General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,707 posts)

16. In fact I do.

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:19 PM

Apr 2013

The ocean can dilute radioactive contamination

This is of course true... but it doesn't change the fact that the release from Fukushima into the ocean was much worse than the Hanford leak... even if it's many MANY times worse than what has been reported so far.

And the ocean isn't the only thing that dilutes the contamination. The Hanford leak has a large amount of dilution to come before it could impact drinking water.

Aqua firs? That is a different story.

Not really. It has to get there first (diluting all the way)... and then it's still mixed in with billions of times the volume as the 300 gal/year of the leak.

These tank farms consist of 53 million gallons of mixed waste.

When comparing Hanford to Fukushima... the volume in the tanks isn't particularly relevant. It's the volume that leaks out that matters.

In short... Nobody is saying that Hanford isn't a BIG deal... it's just not comparable to Fukushima.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

150,000 SQ.KM of Pacific with Fukushima nuclear material - �Remarkable� amount released in ocean [View all] DeSwiss Apr 2013 OP

K&R!!!!! burrowowl Apr 2013 #1

Gee, it'd be nice if it wasn't up to independent researchers to pay attention to this stuff. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #2

You must not have been paying attention FBaggins Apr 2013 #5

Really? So where's the data on radioactive isotopes in, say, Pacific fish caught for sale in the US? Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #12

It's too low to measure in almost all cases. FBaggins Apr 2013 #13

Exactly. The EPA isn't measuring it. The FDA isn't measuring it. My point exactly. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #15

Sorry... wrong. FBaggins Apr 2013 #17

Dance, dance, dance. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #19

Thanks for making my point. FBaggins Apr 2013 #20

If you've actually read what I've written, I'm not "predisposed to think" anything. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #22

you were corrected in a few simple errors FBaggins Apr 2013 #23

Right. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #24

Why did you bring Sr90 into the discussion?... SidDithers Apr 2013 #29

you're absolutely right, Sid; I meant Strontium, not Cesium. Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #36

That's a big "IF" FBaggins Apr 2013 #39

Is wasn't a "goofy platitude" FBaggins Apr 2013 #38

what's the recommended level of excess radiation exposure above natural background? CreekDog Apr 2013 #25

There is no such thing FBaggins Apr 2013 #37

Apples and Oranges versus Bananas and Tuna Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #42

Nope. FBaggins Apr 2013 #45

Don't blame me if your ambiguous and confusing rhetoric ... Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #47

Lol! FBaggins Apr 2013 #48

Huh? hunter Apr 2013 #46

Try this for a "huh" - Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #49

You do understand that a much worse scenario is within our borders? mick063 Apr 2013 #3

Much worse? FBaggins Apr 2013 #4

You really don't know do you? mick063 Apr 2013 #10

Please consider posting this as an OP as it so succinct. snagglepuss Apr 2013 #11

In fact I do. FBaggins Apr 2013 #16

I have to disagree mick063 Apr 2013 #21

The methods of disinformation are many Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #40

Oustanding post! Octafish Apr 2013 #43

Aw... and you saved your first post for little 'ol me? FBaggins Apr 2013 #44

I agree with him. Occulus Apr 2013 #87

He's not a newbie FBaggins Apr 2013 #88

Yup nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #14

Yep. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #26

All this from one nuclear installation gone bad Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #6

This is one reason (albeit an extremely potent one) why..... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #33

Why do you hate nuclear power? malaise Apr 2013 #7

You mean aside from it being the most..... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #30

You did see my sarcasm thingy? n/t malaise Apr 2013 #31

Yeah I did. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #34

Honest question: Is Obama still intent on the taxpayer supported Nuke in Georgia? byeya Apr 2013 #8

Why of course! DeSwiss Apr 2013 #28

kick flamingdem Apr 2013 #9

Well, me and the birds are fine for today, nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #18

Hmmm.... Nanas! DeSwiss Apr 2013 #27

Check out this old Mork and Mindy you tube clip! Zorra Apr 2013 #32

From ancient times.... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #35

Fukushima is still out of control. Octafish Apr 2013 #41

De nada. DeSwiss Apr 2013 #50

And, don't forget ... Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #51

"This video has been removed by the user." hunter Apr 2013 #52

Yep.... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #53

Uploaded again, don't know how long it will last - Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #54

�During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.� ~George Orwell nt DeSwiss Apr 2013 #55

NOAA Sea Surface Temperatures reveals a surprising thing... Octafish Apr 2013 #56

Let me guess... FBaggins Apr 2013 #57

Is your mission in life to knock me for wondering about the stupidity of atomic power? Octafish Apr 2013 #58

Nope. FBaggins Apr 2013 #59

Keep the smears. It's the NOAA satellite data. Octafish Apr 2013 #60

There's nothing wrong with the data. FBaggins Apr 2013 #61

Who's the real 'internet nut,' FBaggins? Octafish Apr 2013 #62

You're not saying that you're responsible for the interpretation of the video, are you? FBaggins Apr 2013 #63

What a load of crap. Octafish Apr 2013 #64

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. FBaggins Apr 2013 #65

Write what you want. Just don't smear me. Octafish Apr 2013 #68

I didn't. FBaggins Apr 2013 #69

Really? Look at the map and see for yourself where the sea surface temperatures are highest. Octafish Apr 2013 #72

Right! What else could it POSSIBLY be??? FBaggins Apr 2013 #73

The NOAA map I posted was from the last month. Yours is from 1997. Octafish Apr 2013 #74

Did that actually make sense to you? FBaggins Apr 2013 #75

2002? Big deal. It's still not what you wrote. Octafish Apr 2013 #77

It's exactly what I wrote. FBaggins Apr 2013 #80

It's still there. Which reminds me why I don't trust the nuclear industry's perspective... Octafish Apr 2013 #81

Except that it isn't "there" FBaggins Apr 2013 #82

Except. It is. Octafish Apr 2013 #83

Repeating a clear falsehood doesn't make it any less dishonest. FBaggins Apr 2013 #84

All is well, right? Octafish Apr 2013 #85

All is most certainly not "well" FBaggins Apr 2013 #86

Let us compare, FBaggins. I say it's not normal. You say it is. Octafish Apr 2013 #79

FBaggins is up to his old tricks, eh? RobertEarl Apr 2013 #89

Is it time to quit eating from the Pacific Ocean? Coyotl Apr 2013 #66

My sense is to quit eating the salmon that swims long distances and tuna flamingdem Apr 2013 #67

This is also addressed to Flamingdem and any others Mr. Eneos Apr 2013 #70

We seem to be caught between a wild-caught radioactive rock..... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #71

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #76

Yep.... DeSwiss Apr 2013 #78