BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Nuclear Energy- No Cause For Alarm-
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Nuclear Energy- No Cause For Alarm-
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
anyone that thinks Nuke power in this application would be a good thing defies comprehension.

yes, it's obvious from the comments that some people are unable to comprehend anything about nuclear energy or the oilsands. It's risible for someone half the world away in Australia with demonstrably limited comprehension of things beyond their knowledge and experience, telling other people with that expertise what to do. Now go play with your didgeridoo, you're quite good with that.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
It's not the people in Australia that are exposing the aftermath and consequences of what happened at Fukushima. IT's the world Scientific community and even the gubbermints that try to protect it that have no choice but to admit what they previously denied in the face of over whelming but little reported evidence.

Moronic slights at one country are nothing more than piss poor attempts by those trying to use diversionary tactics to take away from the Known and proven facts and evidence.
Highly typical and pathetic recurring strategy for some that will talk all sorts of rubbish they dream up or twist to present as fact.


There have been people here whom have made all sorts of claims and put up out of context postings on the nuke debate which have been discredited over and over again. They have pointed the finger at other countries when their own has been proven to produce emissions and pollution off the scale in contrast. They have made all sorts of claims about the rainbows and sunshine which emanates from nuke power and even deleted numerous posts when they were shot down in smoking flames.


I would have thought such a person that had been stripped of all credibility, had proven themselves liable to say any matter of garbage to win the side of the argument they championed and just in general proven to talk pure and utter crap over and over again, would at least have had the good sense to pull my head in and shut the hell up before I made myself look any more stupid.

I guess some people don't have even that much smarts.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The Dunning Kruger Effect

quote:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Dan et al:
There are many examples of experts expertly phucking up.
A degree means little.
Look at Canada's faux Prime Minister with his economics degree from the Calgary school of thought!
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
galt: tell us how the tarsands are not polluting water and emitting huge amounts of CO2/energy yield:


john galt posted March 11, 2013 11:22 PM Hide Post

quote:
anyone that thinks Nuke power in this application would be a good thing defies comprehension.


yes, it's obvious from the comments that some people are unable to comprehend anything about nuclear energy or the oilsands. It's risible for someone half the world away in Australia with demonstrably limited comprehension of things beyond their knowledge and experience, telling other people with that expertise what to do. Now go play with your didgeridoo, you're quite good with that.


-i think you'll all enjoy this little clip.
Cheers!
Harald

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...dded&v=RM3W5XBrVEA#!
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SUB:
Dan et al:
There are many examples of experts expertly phucking up.
A degree means little.
Look at Canada's faux Prime Minister with his economics degree from the Calgary school of thought!


Don't get me started... Wink


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
BEIJING -- China says 21 coal miners have been killed and four more are missing following an accident inside a mine in the southern province of Guizhou.

The State Administration of Work Safety said Wednesday that a rescue effort has been mounted. State media reported that another 58 miners safely escaped the accident.

China's mines have long been the world's deadliest, although the government announced last month that the death toll fell by more than 30 percent last year to 1,384 as a result of stricter management.

China is the world's largest producer of coal, which generates about two-thirds of its energy needs.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Coal Mining in Australia has been the subject of criticism from members of the environmental movement, because of its impact on the rural landscape and burning coal releases carbon dioxide, which is generally understood to contribute to climate change, global warming, sea level rise and the effects of global warming on Australia. The burning of coal produces 42.1% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, excluding export coal, based on 2004 GHG inventory.

Coal in Australia is mined primarily in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. It is used to generate electricity and 54% of the coal mined in Australia is exported, mostly to eastern Asia. In 2000/01, 258.5 million tonnes of coal were mined, and 193.6 million tonnes were exported. Coal provides about 85% of Australia's electricity production. In fiscal year 2008/09, 487 million tonnes of coal was mined, and 261 million tonnes exported. In 2010, Australia was the world's fourth-largest coal producer, after China, the United States, and India. However, in terms of proportion of production exported, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter, as it exports roughly 70% of coal production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_Australia

The environmental damage and human hardship caused by Australian coal mining is several orders of magnitude worse than Canada's oil-sands or nuclear energy. Australia is the world's biggest exporter of the dirtiest form of energy on the planet. Aussies pointing fingers at anyone else is sheer hypocrisy, and nothing more than a lame attempt to distracted people from the biggest source of pollution in the world.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:

The environmental damage and human hardship caused by Australian coal mining is several orders of magnitude worse than Canada's oil-sands or nuclear energy. Australia is the world's biggest exporter of the dirtiest form of energy on the planet. Aussies pointing fingers at anyone else is sheer hypocrisy, and nothing more than a lame attempt to distracted people from the biggest source of pollution in the world.


And exactly what has this got to do with Nuke energy?
I take it that having your propaganda and BS shot down so many times on so many discussions you are out of ways to defend your " Clean, cheap Nuke power " laughable position so now you are back to trying to slight slight cola mining again to make Nuke look better.
Yep, that's hypocrisy all right.

You sure do like to back the loosing horses don't you galt?


It dosen't matter how many times you get your nose rubbed in the garbage you mis quote or quote out of context, how many of your conjured up facts are shot down, or how much you embarrass and discredit yourself, you still keep sticking coming back with rubbish to try and make yourself appear to have some credibility which you completely lost years ago.

I'll say this much, you are amazing if nothing else! Roll Eyes
The one thing I do enjoy is looking up the sources you Misquote and seeing how they in fact support the complete opposite argument to what you are making but see how you have twisted and turned them around to appear to be supporting what you say when they don't.
That takes a special kind of self importance and denial to do that as repeatedly as you do.

Seeing you like misquoting and plain making up unfounded garbage, here's some FACTS for you to enjoy about tar sands mining.....

http://dirtyoilsands.org/thedirt/article/quick_facts

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...tudy/article7014184/



The Tar Sands "Gigaproject" is the largest industrial project in human history and likely also the most destructive. The tar sands mining procedure releases at least three times the CO2 emissions as regular oil production and is slated to become the single largest industrial contributor in North America to Climate Change. The tar sands are already slated to be the cause of up to the second fastest rate of deforestation on the planet behind the Amazon Rainforest Basin. Currently approved projects will see 3 million barrels of tar sands mock crude produced daily by 2018; for each barrel of oil up to as high as five barrels of water are used. Human health in many communities has seriously taken a turn for the worse with many causes alleged to be from tar sands production. Tar sands production has led to many serious social issues throughout Alberta, from housing crises to the vast expansion of temporary foreign worker programs that racialize and exploit so-called non-citizens. Infrastructure from pipelines to refineries to super tanker oil traffic on the seas crosses the continent in all directions to allthree major oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The mock oil produced primarily is consumed in the United States and helps to subsidize continued wars of aggression against other oil producing nations such as Iraq, Venezuela and Iran.

http://oilsandstruth.org/

And to all this, You want to add nuke reactors and their danger and waste to what is already and environmental calamity?

No Doubt about it Galt, You really are beyond belief.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Not as easy to read as the original format but the fact is the Fuel most used in electricity generation in Canada is.... Oh No! .... COAL!!!

Maybe one day they will convert to that nice clean wonderful 2nd favourite of Galts, Oil Sand!


Utilities generation by fuel
Electricity generated from fuels by thermal plants, by province or territory, 2010[19][note 1]
Fuel Canada NL PE NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC YT NT NU
gigawatt-hours
Total solids 78,983.0 0 4.3 8,000.9 3,072.0 846.9 12,854.6 44.4 12,084.2 41,463.7 603.5 0 0 0
Coal 74,300.0 0 0 6,791.8 2,081.0 0 12,285.4 44.4 12,084.2 41,013.1 0 0 0 0
Wood 2,306.5 0 2.4 184.0 0 660.5 405.4 0 0 450.6 603.5 0 0 0
Petroleum coke 2,024.3 0 0 1,033.4 990.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other solid fuels 352.1 0 1.9 0 0 186.4 163.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total liquids 3,057.8 915.2 -0.5 49.9 1,307.2 367.6 60.6 17.0 17.7 12.6 62.6 25.0 61.1 161.9
Total petroleum products 3,057.7 915.2 -0.5 49.9 1307.2 367.6 60.6 17.0 17.7 12.5 62.6 25.0 61.1 161.9
Propane 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0
Other Liquid Fuels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total gas 35,217.1 0 0 2,274.7 1,836.5 236.6 15,147.5 22.9 3,309.2 10,234.4 2,397.7 0 27.5 0
Natural Gas 34,512.6 0 0 2,274.7 1,836.5 199.7 15,020.1 22.9 3,309.2 10,234.4 1,856.5 0 27.5 0
Methane 0 0 0 0 4.6 59.6 0 0 0 51.7 0 0 0 0
Other Gaseous Fuels 0 0 0 0 32.3 66.9 0 0 0 489.5 0 0 0 0
Uranium 85,526.6 0 0 0 0 3,551.6 81,975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Steam from waste heat 6,179.7 0 0 0 680.7 0 2,716.4 0 627.6 1,504.4 650.6 0 0 0


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...ity_sector_in_Canada
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Now the Truth will start to come out about this wonderful clean energy Lie.

(CNN) -- Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) faces mounting damages from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster as more U.S. servicemembers joined a lawsuit accusing the Japanese national utility of lying about the risks involved in an aid effort to the stricken area in 2011.

Attorneys said the number of plaintiffs had grown to 26 from an initial eight, who filed their original lawsuit in December, and that 100 more were ready to join the lawsuit which is now seeking more than $2 billion, the Stars and Stripes newspaper reported late last week.
READ: TEPCO accused of lying over Fukushima

TEPCO confirmed that more plaintiffs had been added to the court petition filed with the U.S. District Court in California in December but did not give details.
"We would refrain from responding to the matter in relation to the contents of the detailed procedure of the lawsuit. In any case, we would like to properly cope with this lawsuit, following U.S. legal proceedings," the company said in a statement to the Tokyo Stock Exchange obtained Monday.

The amended lawsuit increases the amount of damages lawyers are seeking for crew aboard the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier and other service vessels in the area who say they are suffering continuing health problems from the rescue effort that followed the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck eastern Japan on March 11, 2011, crippling reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant.

Lawyers will still sue TEPCO for $40 million in compensation and punitive damages for each crew member but have increased the demand of $100 million for ongoing health monitoring and medical expenses to $1 billion, Stars and Stripes reported.
"At all relevant times, the defendant knew that the reactors and storage tanks at the [Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant] were then leaking and emitting high levels of radiation," the report said, citing the complaint.

It claims TEPCO knew the U.S. Navy would send the USS Ronald Reagan and other vessels to help, relying on what the utility was saying about the risks, adding: "At all relevant times herein, the defendant failed to warn the plaintiffs, the U.S. Navy and public officials of the properties and actual levels of radiation detected at the [plant] at that time."

The plaintiffs say they are suffering a range of disorders related to radiation exposure, from headaches and difficulty concentrating to rectal bleeding, thyroid problems, cancer and gynecological bleeding.
"At all times relevant herein, the Japanese government kept representing that there was no danger of radiation contamination to the USS Reagan (CVN-76) and/or its crew, that 'everything is under control,' 'all is OK, you can trust us,' and there is 'no immediate danger' or threat to human life, all the while lying through their teeth about the reactor meltdowns at FNPP," lawyers stated in the complaint.

The Navy "was lulled into a false sense of security" because it relied on TEPCO's "misrepresentations regarding health and safety," it continued.


The plaintiffs must now endure a lifetime of radiation poisoning and suffering which could have and should have been avoided

( That's probably OK with galt because no one died! yet Roll Eyes )

Last October, TEPCO acknowledged that it had played down safety risks at the facility out of fear that they would lead to a plant shutdown.
The company said in a report that "severe accident measures" were taken in 2002, which included "containment venting and power supply cross-ties between units," but additional measures were never put in place.


Part of the reason, the report said, was a concern that implementing the new safety measures "could spread concern in the sitting community that there is a problem with the safety of current plants." TEPCO added that taking such measures could also have added to "public anxiety and add momentum to anti-nuclear movements."

Are they for real??
I can see how Galt is a loyal Nuke supporter when the attitudes and behaviours match so well.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Modern coal fired power plants are still dirtier than 40 year old operating nuclear reactors, and the older coal fired plants are dirtier than the damaged Fukushima plant. The tailings ponds of ash from coal plants is more toxic than nuclear waste, and there is several orders of magnitude more of it. The 'waste' from older nuclear plants is fuel for the newer plants.

Even when taking into consideration the nuclear accidents which have occurred, coal is still much deadlier. The opinions from people who live in the country which exports the most coal are obviously biased, as one would expect.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Robofraud Canada
#IdleNoMore .. BREAKING :Japan's Nuclear Watchdog sounds alarm : samples taken at the battered Fukushima Daiichi plant on July 9th, showed levels of cancer-causing caesium-134 were more than 110 times higher than they were last Friday READ/SHARE .. July 10th 2013

'Yes, that sharp pain you just felt in your chest is the sudden realization that the image shows the radiation reaching almost past Hawaii more than a year ago.

Do the math. If that radiation screamed across the Pacific Ocean that far in one year, just how far do you think it has gotten since then ?'

TEPCO has admitted in recent weeks that water and soil samples taken at the Fukushima plant are showing high readings for other potentially dangerous substances, including caesium-137, tritium and strontium-90.

“TEPCO has not been able to find the cause of these spikes in readings,” NRA Chairman Shunichi Tanaka told a meeting of its commissioners.

“TEPCO says there has not been meaningful impact on the environment. But we must see for sure what are the possibilities of this leading to oceanic contamination,” said Toyoshi Fuketa, an NRA commissioner.

NRA officials are urging TEPCO to offer more detailed and credible data and make efforts to better explain to the public what it knows.

The substances were released by the meltdowns of reactors at the plant in the aftermath of the huge tsunami of March 2011, which swamped cooling systems at the plant.

TEPCO is struggling to manage the clean-up at Fukushima, which scientists say could take up to 40 years to complete.

Thousands of tonnes of water used to cool reactors is being stored on site, and technical set-backs — including storage tank leaks and power outages — occur frequently.

Critics of the utility say it adopts a head-in-the-sand approach to problems at the plant, where ad-hoc fixes have left equipment vulnerable to quakes and tsunami in tectonically volatile Japan.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...ukushima-ocean-leak/

If you live on the west coast of Canada or the US, you’re pretty much already screwed at this point thanks to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami of 2011.

Radiation levels are already increasing in the food and water, babies born with thyroid issues linked to radiation are rising quickly and governments in Canada and the US are raising the “acceptable levels” of certain toxic substances in the food being shipped in from Japan.

Samples of milk taken across the United States have shown radiation at levels 2000 percent higher than EPA maximums. The reason that milk is so significant is that it is representative of the entire food supply.

According to an article published on Natural News, “Cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as food crops and water supplies. In other words, when cows’ milk starts testing positive for high levels of radioactive elements, this is indicative of radioactive contamination of the entire food supply.”

The FDA and the EPA, instead of refusing to prohibit the sale of tainted foods and mandatory testing of foods produced and harvested from the Pacific Coast, have simply raised the “acceptable levels” of radioactive material in foods.

If that doesn’t scare the ever-living crap out of you, then take a look at the list of foods you are now supposed to be wary of, you know, for only the next 30,000 years.

How can we protect ourselves? First, be aware of what items are likely to be highly tainted.

1.) SEAFOOD: Question the origin of ALL seafood. Fish and crustaceans from the Pacific Ocean should all be considered to be poisoned with radiation.

2.) WATER: The rainfall and snowfall are all radiated. Do not drink any water that has not been filtered. The tap water that flows from your faucet has NOT been treated to rid it of radioactive particles.

A recent report from the NY Times stated, “A rooftop water monitoring program managed by UC Berkeley’s Department of Nuclear Engineering detected substantial spikes in rain-borne iodine-131 during torrential downpours …

3.) DAIRY PRODUCTS: Milk and milk products from the West Coast states currently have the highest levels of radiation in North America.

4.) PRODUCE: Leafy Vegetables, Wines, Tomatoes, Strawberries….all produce from California or any other West Coast State are also likely to be tainted.

5.) MEAT: If an animal eats any leafy vegetable all along the West Coast, that animal has consumed radiation, and is poisoned. This is any animal from cows, pigs, goats, sheep to wild deer and other game.

If you eat the above foods from areas with high radiation levels, you are eating radiation and feeding it to your children. Slowly the radiation levels within your body will build up. This is PERMANENT.

Infant mortality rates across the United States have increased by more than 35% since the nuclear disaster, according to a court statement by Dr. Sherman with independent scientist Leuren Moret, MA, PhD.

A study published in The International Journal of Medicine indicates that more than 20,000 deaths right here in North America can be directly attributed to the release of radioactive material from Fukushima.

Radioactive isotopes of the type released from Fukushima have a half-life of 30,000 years. This means that we must permanently change the way we prepare our food.

Wash your food with soap and rinse it in filtered water.

Be aware of the origins of your vegetables, fish, game and seafood.

Keep abreast of radiation levels to help monitor where your food is acquired.

Use only filtered water for drinking, cooking and ice.


http://www.pakalertpress.com/2...ing-north-americans/
Robofraud Canada added a new photo: "#IdleNoMore .. BREAKING :Japan's..." in Timeline Photos · 39 minutes ago · 
View Full Size · Report Photo
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
If I lived on the west coast I would be concerned. Personal radiation meters are not that difficult to get, is there any actual radiation data to support the contention that our domestic food is contaminated?

The author of the article quoted makes a lot of claims of radiation contamination of wast coast food but cites no actual data to back the claims. Something more than the usual nukophobe fear mongering is necessary for it to be taken seriously.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Galt:
I agree.
I asked the creator of that piece if he knew of reliable independent data-
No response as yet.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The radiation that was released dissipated and diluted in the ocean and atmosphere and became weaker. The danger is long past unless you're close to the still contaminated site. I wouldn't eat anything from Japan or China anyways.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
The stricken nuclear power plant at Fukushima has probably been leaking contaminated water into the ocean for two years, ever since an earthquake and tsunami badly damaged the plant, Japan’s chief nuclear regulator said on Wednesday.

In unusually candid comments, Shunichi Tanaka, the head of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, also said that neither his staff nor the plant’s operator knew exactly where the leaks were coming from, or how to stop them.

The operator, Tokyo Electric Power, has reported spikes in the amounts of radioactive cesium, tritium and strontium detected in groundwater at the plant, adding urgency to the task of sealing any leaks. Radioactive cesium and strontium, especially, are known to raise risks of cancer in humans.

Mr. Tanaka’s comments bring into sharp relief the precariousness of the cleanup at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, where core meltdowns occurred at three of the six reactors. A critical problem has been the groundwater that has been pouring into the basements of the damaged reactor buildings and becoming contaminated. Workers have been pumping the water out to be stored in dozens of tanks at the plant, but have not stopped the inflow.

Until recently, Tokyo Electric, known as Tepco, flatly denied that any of that water was leaking into the ocean, even though various independent studies of radiation levels in the nearby ocean have suggested otherwise. In recent days, Tepco has retreated to saying that it was not sure whether there was a leak into the ocean.

Mr. Tanaka said that the evidence was overwhelming.

“We’ve seen for a fact that levels of radioactivity in the seawater remain high, and contamination continues — I don’t think anyone can deny that,” he said Wednesday at a briefing after a meeting of the authority’s top regulators. “We must take action as soon as possible.

“That said, considering the state of the plant, it’s difficult to find a solution today or tomorrow,” he added. “That’s probably not satisfactory to many of you. But that’s the reality we face after an accident like this.”

By acknowledging that the Fukushima Daiichi plant is not watertight, Mr. Tanaka confirmed suspicions held by experts that the plant has continued to leak radiation into the ocean long after the huge initial releases seen in the disaster’s early days.

A study released earlier this year by Jota Kanda, an oceanographer at the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, examined Tepco’s own readings of radiation levels in the waters near the plant’s oceanfront site. The study concluded that it was highly likely the plant was leaking.

“If there was no leak, we would see far lower levels of radioactive cesium in waters off the plant,” Professor Kanda said last month. He said that natural tidal flushing of the water in the plant’s harbor should have dispersed the initially released radioactivity by now, with a far more rapid drop in radiation levels than had been detected.

“This suggests that water might be leaking out from the plant through damaged pipes or drains, or other routes Tepco doesn’t know about,” he said. “We need to find out where exactly these leaks are, and plug them.”

Unexplained spikes since May in cesium levels detected in groundwater, coupled with higher strontium and tritium readings off shore, have added to the urgency.

Tepco said Wednesday that it was not sure that any contaminated water was reaching the ocean. It has said in the past that the stricken plant was now having “no significant impact” on the marine environment.

“We can’t say anything for sure,” Noriyuki Imaizumi, a Tepco spokesman, said Wednesday at a news conference in Tokyo. “But we aren’t just sitting back. We are first analyzing why there have been high radiation measurements in recent weeks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07...-two-years.html?_r=0
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Fukushima's Radiation: BC Health Risk, or Fish Tale?

Province's public health officer still combating what he says are unnecessary alarms.

By Stanley Tromp, 27 Apr 2013, TheTyee.ca
quote:

The state government of Alaska in an April 2011 press release echoed Kendall, saying: "Food harvested from the sea is very unlikely to have any harmful levels of radiation and is safe to eat. The great amount of water in the ocean quickly dilutes the concentration of harmful radioactive material."

Freitag generally agrees with this view. "I'm not a bit of afraid of any seafood product caught in this area, and I eat a tremendous amount of it," he said, because there is not much Alaska fish getting over to the Japanese exposure area. "The fish caught in our area, if they are exposed, must have a very, very low dosage, because the ocean dilution factors are huge. Speaking personally, however, I would definitely be leery of Japanese farmed fish or shellfish imported here."

Regarding tuna, test results from Oregon last October found radiation levels in fish far below anything that would pose a risk to humans who consume the fish, although the findings were preliminary and more fish remain to be tested.

An interdisciplinary team of scientists from Oregon State University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration collected and tested fish caught off the U.S. West Coast both before and after the 2011 quake.

The Oregon scientists did indeed find trace amounts of the radioactive isotope Cesium-134, which they said could only have come from the Fukushima reactors. "It's very interesting scientifically," said Delvan Neville, a graduate researcher with OSU's Radiation Health Physics program. "But it's nowhere near enough to be concerned about food safety." People are constantly exposed to radiation from the natural environment, Neville added. To increase their normal annual dosage of radiation by just 1 percent, a person would have to eat more than 4,000 pounds of the highest (radiation) level albacore they've seen.


http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2...Fukushima-Radiation/



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Nuclear Energy- No Cause For Alarm-

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014