Posted on 06/05/2016 3:01:50 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Fukushima is my name,
killing fish is my game.
My goodness, what a wall of text.
I do not know how to say it delicately, but it is not scientific.
Knowing the physics and characteristics of radiation and radioactive contaminations is one of my job requirements. I take classes on the subject.
China in the SCS?
You can say it anyway you want. I used to work in the fisheries industry as a biologist. Fire away.
PS: I’ve taken classes on the subject too, and performed experiments with radiation. It’s really not that obscure - the content is available in reliable websites online (i.e., EPA documentation)
Then you should know better than to make unscientific speculations about the Fukushima radiation. Not only that, but if you are a marine biologist, you should have a pretty good idea of what causes massive fish kills—a better idea than I do, since my specialty is human health.
The last time I took a class on radiation, I got to handle a piece of trinitite. I also used to use radioisotopes for labeling biological molecules all the time. Then I had a scan done, and was injected with a higher quantity of radiation than all I have ever handled, combined. And I’m still alive.
I've seen lots of faceboob memes on Fukushima poisoning the ocean and causing fish kills...
Lots of pretty pictures of radiation contamination...OMG..stop the presses...
It's pretty hard to believe radiation is STILL killing off fish enmass...
Sadly the chart is not that useful, largely because it ignores key characteristics of radiation. For example, the first few listings on the left feature....bananas. Yeah, when you see bananas in the mix, and the old “sleeping next to someone” stuff, you know you are in poor quality information territory.
The chart ignores the type of radiation - different isotopes have different radioactive properties. If you can put bananas on the same chart as Fukushima and xrays - why don’t our nuclear power plants and medical labs use bananas for fuel instead of uranium and cesium? Why do you have to have certification and legal permits and lead lined enclosures to move a small amount of cesium on our freeways (DOT regulations) but the DOT is strangely silent about the unshielded truckloads of bananas traversing our nation?
There’s no comparison - the type of isotope makes all the difference and the chart ignores the fact that these are apple to orange (er...banana) comparisons.
Mmmmyes....and I have used unshielded radioactives sources. WHy didn’t you handle a piece of uranium instead of trinitite? Why didn’t they inject hi-levels of uranium or strontium directly into your flesh? Because isotopes vary wildly in their physiological effects - how is it you don’t know this?
One of the most common smoke-and-mirrors acts put on by nuke engineers is to provide the dosimetry math “proving” that bananas are more “dangerous” than nuclear fuels. They never stop to wonder, well hey, why don’t we just grow bananas instead of mining uranium? We’d get the regulators off our backs and put up a sign saying nuke power is green.
You know you didn’t ingest radioactive materials with that scan, right? And you didn’t ingest trinitite. Why dramatize the fact that you are “still alive” when you aren’t taking into account the types of radiation you chose to expose yourself to? “Higher radiation” doesn’t matter if you’re talking about bannas and you are limiting your exposure - why have you no clue about these parameters.
Re the “unscientific speculation”, I was responding to the assertion that there have been “no die offs” with proof of die offs. I do have a pretty good idea of what causes die offs and I have noted over the past few years the location and novelty of the type of die offs that are occuring and the way the various agencies say it’s unprecedented and they don’t know the cause. The fed gov will not permit funding to 0test for evidence because they are the insurers against nuke damage to the environment - they aren’t going fund anyone who is going to prove that the gov is financially liable.
Instead, it's still a fetid hellhole run by some of the worst people on earth.
Fukushima is well over 2000 miles from the central coast of Vietnam. The radiation would have had to pass a large part of the coast of China to get to Vietnam.
” I am willing to bet that radiation fro Fukishima is in part to blame.”
LOL. And what do you base that on?
“In 1945, Trinitite was marketed for use in jewelry, but it was later found to cause radiation burns if worn for extended periods of time. In 1952, the Atomic Energy Commission had the test site bulldozed over, but not before collectors scavenged the site for these pieces of atomic history.
Authentic Trinitite is still mildly radioactive today as it contains materials like Cesium 137, Americium 241, Europium 152, Plutonium 239, Barium 133, Cobalt 60, and Silver 108m to name a few”
http://enformable.com/2014/07/authenticating-trinitite-nearly-70-years-later/
So, trinitite has small enough quantities of radiation remaining to make it safe to handle short-term but even low level ionizing radiation contributes a small amount of risk so it’s not used in jewelry. The fact that low levels of ionizing radiation still pose a health risk is well documented with each generation of the state of the art BEIR report created by the Board on Radiation Effects Research; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340/health-risks-from-exposure-to-low-levels-of-ionizing-radiation
Forbe documented the presence of cesium from Fukushima sources in Vermont here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/09/radiation-detected-in-drinking-water-in-13-more-us-cities-cesium-137-in-vermont-milk/#7cb9ea7e591c
The distance between Vermont and Japan is 6,528 mi.
This frame is cited in the Wiki article on the character as being from 1947. Mister Mxyzptlk from Superman, OTOH, gets a 1944 citation.
I wouldn’t venture to say that this settles the matter, though. Perhaps they reflect a common source.
Actually, the chart uses a measure of radiation, a Sievert, that is normalized to effects of ionizing radiation on the body. So it does not matter that the sources of radiation are different, or that some are beta emitters and others are gamma emitters--they are normalized.
I've handled uranium before, in chemistry class. It was a chalky yellow liquid, probably a suspension.
Why didn’t they inject hi-levels of uranium or strontium directly into your flesh?
Interestingly, UC Davis, where I got my PhD, ran a program for decades investigating the effects of radiation of different types on dogs. The program was discontinued in the early 1970s. The last dog used in the program, radioactive with strontium-90, died in the late 1970s at the ripe old age of 19.
You know you didn’t ingest radioactive materials with that scan, right?
I didn't need to ingest radioactive material, because it was injected directly into a vein in my foot. It was quite painful. I had about 740 MBq, or 20 mCi, or 1.5 mSv, of a gamma emitter injected, and the nuclear medicine clinic gave me a card to carry just in case I set off a radiation detector in the next couple of days.
Re the “unscientific speculation”, I was responding to the assertion that there have been “no die offs” with proof of die offs.
The unscientific speculation is not that there was a fish die-off, but that it occurred due to radiation from Fukushima, especially since at this point, any such radiation is negligible. No one disputes that there was a fish die-off, or even several die-offs. But the most likely explanation is an algae bloom. Many of those articles you linked attribute the fish kills to algae blooms. As for the fish kill off the coast of Vietnam, it is likely to be an algae bloom--although, given the area, it could be a toxic industrial spill. It is difficult to tell... the fish do not appear visibly marred, so the only way to know is by testing them and the water.
I think the reason this is happening is due to Donald Trump’s mean and nasty rhetoric.
There’s no report of a giant fish kill in Vermont. Undoubtedly the radiation from Fukushima spread far and wide. But radiation is detectable at very low levels. I was just saying that the claim that radioactivity floated around in the ocean (being diluted) for 5 years and suddenly came ashore at such a strength to kill lots of fish, when no such thing had happened much closer in time and distance, doesn’t make any sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.