Radiation From Fukushima Disaster Reaches Oregon Coast (nypost.com) 139
An anonymous reader quotes a report from New York Post: Radiation from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster has apparently traveled across the Pacific. Researchers reported that radioactive matter -- in the form of an isotope known as cesium-134 -- was collected in seawater samples from Tillamook Bay and Gold Beach in Oregon. The levels were extremely low, however, and don't pose a threat to humans or the environment. In 2011, a 9.0-magnitude earthquake triggered a wave of tsunamis that caused colossal damage to Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The disaster released several radioactive isotopes -- including the dangerous fission products of cesium-137 and iodine-131 -- that contaminated the air and water. The ocean was later contaminated by the radiation. But cesium-134 is the fingerprint of Fukushima due to its short half-life of two years, meaning the level is cut in half every two years. Cesium-137 has a 30-year half-life. Particles from Chernobyl, nuclear weapons tests, and discharge from other nuclear power plants are still detectable -- in small, harmless amounts. While this is the first time cesium-134 has been detected on US shores, Higley said "really tiny quantities" have previously been found in albacore tuna. The Oregon samples were collected by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in January and February. Each sample measured 0.3 becquerels, a unit of radioactivity, per cubic meter of cesium-134 -- significantly lower than the 50 million becquerels per cubic meter measured in Japan after the disaster.
radiation was detected (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, so I understand the implications of this... what is this radiation measured in equivalent bananas?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:radiation was detected (Score:4, Interesting)
The activity detected in this study is 300 mBq/m3; so in terms of activity per unit mass, bananas are contain approximately 8 orders of magnitude more naturally occuring radioactivity than the pollution detected in the sea water.
While both K40 in bananas and Cs134 from nuclear fission are beta emitters, the energy per decay is lower in Cs134, so effective dose per decay is also lower.
Re: (Score:3)
30 Bq per banana and 6 orders of magnitude for the ratio.
Re: (Score:1)
And where Woods Hole was taking samples; you can find Cs-134, Cs-137, Pu-239, and Eu-152 in very low levels as legacy waste from the atomic weapons programs of yesteryear.
Yep, bananas.... If I remember correctly, it is about 0.7% of all potassium on planet Earth is radioactive. If you look at a gamma spectroscopy scan of the human body, you normally see the cosmic background hump at low energy levels then a spike at the energy level corresponding to K-40 decay. Take a reading, go eat
Re: (Score:2)
So to save yourself, you're planing on joining Elon Musk on Ark1 to Mars? Sorry to tell you, but I'm pretty sure you'll find that the radioactive potassium is already on Mars too. If it exists, Proxima Centauri B is very likely to have the same amount of radioactive potassium.
Radiation is a natural part of our environment. Live with it. Or don't live. A simple choice.
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, the KCl binds up in the body. Eat one banana and the level goes up and slowly drops back off over days or weeks as the radiological and biological half lives come into play. Since ALL potassium on the planet has a percentage of radioactive potassium; you will always have a K-40 source in the body..... unless suffering from terminal electrolyte imbalance.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, so I understand the implications of this... what is this radiation measured in equivalent bananas?
A fraction of a bannana crumb so small that a human would not be able to see it with the naked eye.
In fact, so small, that maybe the radiation they've detected was a coincidence due to some meteorite and actually has nothing to do with Fukushima.
Re: (Score:2)
> In fact, so small, that maybe the radiation they've detected was a coincidence due to some meteorite and actually has nothing to do with Fukushima.
Things with short half lives only come from recent nuclear reactions. Stuff in space or from geologic processes would have gone through tens of thousands to billions of half lives.
If a pure kilo of Cs-137 originally has about 4 * 10^24 atoms... After 82 half lives, there is probably not a single atom of Cs-137 left. This happens in less than a couple hundr
Re: (Score:2)
True.
Not relevant.
Nuclear reactions can - and do - happen in modern materials in natural conditions. For an example, 14-carbon has a half life of a mere 5730 years (limiting it's use for radiometric dating to about 25-30 kyr), so every nucleus of 14-carbon in (for example) Henri Becquerel's desk at the Muséum National
Re: (Score:1)
The limit of what is considered safe to handle by bare hand would be about a 200 banana equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many bananas does it take to create a Gojira class radiation monster?
Would a salamander or something have to eat all those bananas, or would external exposure suffice?
Re: (Score:2)
What this study proves is how good our measuring instrumentation is today. We can now detect levels of radiation that are only of interest to homeopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, we can sell the water to homeopaths as a cancer cure?
I smell a business opportunity!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You can measure very, very small amounts of radiation very easily. 0.3 becquerels means a single count every 3 seconds, which is only about 20 million cesium 134 atoms in a cubic meter of water, or about one part in 10^20 (one part in a ten billion trillion).
If one wanted to, smaller amounts could be measured if it mattered, but at some point it doesn't. I remember shortly after the earthquake and problems at Fukushima, there was someone who did some atmospheric modeling and worked out how much radioactiv
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You really need to take a look at the harm all the other energy sources actually do, Nuclear Power is far far safer for people AND the environment than coal, oil or gas.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Being kneejerk against nuclear power just shows you haven't studied the facts.
And YES we DO need to develop renewables to replace fossil AND nuclear, but nuclear is in fact the safest of all our current options.
Re: (Score:1)
And YES we DO need to develop renewables to replace fossil AND nuclear, but nuclear is in fact the safest of all our current options.
Renewable will never replace nuclear(both fission and fusion) as a reliable source until it costs pennies per kWh. And right now, the cost if it is nearly $1kWh for it. That in turn will likely never happen unless there is a gigantic solar ring around the earth.
Re:radiation was detected (Score:5, Interesting)
Renewables are cheaper than nuclear since years.
Installation wise as in $ per GW as well as in production of energy as in Cents per kWh.
Re: (Score:1)
Renewables are cheaper than nuclear since years.
Intermittent and unreliable sources of power usually are.
Re: (Score:2)
Intermittent and unreliable sources of power usually are.
This is a sentence that makes no sense.
Unreliable? In what regard?
Intermittent? In what regard?
10 years ago, neither wind nor solar was cheaper than nuclear 10 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Unreliable in that it's intermittent.
Intermittent in that it depends heavily on external factors. Both of these you could find in the dictionary.
In case you need it spelt out for you, In May 2016 there was a day where all of Germany ran from wind power.
Yet on Monday there was a peak of 4GW of generation across the country, and a low point of 1.2GW. Solar however managed to produce zero for all of that day when the sun didn't shine. Today's peak was 23.6GW from wind which is a pretty good effort given their
Re: (Score:2)
You still did not explain ehat you mean with your pointless points :) ... just for your interest. Even when it is cloudy it has a nice power output.
Over daytime solar dors not produce zero
It is completely normal for germany to have high wind yields and relatively low solar yields in autumn/winter. However on sunny winterdays peak solar output is similar to summer. Only total yield is lower due to the shorter day length.
Re: (Score:2)
You still did not explain ehat you mean with your pointless points :)
Sure I did. I used two words which are very clearly defined.
Over daytime solar dors not produce zero ... just for your interest. Even when it is cloudy it has a nice power output.
Nice? Let's talk about nice for a moment. Solar power output decimates in the literal sense on a cloudy day. Peak power output in Germany for instance ranges between 25GW and 2GW depending on cloud cover.
So Nice? In what regard?
It is completely normal for germany to have high wind yields and relatively low solar yields in autumn/winter. However on sunny winterdays peak solar output is similar to summer. Only total yield is lower due to the shorter
Re: (Score:2)
As fr as I can tell it is very reliable, as you have a forecast how much power you will produce tomorrow, or the next hour. And the forecasts are extremely reliable, especially the 1h - 4h forecasts.
You mean something different. wind and solar are not dispatch able. That has nothing to do with reliable.
Re:radiation was detected (Score:4, Interesting)
Renewables are cheaper than nuclear since years.
You're pushing pure bullshit. [cna.ca] In some cases the cost of wind and solar are even worse. [cna.ca] The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen costs of wind and solar are between 0.32kWh and 1.5kWh(that's $1.50kWh aka one dollar and fifty-cents per kilowatt hour) depending on where it is and who's getting the payment. [powerauthority.on.ca] Installation wise, per GW nuclear is still cheaper. Hell I live a literal stones throw from the 2nd largest nuclear generating station in the world.
This is the exact same thing that's happening in US states like Illinois and Minnesota as well. "Green energy" is not cheap, is damned expensive. Around here it's drive the "peak energy" costs from 0.07kWh to 0.18kWh in less then a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
You are listing ages old US installations.
No idea why they are such expensive.
New installations in Germany are cheaper than nuclear since years. And Germany is not a particular good country for either wind (except the coast) or solar.
Bringing retarded grid concepts etc as arguments makes no sense.
Around here it's drive the "peak energy" costs from 0.07kWh to 0.18kWh in less then a decade.
Wind and solar are used for base load, not for peak energy or balancing power. You probably mean something else. If the e
Re:radiation was detected (Score:4, Interesting)
You are listing ages old US installations.
No idea why they are such expensive.
New installations in Germany are cheaper than nuclear since years. And Germany is not a particular good country for either wind (except the coast) or solar.
Thanks for showing that you're nothing but a shill pushing an agenda. Those are "brand new CANADIAN" installations.
The fact that you don't understand why, explains a lot. I know why, because of FIT programs. [wikipedia.org] These are exactly the same programs that cause electricity prices to skyrocket in Germany, Greece, UK, Norway, Sweden. The fact that you don't understand that Ontario generate more electricity then it uses, and consumers are charged an outrageous amount to off-set the costs of green energy is the problem. You're trying to turn around and claim that green energy isn't the reason that it's driving electricity rates through the roof. [fraserinstitute.org] When not only the energy producers say so, but the leftist pro-green energy media [www.cbc.ca] and government [www.cbc.ca] itself says so.
Re: (Score:2)
You are mixing up end consumer prices with production costs. /. often enough. Believe what you want.
E.g. in Germany the end consumer prices are basically the same, regardless how the power is produced. That is simple to understand as most energy companies run a mix of various power plants.
Nevertheless if you want to build a new 1GW plant: it is cheaper to that with a wind or solar plant, than as a coal or nuclear plant. This is true since roughly 5 years and was covered on
Re: (Score:2)
You are mixing up end consumer prices with production costs.
No, actually I'm not. Go read those links.
E.g. in Germany the end consumer prices are basically the same, regardless how the power is produced. That is simple to understand as most energy companies run a mix of various power plants.
Nevertheless if you want to build a new 1GW plant: it is cheaper to that with a wind or solar plant, than as a coal or nuclear plant. This is true since roughly 5 years and was covered on /. often enough. Believe what you want.
As it is in Ontario. And those "green energy" produces are what are driving the cost of electricity through the roof. It costs $50m-250m(or less on both amounts) CAD to build a 1GW NG power plant which will pay for itself in under 10 years
Re: (Score:2)
We talked about Coal and Nuclear, not NG.
I have no idea what the NG prices in Ontario are, in Germany we unfortunately had no "cheap gas boom", mainly because we have long term gas contracts and can not easy shift to cheaper ones.
On the other hands: like building a coal plant, building a gas plant here would cost decades from CAD to switching it on.
build a 1GW NG power plant which will pay for itself in under 10 years, it
You typoed, you meant 50 years or 100 years. A gas plant has similar costs than a coal
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are the one pushing bullshit.
Those links provide no support for the idea that the FIT can be greater than 31c per kWh.
Green energy can be cheap: look at the latest costs for offshore wind in Europe. They are cheaper than the rate your employer sells electricity for (assuming you work for your local power station).
Re: (Score:1)
Reality check.... Nuclear power plants remain the second cheapest form of electrical power generation. All the figures that show wind or solar being cheaper ignore the maintenance and replacement costs of the equipment. Consider the total system and maintenance costs; the power density of nuclear blows all but hydroelectric power generation out of the water for efficiency as measured by cost per megawatt hour.
Renewable will never replace nuclear (Score:2)
Fusion will obviously replace fission if us monkeys can figure it out.
The cost of a dyson ring would beggar the entire planet for at least a milllion years. It is simply infeasible until energy to matter and matter to energy conversions hit 95% efficiency.
Renewables will easily replace fossil fuels, and can already economically do that in some cases.
As to fission/fusion, You seem to be unaware that the sun is a giant fucking fusion bomb, only the distance we have from it's multi-billion year continuous exp
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Nuclear Power is so awesome, until something bad happens and suddenly it costs you 100 billion dollars which the power company can't afford, so it basically goes bust and has to be bailed out by the state and the taxpayer steps in to pay for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Which has happened twice in 50+ years.
Who's to say? (Score:5, Insightful)
"How do we know this radiation isn't actually good for you? I mean, the Sun's heat is radiation, right?"
- Trump's new director of the Department of Energy.
[Note: If you think I'm somehow exaggerating, you might find tonight's story about Trump's new Department of Energy "enemies list" an interesting read:}
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Who's to say? (Score:4, Interesting)
From the link above:
How petty is that?
King Leer (Score:2)
Didn't Shakespeare write about a King Lear, who made outrageous proclamations but handed governance of the kingdom over to his children and their spouses?
Re: (Score:3)
Since it's been a more than a couple of hundred years since the USA has had to deal with a King I suppose a reminder of how petty and spiteful autocrats can be was due :(
The first US states were founded more than 400 years after the Magna Carta. By the time of the revolution, Britain was ruled by parliament, and the king had very limited powers. The US presidential role was modelled on the monarch, but elected rather than hereditary.
Since then the power of the President has increased dramatically, while the monarch's role has declined. I'd say the US has never had to deal with a king as remotely autocratic as the current president (how many executive orders?
Re:Who's to say? (Score:4, Interesting)
See also the Belgian Congo under King Leopold for an example only a hundred years old.
If you think Obama was autocratic you are in for a massive shock.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Obama was autocratic you are in for a massive shock.
Not really.
Just saying the US has not had to deal with autocratic kings. The system where the monarch's powers are reserved for emergencies, and congress rules is starting to look like a better alternative. In the UK or Australia, the head of gov't is chosen by the majority party in the house of rep's. So the executive automatically has control (usually) of the lower house. And the ruling party can replace the leader at any time if they go off the rails. This keeps ultimate power with the Congress, less w
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, because it was autocratic Governors answering to nobody other than the King that resulted in a revolt and let to the United State in the first place! So America has had plenty of it.
Which is exactly what I meant FFS!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the US has never had to deal with a king as remotely autocratic as the current president (how many executive orders?),
Actually Obama has issued the lowest number of executive orders per year of office since William McKinley in 1901.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Who's to say? (Score:2)
No, instead he writes Executive Memorandums. The difference is, Executive Orders have to cite applicable laws, whereas an Executive Memorandum does not.
Re: (Score:2)
What does it matter how many?
How many have other presidents had shot down by the supreme court?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the US revolution happened about 20 or 30 years too early. If it had happened in the 1790s or early 1800s, the modern Westminster systen would have been their model, instead of the "elect a king" model.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's been a more than a couple of hundred years since the USA has had to deal with a King I suppose a reminder of how petty and spiteful autocrats can be was due :(
You've had Obama, wasn't that enough of a lesson?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
Re: (Score:2)
Don't laugh, it might just happen. [youtube.com]
As far as I can tell, her reasoning is something along the lines that if you hit yourself in the forehead with a hammer, your forehead swells with fluids such that the second blow is less severe. Therefore, hammers are good for your forehead.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Who's to say? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were true that long-term low level radiation were unquestionably harmful, you'd expect to find a clear negative trend.
No, that's not what we'd expect to find at all.
We'd expect to find at the high end a certain level of radiation that is absolutely lethal, and as the dose is reduced, the impact would drop down steadily, until a zone where life expectancy is reduced. However, that life expectancy is more or less on an absolute scale, and must be compared to the life expectancy of the species being exposed. An insect may survive high doses of radiation simply because it wouldn't normally live long enough to exhibit symptoms, while a longer-lived animal like a human will likely survive long enough to get cancer that ultimately causes death.
At a very low dose, the chances of having any noticeable symptom from radiation is unlikely enough that it could equally likely be caused by millions of other factors, so usually nobody cares. There is still a negative trend in survivability, but it's dwarfed by all of the other fatal conditions.
Too little radiation and the species dies due to inability to keep pace with changing environmental conditions.
Radiation isn't the only mechanism for mutation, though. Rather, it's the fast and cheap way to make a lot of mutations really fast, usually in places that cannot possibly contribute to evolution.
In order to change the species, an offspring's DNA must be mutated. That's dependent on a few thousand cells out of the trillions in a human body. Those particular cells are the ones involved in meiosis, splitting and reassembling the DNA that will become half of the offspring. During that reassembly process is where most mutations happen, usually by random chemical processes rather than any radiation. This enzyme doesn't successfully react with that protein, so a gene gets skipped or altered or inserted... It is extremely rare that a gene is altered by radiation during the process.
Once an offspring's development begins, though, the effects of mutations become more pronounced. If radiation mutates a single cell during early stages of growth, that fetus will develop with a cluster of mutated cells. Unless those cells are destined to become a gonad, however, the mutation will die with that generation, and the species will not change.
Similarly, radiation affecting a mature individual is is unlikely to have any positive effect, as the mutation is almost always either destructive or irrelevant. The proper functioning of a human body requires millions of interactions between tens of thousands of proteins, so randomly changing one protein is more likely to break something than to add new functionality. Of course, as before, even breaking something is only going to affect the species if it happens to occur in a cell involved in reproduction.
It is important to remember that evolution is never towards anything. It is away from an inability to reproduce (usually due to death). As an illustration, you must realize that you are the result of an unbroken line of millions of ancestors dating back millions of years, and every single one of those millions of ancestors were fertile and successful in mating. There is no scorecard in evolution. Either you pass on your genes, or you don't. It doesn't matter if your changing environment caused you severe illness or discomfort. As long as you manage to find a mate and make a child, you've won the natural selection game.
In short, radiation is a purely random occurrence with purely random effects, and the odds of any particular radiation-caused mutation being beneficial are so absurdly small that it is absolutely safe to say that overall, there is no safe dose.
Re: (Score:3)
The other thing to remember is that even if the amount detected is small, that's just what was detected on spot checks.
Fishermen around Fukushima have found that they need to check every batch. Most will be fine, but occasionally a higher concentration is found.
Re: (Score:2)
The assumption that increased chances of cancer sucks? Not so huge an assumption IMHO.
Now there is a "huge-ass assumption" that turns out to be totally wrong, especially with the "down to zero" bit. Below a certain level nobody really gives a shit other than people who want to start arguments. When dosage badges indicate something but a long way below a threshold nobody cares.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The assumption is that there is a higher risk of cancer associated with any radiation exposure, however small. And the "down to zero" part is really part of the current model, the so-called "no-threshold" part of Linear, no-threshold [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you know differently (in which case, cite your sources), nobody lives any of their life in a zero radiation environment. The natural levels of radiation vary with, amongst other things, date (within the solar cycle), latitude (how close you are to the poles), altitude (how close you are to the top of the atmosphere), and ground geology. Lower-order influences include the food in your bely (see bananas up thread) and the
Re: (Score:3)
Solar, eh?
Didn't Donald want to bring manufacturing home? Becoming the world's largest panel manufacturer to blanket *every* dwelling in the united states could be a job creation program.
Re: (Score:2)
"How do we know this radiation isn't actually good for you? I mean, the Sun's heat is radiation, right?"
In the same way as we know that being extremely dumb does not harm you at all but it harms us, because idiots like you still may vote.
Re: (Score:1)
Why the hell is this insightful? The man hasn't even taken office, and won't for over a month and here people are stuffing words into his mouth.
Bad as CNN's fake news about Trump doing the apprentice.
Re: (Score:1)
If you don't go by regulatory requirements and go by studies in Health Physics, you find that an extra 300 milliRem of exposure a year is shown to have positive health benefits. The term to google is "radiation hormesis" if you want to get into the details.
Please note: NONE of the regulatory limits on exposure to trained and informed workers nor the limits for exposure to the general public in any way consider hormesis in the design basis. The legal limits are based on the doctrine of Bergonie & Tribe
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you want to be pedantic (of course you do), heat isn't radiation. Black body radiation is a consequence of heat. And in point of fact the ionizing spectral components of the Sun's radiation generates over seventy-thousand cases of cancer in the US annually, and over ten thousand deaths. If there were an artificial radiation source that was that harmful we'd be right to be very concerned about it, that's substantially more than 3x the number of people who perished in 9/11 every single year.
The
A banana is much worse (Score:1, Informative)
Keep in mind that a banana has an activity of roughly 15 Bq...
Not a banana in your pocket (Score:2)
Deadly Radiation (Score:1)
Radation is deadly. Radiation reached Oregon. Therefor people in Oregon will die.
Can't argue with that. Don't even try mentioning strange numbers, backgrounds etc. It is "Radiation". That is all we need to know. It only takes one unlucky photon to kill.
Re: (Score:1)
did you forget the /s?
Or are you serious and not know that a bannana is 50 times more radioactive than a cubic meter of that water?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that was true for cancer development. Of course, you need a lot of photons to get an unlucky one (normally)
Compared to bananas (Score:5, Insightful)
Still not 'harmless' (Score:2)
The scientific community has a problem with precise language here. The additional radiation is not 'harmless'; what is true is that the increase is insignificant compared with other risks. Unfortunately our society is deeply irrational about risks - with the result we spend silly amounts of money on preventing some risks, and far too little on others. In that context is it right to lie to people - by saying it's 'harmless' - or should be seek to be more precise? Remember that one of the reasons for Trump's
Re: (Score:2)
In that context is it right to lie to people - by saying it's 'harmless'
Define harm. Then we can talk about whether people are being lied to.
I'm willing to you bet you 3 fingers and my spare head that no one is being lied to at all. Now excuse me while I go eat a banana.
We're dealing with the ignorant here (Score:2)
I get your point - but a lot of people who, for example, buy into anti-vax propaganda will miss the point. Admittedly compared with the crasser lies of the fake news surrounding the Trump fiasco, it's a minor detail. But we need to try and be totally clear of any criticism to avoid our credibility being challenged by such characters.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just playing devil's advocate here, but can the human body metastasize cesium as well as potassium?
The real danger of radiation is not the dose you get from the environment, but the radioactive material getting inside you and staying there. You can hold an ingot of plutonium in your hand wearing little more than a nitrile glove, but don't dare breathe the dust.
Re: (Score:2)
Just playing devil's advocate here, but can the human body metastasize cesium as well as potassium?
You don't drink seawater.
Re: (Score:2)
People do generally eat fish and other animals that eat the fish, and...
Oh, never mind.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are about 15 becquerels per banana [wikipedia.org] - typically around 120 grams each. This study had 0.3 becquerels per cubic meter of seawater (about 1026 kg). So it would take 51,250 kg of seawater to get you to your banana dosage. A banana is 427,000 times more radioactive, by mass, than this seawater.
Assume your sushi is dosed at the same density as this seawater. And assume the density of fish is about that of seawater (it's actually pretty close). To reach the dosage equivalent to a banana a day, you'd need
Detection (Score:2)
This is what, the third or fourth time? (Score:5, Insightful)
We've had warnings about "radiation reaching the west coast of the US" a few times already. We've seen similar stories in 2015 and 2014 (a couple of times in each year).
In those, it was Cesium-137. Now, this group is all about Cesium-134, apparently because people didn't get upset enough about the Cesium-137.
"Possible false positives" may be their excuse, but no, it's not the first time someone made the claim of radiation reaching the west coast.
By the way: they weren't kidding about the amount being very small. It's 0.3 decays per cubic meter per second - which is a really, REALLY small number. The most amazing thing about the story is that we can manage to detect something that's so close to zero in real world terms. Three-tenths of a disintegration per second times (approximately) 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water in a cubic meter of seawater...
(Someone check my math on this: it's late, and I'm sleepy...)
For comparison (Score:5, Informative)
If 0.3 Bq / m^3 were dangerous, you'd be dead ten thousand times over just from the natural radioactivity in your own body, a hundred thousand times over from natural radiation from other sources. These measurements of residual radiation from Fukushima are a testament to how good our instruments are at detecting minute quantities of radiation. Not a sign that our oceans are dangerous.
It's reached Oregon? It's in Tillamook Bay? (Score:2)
What about all the cheese... Is the cheese okay?
Please tell me the cheese is okay!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess... but I was really hoping for superpowers.
But don't worry, nobody dies from radiation. (Score:1)
Just look at how nobody has died at the accident. Completely safe!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, nobody dies from radiation.
But there's been an estimated 1600 deaths from the practical problems due to the evacuation, things like the hospital having to be shutdown.
nuclear disasters (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Ecotest overcharges for their equipment. If you want a silicon dioxide gamma meter, FTLabs makes one that works as a smartphone attachment that is much much cheaper.
More important problems (Score:2)
We have these giant lizards to fight off. Don't bother us with your silly radiation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Give me free electricity and compensation for every screw up and I'd gladly live next to a reactor.
Second that. I've been a long time green party voter, and as much as I like seeing solar panels on an ever increasing # of homes, reality is that solar + wind can't cover 100% of our energy needs right now. Period. Not unless / until the storage problem is solved. The sun doesn't shine at night, the wind doesn't always blow (and sometimes too hard!), and no amount of solar panels will fix that. Hydro could be used as backup, but has its own drawbacks & only possible in a few places. Geothermal etc is i
Re: (Score:2)
> So for filling in the gaps we NEED something else, no way around it. Between 'cheap' coal, oil, natural gas, or covering land masses with biofuel crops, a modern design nuclear plant isn't a bad option.
Yeah, but the thing is, it is a bad option.
Forget fallout, meltdowns etc. Nuclear is expensive per kW.
Because of that nuclear plants are pretty much run flat out, as baseload, to get the kWh cost down to something that is remotely competitive. I mean, you can run them at half power, but when you do that,
Re: We need progressive nuclear programs. (Score:3, Informative)
Nuclear energy is cheap.
Nope. It's expensive. Just the concrete alone is costly. Mistakes are often extremely costly.
We need more progressive programs.
True, but that won't be happening. Not healthcare. Not pollution control. Not military downsizing.
We should have been doubling the number of reactors every 15 years.
I'm reminded of the Popular Mechanics covers which proclaimed some glorious thing, but it never added up.
Besides, you'd probably juat get blamed for killing the coal industry. You monster.
All the first gen reactors should have been torn down and rebuilt already.
Oh great, more expenses!
Have an excellent track record for 15 years? Well then if you rebuild your current plant with a newer design then you can build and be in charge of a second one...
This would be less of a concern if not for the lies about safety that they've been known to make.
The irony is that if there weren't all the anti nuclear environmental activists then that plant would have been upgraded a long time ago. There are ways to build reactors now that if you drop a bomb on them they still won't melt down.
Thre
We need science education programs. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And the articles making claims of Fukushima radiation reaching the West Coast have been debunked for years. A few months after the plume release; the levels in the seawater up close to the reactor were down to the background that was there before. Yes there are fruit-loops claiming everything up to the whole west coast being a radioactive wasteland.
Re: (Score:1)
The concentration of radio nuclides from Fukushima reaching the Oregon coast is so minuscule as to be indistinguishable from other sources in the area. Scare mongering does a disservice to everyone. If you check the facts; you will find your fears are total hooey.