Interesting scaremongering. Gizmodo article says 7000 Bq/liter. For comparison, see the following chart. 7000% is scary sounding, right? 70x. But 70x $.01 isn't much money, so it really matters of what 70x is.
Well the article did say, 7000 per liter, so how many liters were dumped into the bay, that would give you a better idea of what type of real disaster it was.
How many people go in the water? 7gazillion percent of zero is zero. It just sounds like a scary big number.
+> Facsinating Japanese baseball players must feel the agony along with their citizens We can never thank God for the stupidity of mankind.
http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific...n-at-japan-s-fukushima-nuclear-plant-1.319792 The plant’s former operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), measures background radiation levels in the exclusion zone in microsieverts, which gauge the risk of radiation absorbed by the body. At J Village, radiation levels are only 0.1 microsieverts per hour — less than natural background radiation in many parts of the world. The road from J Village to the plant passes a 7-Eleven convenience store serving coffee and snacks to those working in the exclusion zone. To the north lie towns abandoned since the disaster. Houses in the southern part of the exclusion zone are in good condition. The relatively low level of contamination here means former residents can visit their properties during the day, according to Nakayama Tadashi, a TEPCO visitor guide. The fields are no longer farmed, but they’ve been “cleansed” — contaminated topsoil has been removed and stored in large plastic bags that are clumped together under green netting at 20 different storage sites, each the size of several football fields. At Naraha village, buildings show damage from the 2011 disaster, but six miles from the reactors, the radiation level still registers only 0.1 microsieverts. Just up the road, in the town of Tomioka, the level is 0.3 microsieverts — not enough to be much of a hazard to construction workers fixing the damaged buildings. Nearby there’s a turn-off for the Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station. The facility was also struck by the tsunami, but workers managed to stabilize the reactors, averting a second disaster. Near the shore, Tomioka’s train station was destroyed by the tsunami, but much of the town is further inland and still standing. The next town is Okuma. Residents fled on short notice the day of the disaster. At 3.5 miles from the damaged plant, it’s not safe to go back. Cleansing hasn’t begun here yet. Mannequins collect dust in shop windows, and vines creep over abandoned homes. Vehicles rust in driveways. A wading bird in a small stream was the only sign of animal life, although there are head-high weeds at the golf driving range and surrounding rice paddies. Near the turn-off for the power station, radiation levels are 10 microsieverts — 100 times higher than at J-Village.
10 microsieverts is the highest measurement the article talks about. The xkcd chart says that is 1/4 the radiation dose you receive from nature, flying New York to LA. Be afraid! :MARIS61:
Over 1 billion people live along the coast. The ocean covers approximately 70% of Earth's surface, which means it is the largest environment for living things on Earth. There are five major ocean habitats: tropical or reef habitat, temperate waters, open ocean, the deep sea, and polar regions. Most sea life lives in the top 150 meters (500 feet) of the ocean. From the warm, sunlit waters of coral reefs to the dark, cold waters of the deep sea, the ocean teems with life. The ocean is an important source of food and other resources. Since well before recorded history, humans have used the sea as a source of food. While only 5% of the protein consumed by world populations comes from the sea, it is still an important contribution to the diet of millions of the world's inhabitants. In 1996, Americans ate an average of 15 pounds of seafood per person. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/fisheries/fisheries1.htm
but it wasn't zero. There was some amount that went into the ocean. So while you can spout hyperbole in your own way, so can MARIS. But the reality is, some amount of radioactive material went into the ocean. To find the true damage, one must first find out how much. Maybe it was quite a bit, maybe it wasn't and the article is fear mongering. Who knows at this point.
Maybe the oceanographers who study nuclear waste and radiation in seawater have a clue (Maris' sources don't). http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/fukushima-radiation Within months of the accident, Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), assembled a research cruise and science party of 17 people from eight institutions to sample the waters surrounding the nuclear plant. The scientists found elevated levels of the nuclear by-product cesium but they were below the threshold of concern for direct human exposure. The levels of cesium had diminished quickly off shore because cesium is soluble in seawater and was therefore diluted by the Pacific ocean currents. They also measured cesium and other radionuclides in plankton and fish and, in subsequent cruises, collected sediments from the seafloor near the plant. To this date, important fisheries off Fukushima remain closed due to levels of cesium that are above Japanese limits for seafood. Through the newly established Center for Marine and Environmental Radioactivity (CMER), Buesseler continues to promote public education, training in marine radiochemistry, and research and engineering related to Fukushima and other natural and human sources of radioactivity. http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=127297
MARIS linked an article that indicated that radiation leaked into the Ocean on or around March 1st 2015. The paragraph you linked above about the sea-voyage was from 2012. Also this line is very telling: "The scientists found elevated levels of the nuclear by-product cesium but they were below the threshold of concern for direct human exposure." Humans, sure, what about everything else in the food chain. IDK. Good question most likely. I think we can all agree that regardless, the situation isn't good. It's probably not as bad as MARIS and those whack articles make it out to be though.
You should read the second link. First of all, the use of large percentages as if they are alarming should be a pretty good clue. Maris' 2015 article says 7000 bequerels per liter. Massively less than the 20 trillion bequerels per liter(20 trillion is a tad bigger than 7000, no?) in 2011. "Not of concern" Are the continued sources of radiation from the nuclear power plants of concern? The site of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant is an ongoing source of radionuclides (pdf) in to the ocean—something I've seen evidence of in my data and published about since 2011. Although the numbers sound large (300,000 gallons of water leaked or 20 trillion bequerels per liter), we calculated in 2011 when radiation levels were much higher than today that the dose to someone on a ship or in the ocean was not of concern. For the workers at the site, direct exposure from leaking storage tanks is of greater health concern because exposure from these concentrated sources is much higher. For the general public, it is not our direct exposure, but uptake by the food web and, hence, the potential for human consumption of contaminated fish that is the main health concern. Second, about the fish (food chain): Are fish such as tuna that might have been exposed to radiation from Fukushima safe to eat? Seawater everywhere contains many naturally occurring radionuclides, the most common being polonium-210. As a result, fish caught in the Pacific and elsewhere already have measurable quantities of these substances. Most fish do not migrate far from home, which is why fisheries off Fukushima remain closed. But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, can swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan. However, cesium is a salt taken up by the flesh that will begin to flush out of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters less affected by Fukushima. By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima. Moreover, the dose from Fukushima cesium is considered insignificant relative to the dose from naturally occurring polonium-210, which was 1000 times higher in fish samples studied, and both of these are much lower relative to other, more common sources, such as dental x-rays.
Have there been increased deaths as a result of radiation from Fukushima? Reports of increased deaths are simply not true. Read this reasoned response in Scientific American to the most often-cited "scientific" paper about erroneously linking deaths to radiation from Fukushima. That article ends “This is not to say that the radiation from Fukushima is not dangerous (it is), nor that we shouldn’t closely monitor its potential to spread (we should).” I agree with that statement.
I am not arguing w/ you about the amount of bequerels per liter. I am merely stating to both you and MARIS that one must understand how much radioactive water went into the ocean (on or around 3-1-15) to understand the consequence. Nobody has answered that question. I don't care about past articles because that is over and done with. Also, in the second paragraph, it's misleading. First it says "most fish do not migrate far from home" then goes on to say that most of the cesium will be flushed out of the flesh of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters "less affected by Fukushima". Soooo, which is it? They may or may not leave radioactive water? Not to mention, there are more things in the ocean than just Tuna/Fish. Very small species could be affected in far worse way than humans. These small species get eaten by bigger species, so on an so forth. And over time, I am sure it's not a very good idea to be continually eating radioactive food, regardless if the amount is harmful to humans or not. Everything in the ocean does not abide by the human radioactive standard. All I see is a lot of misinformation on both sides and all I truly know is that radioactive chemicals being absorbed into the Ocean or land is a bad deal for everyone involved, overtime there could be consequences. Although I probably wont be alive to witness any of them.
I don't see how the Woods Hole Oceanographer has an agenda of any kind. Whatever amount was dumped happened between 10:20AM and 10:50AM. I'm guessing not very much in the grand scheme of things.
Since they receive nearly all of their funding from US Government agencies, their bias is always front and center, and their stated conclusions suspect.
Here's another of the unseen ways Fukushima has steadily killed people since 3/11. http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001971417 8:07 pm, March 01, 2015 The Yomiuri ShimbunForty-four people died in solitude in 2014 at temporary housing units for evacuees from areas in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures, which were devastated in the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, it has been learned. The annual death toll was the largest of its kind, while the number of solitary deaths of evacuees by the end of January this year totaled 145. It is believed the prolonged time they spend as evacuees increases their sense of isolation and damages their health. While efforts to relocate those in temporary housing units to public housing has begun in earnest, there have been calls for measures aimed at preventing people from becoming isolated. There is no clear definition of solitary death and police have not maintained statistics. The Yomiuri Shimbun interviewed police in the three prefectures concerning cases in which residents living alone in temporary housing units were found dead in their accommodation. Slide 1 of 1 The Yomiuri Shimbun After tallying up the results, deaths, which included suicides, increasing year by year from 16 in 2011, 38 in 2012 and 41 in 2013 to 44 in 2014. This year, six people died in solitude by the end of January. Of these deaths, 100 people were men, nearly 70 percent of the total. Elderly people aged 65 or older stood at 85, about 60 percent of the total. The number of temporary housing units as of the end of January was about 38,500 in the three prefectures. There is also another type of publicly rented housing known as “minashi kasetsu,” or quasi-temporary housing, totaling about 48,500 across the nation as of Jan. 1. This means the actual death toll may be far higher.
