I wouldn't worry about Fukushima too much...
That said, if we had a government that wasn't wasting trillions of dollars on bullshit, I wouldn't mind some monitoring of stuff like this.
Posted on 03/09/2014 6:32:40 PM PDT by Freedom56v2
You may be amused, but if you live on the beach and eat a lot of fish, ocean life, etc. you might be more concerned.
Is the issue of mercury poisoning in fish inane too? I don’t know why it couldn’t be potentially similar. I am not amused.
Do you know what the phrase "containment vessel" means?
I wouldn't worry about Fukushima too much...
That said, if we had a government that wasn't wasting trillions of dollars on bullshit, I wouldn't mind some monitoring of stuff like this.
Lucky you. Read up on the term "downwinder."
Certainly.
No problem with asking. The issue is what is really the “truth”, and who is qualified to “pronounce” said “truth”. Consensus is a useful tool, but in this day and age, it is difficult if neigh impossible to acquire such, IMO.
Parents worked at Hanford since mid-40s. I drank the milk here, of course. No cancer in family; in fact I have known only one person with cancer in my lifetime.
Salmon is reasonably high on the food chain such that it might concentrate radionuclides in the water. I must admit I’d like to think that someone in the Federal Colossus was checking something as basic as that.
That is a very good answer. Another reason is that water does not 'retain' radiation. Particles in the water might, but the water itself does not.
Kidd, my husband has a PhD in science area and he is concerned, tho his area is not nuclear engineering, physics or dilution effects. Do you have a PhD? Are you a nuclear engineer?
If you have something to add, I would appreciate it.
I did not know FR has become a libertarian site.
I believe the Federal Government should protect our borders. That is why we have a Coast Guard. We are spending bunches of money for all kinds of crap.. such as Barry’s junket to FLorida this weekend....monitoring the water is not unreasonable and outrageous....
I don’t know...that is why I asked, and I appreciate the thoughtful comments.
So you are basically saying, don’t ask questions, trust that it is no big deal, don’t worry, and btw, I should not expect the government to monitor nor should I monitor myself...Got it.
Gov Brown will see that the legislature bans it from reaching the shore.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/swcrc/37/chap2.htm
http://www.bikiniatoll.com/whatrad.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/02/bikini-atoll-nuclear-test-60-years
It's still claimed to be unlivable after 60 years, but I would take that with a grain of salt if you consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the caveat the both Japanese sites were actively “decontaminated” while the Bikini Atoll was not.
Well make up your mind - is he wondering why the government isn't taking better care of him, or is he willing to spend the money to buy the equipment to find out for himself? And if both, how then is your insult not internally contradictory?
That this vanity post is a tremendous display of ignorance of:
- radiation
- health physics
- dilution effects
And your insult is a tremendous display of ignorance of CONCENTRATION VECTORS, such as algae, kelp, shellfish, FISH, fishING, EATing FISH, the FOOD CHAIN, ocean oxygenation vulnerabilities, and related BIOLOGICAL and INDUSTRIAL FACTORS.
But I must say, the absolute brazenness of your absolute trust in absolute Statism in the name of rejecting absolute Statism is matched only by the nastyness of your personal insults. But the insults make sure no one notices your hypocrisy, so I guess that's pretty slick on your part. Staying hidden, I mean. Lots of training behind that kind of technique. Impressive skill.
I checked a month ago, nobody, fed or state is checking seafood for radiation.
So we have agencies that are tasked with safety of the food supply and wildlife, which we pay for, yet they are not doing this.
We pay for all kinds of outrageous projects, yet we don’t have a coordinated effort on this.
You thot correctly.
: )
Because it is fairly good conductor of heat and readily available?
That is a very good answer. Another reason is that water does not ‘retain’ radiation. Particles in the water might, but the water itself does not.
Well, that is good to know about the water itself, but then I wonder about plankton, fish, kelp, etc....
So you've got a plan for a nuclear reactor without a containment vessel? I mean, since it's redundant, right? Since opem free-flowing waterdirectly connected to the ocean itself is more than enough to dissipate any radioactivity?
Or am I missing something in the reason for your certitude?
Salmon is reasonably high on the food chain such that it might concentrate radionuclides in the water. I must admit I’d like to think that someone in the Federal Colossus was checking something as basic as that.
Like I said, lucky you (and yours). Nevertheless, look up the term "downwinders."
Be sure to check out his links under "More resources".
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.