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

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
37. To quote
Sat Aug 3, 2013, 08:25 AM
Aug 2013

Post title

Just so you know, a becquerel is a very small unit of measure

Body text first paragraph:
This is not to say that you'd want to be near such high concentrations for a long time, but if you're worried that this much is enough to contaminate, say, the entire Pacific ocean, it's way, way, WAY far from that.

Body text third paragraph
If the sum total of concentrated radioactive material (to WAY overestimate it) from Fukushima were as big one millionth of a square mile (a cube about 53 feet on each side), then completely dispersed through the ocean the material would only be at a concentration of a seventieth of a trillionth part.

I'm certain this can be described belittlement as in "the problem is too small, in the wider sense, to worry about". The only thing you admit to is "local hotspots" which is hardly a ringing condemnation of this ongoing disaster or even an expression of slight concern about how TEPCO can possibly deal with the escape of contaminated liquid.

I'll admit you are not as bad as the Baggins above who seems to draw comfort from the fact that one litre of water is emitting less radiation than a building weighing hundreds of tonnes.

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 #37