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

Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

7. I agree with baggins on one thing - this information does not indicate present danger

Reply to barbtries (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 01:10 PM

Apr 2012

If your family was in the water a lot during the time in question there is also not much risk. The potential problem would be associated with consuming the kelpduring that period, or consuming something up the food chain from the kelp. The short lifespan of the contaminant acts to protect you, but if you are concerned you might consider asking your doctor if he/she thinks a thyroid test for the children is in order.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Radioactive Iodine from Fukushima Found in California Kelp [View all] xchrom Apr 2012 OP

Fukushima - Slowly Killing The Northern Hemisphere cantbeserious Apr 2012 #1

no way to know if it's dangerous barbtries Apr 2012 #2

Of course there is. FBaggins Apr 2012 #4

Not now perhaps, but there was a time window when you can't say that kristopher Apr 2012 #6

"The radioactivity had no known effects on the giant kelp, or on fish and other marine life" Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #8

Do you live to misrepresent the data? kristopher Apr 2012 #12

I love the way your brain works Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #13

The sampling regime is not adequate to support your conclusions. kristopher Apr 2012 #14

science involves drawing conclusions from data, not vice versa. nt Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #15

It also involve not forcing conclusions on incomplete data kristopher Apr 2012 #17

You think Manley and Lowe forced thier conclusions? Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #19

No, I'm saying that you and Baggins are forcing Your conclusions. kristopher Apr 2012 #21

Look again, kris Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #23

Sure you did, in post 8 kristopher Apr 2012 #24

Ah. So you are agreeing? Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #25

Wrong as usual. FBaggins Apr 2012 #10

To claim that would yield workable data is beyond absurd. kristopher Apr 2012 #11

I agree with baggins on one thing - this information does not indicate present danger kristopher Apr 2012 #7

I love the smell of FUD in the morning. nt Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #9

i realize the risk is probably minimal. barbtries Apr 2012 #16

I understand. That is a perfectly normal response to the situation. kristopher Apr 2012 #18

It's already gone Yo_Mama Apr 2012 #20

You have no way of knowing the maximum localized concentrations of I131 in NA. kristopher Apr 2012 #22

And we're just finding out about this now? FLSurfer Apr 2012 #3

No...we've known all along. FBaggins Apr 2012 #5