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

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)

20. It's already gone

Reply to barbtries (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 1, 2012, 08:20 PM

Apr 2012

Radioactive iodine has a very short half life.

There were never concentrations high enough in NA to be a concern from this incident (not true locally for Japan), and by now there is a small fraction (significantly less than 1%) left.

If you would like an authoritative source about the basics of I-131, here's one:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/i131/abouti131

This is an RPI presentation regarding the Fukushima Daiichi accident estimating local impact. The reason there is no US impact estimation is that there was no US impact:
http://www.ans.org/misc/FukushimaSpecialSession-Caracappa.pdf

I do not understand the continued hype over this when any exposure in the US was way below normal background levels? No one does, scientifically:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sew/2011pnwww/Jaffe.pdf

There's a bunch of data in that one - we do know what came here and its future effects.

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