

A complete conversion of 600000 pounds of matter would result in 2.318 x 10^19 Btus of energy.

The Pacific Ocean has 1.4 x 10^21 lbs of saltwater.

A Btu is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one lb of water one degree Fahrenheit.

Applying the conversion factor...

(2.318 x 10^19 Btus per 1.4 x 10^21 lbs) * (1 Deg F * lb H2O per BTU) = .016 deg F

So that is the absolute greatest effect that the mass of uranium could possibly have on the ocean. Keep in mind the fission process is of course not even remotely as efficient as the matter/antimatter mixing process that would need to be realized to even take advantage of the E = mc^2 formula. The actual temperature gain from fission is likely more of the order of a few millionths if not billionths of a degree.

All of which is, of course, a drop in the bucket compared to the thermal functions in the ocean caused every single day by good old fashioned sunlight.

So, there is the math. Now, can we please put the troll to bed?

[RobertEarl]

115. You are cute when you are mad

It isn't the whole ocean. Just a slice where the current runs. And then spread out in the corner of the NE pacific. And only on the surface of that corner.

Atomic energy is something that the scientists are still making new findings about nearly every day. Then when you add in what the sun may be doing to the atoms and molecules, just like it does with co2, well, this is a whole new ball game.

But you sure are cute with that 'troll' crap. Welcome to DU.

[RobertEarl]

157. I am shutting this thread down.

The personal attack bullshit has to be stopped and there is one way to do it: shut it down.

Many thanks to the few people who have been willing to have a real discussion. I have learned a few things and am now preparing a new thread which will include that added knowledge.