Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,705 posts)
32. Maybe because there's much more to it than the contamination in this water?
Fri Aug 2, 2013, 01:34 PM
Aug 2013

I mean... "duh!" - the initial releases were millions/billions of times larger than the figures we're talking about here. The confusion you must be facing is that when you see... say... contamination in tuna of 5 bq/kg, you have an urge to pump that as something worth caring about (it isn't)... so if 5 Bq are a big deal... surely millions must be horrendous!

It wouldn't be a good idea to sink a well there and make it your source of drinking water, but it isn't a big deal otherwise.

And how can you write that Chernobyl was far worse?

Because it is...and it isn't even close. Raw estimates of radiation released were roughly ten times higher for Chernobyl and a far higher proportion of that release was of longer-lived radionuclides. A much higher proportion of Fukushima's release was noble gases and radioiodine (all of which is now long gone)... while Chernobyl released much larger amounts of materials that are still very much with us.

Added to all of that - the bulk of the Chernobyl release was over land while the bulk of the Fukushima release ended up in the ocean.

We could go on to talk about the differences in government response (not great in Japan... but MUCH better than Russia's response)... the differences in more tangible health impacts (radiation sickness and death)... but this isn't close enough to bother with more. Even though Chernobyl has had a quarter century of decay cutting into the contamination... the shorter half-lives of the Fukushima fallout probably put Chernobyl's current contamination at 50-100 times worse than Fukushima. Possibly more.

Which doesn't reduce the significance of Fukushima... it just highlights how truly bad Chernobyl was/is.


Here's what a person who would know wrote:

Sorry. I think you posed the wrong quote. All I see is Chris Busby... not "a person who would know". Even the lunatic fringe has ceased associating with this charlatan. And no... that's not an unfounded ad-hominem. It's literally what he is. A quack peddling a confidence scheme to the people of Japan for his own profit. He should be in jail... not in quotations labeled "person who would know".

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»TEPCO: 950 million becque...»Reply #32