General Discussion

intaglio

(8,170 posts)

28. 950,000,000 Bq per litre is 9.5 billion Bq per tonne

Fri Aug 2, 2013, 10:12 AM

Aug 2013

and that is for radioactive caesium only. In one of the underground passages that is leaking into the ground water the detection gives is 2.35 billion Bq per litre. For your information this is 2.35 trillion Bq per tonne
http://www.tokyotimes.com/2013/tepco-ordered-to-drain-radioactive-water-from-underground-tunnels/

Now, as you appear to be an apologist for the nuclear industry, please explain how this radiation load will instantly be dispersed on reaching the ocean, especially as every indication is that the contamination is constantly being renewed. Please explain how this caesium will avoid being concentrated in the skeletons and shells of marine life thus causing greater damage the further "up" the food chain it travels.

Whilst you're at it could note that the bright sparkling future promised by the nuclear industry may well be because we will be watching glow of Cherenkov radiation.

/snark

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

TEPCO: 950 million becquerels of radioactive cesium per liter of water detected near No. 2 reactor [View all] The Straight Story Jul 2013 OP

Grab the marshmallows, dude mindwalker_i Jul 2013 #1

This is the way the world ends rug Jul 2013 #2

We are so fucked! wildbilln864 Jul 2013 #3

I wish you were wrong, Bill. nt Mnemosyne Jul 2013 #4

me also.... wildbilln864 Jul 2013 #7

I have two grandsons, and possibly three more, and a teenaged granddaughter, soon. I try to teach Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #11

When I was younger I was a tad angry we never had kids nadinbrzezinski Aug 2013 #12

"Not with a bang, but with a whimper." Or as another DUer wrote here, "with a becquerel.". Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #13

I agree with that DU'er nadinbrzezinski Aug 2013 #15

The planet will thrive again once it chews us up and spits us out. The creatures suffer because of Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #26

Fortunately, it takes many billions of becquerels to be dangerous. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #16

I wish I didn't understand that at times. Life would be so much less worry if I had been ignorant. Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #21

It is still so much worse than they have admitted, more comes out all the time and Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #25

Ha! that ship sailed obliviously Aug 2013 #39

Sadly, I think this kind of environmental destruction will become closeupready Jul 2013 #5

Impossible for that to harm even a fly according to a few DUers. kestrel91316 Jul 2013 #6

updated with more info and a link (nt) The Straight Story Jul 2013 #10

Eat your bananas, you will be fine nadinbrzezinski Jul 2013 #8

WTF! Rosa Luxemburg Jul 2013 #9

Not sure if I did my math correctly here... Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #14

Either way, I don't think I would drink it The Straight Story Aug 2013 #18

I redid my math. A swimming pool's worth has enough activity to severely injure 50+ people... Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #19

This is not going to be an easy task. longship Aug 2013 #17

Just so you know, a becquerel is a very small unit of measure Silent3 Aug 2013 #20

Even the millions/billions listed here isn't really all that much. FBaggins Aug 2013 #23

If there ''isn't really all that much,'' why is it still a radioactive catastrophe 2.5 years on? Octafish Aug 2013 #29

Maybe because there's much more to it than the contamination in this water? FBaggins Aug 2013 #32

Bullshit. Octafish Aug 2013 #33

950,000,000 Bq per litre is 9.5 billion Bq per tonne intaglio Aug 2013 #28

"Now, as you appear to be an apologist for the nuclear industry..." Silent3 Aug 2013 #31

Nice trivialisation intaglio Aug 2013 #35

Because your kneejerk reaction deserved to be trivialized Silent3 Aug 2013 #36

To quote intaglio Aug 2013 #37

I also said "The real problem is bad localized hot spots, which is worrisome enough". Silent3 Aug 2013 #38

When it gets to 975 sell!!! DeSwiss Aug 2013 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author mick063 Aug 2013 #24

But but but malaise Aug 2013 #27

Our Friend The Radioactive Pacific. Safetykitten Aug 2013 #30

Because of Fukushima there are *parts of the Pacific* that are currently very bad... Silent3 Aug 2013 #34