Fishermen test their own salmon for Fukushima radiation
Is it safe to eat fish from the Pacific Ocean in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster?
The consensus since the 2011 power plant failure has been a yes, but Seattle’s Loki Fish Co. found customers remained concerned.
The fishing company, a local institution, went on to do its own testing for radiation levels in its fish, and shared the laboratory reports online. (The short version: The fish were fine.)
“We were getting so much blowback from customers that have just been reading incredibly paranoid stuff on the Internet,” said Pete Knutson, co-founder of the family-owned business. Beyond some of the “off the charts” fears, though, he understands why people would be concerned, and he’s always interested in knowing how pure his own products are. The decision: “Let’s just do the testing and let the chips fall where they may.”
It helped his decision that he could find no specifics from public agencies like the FDA, which simply says on its website that “to date, FDA has no evidence that radionuclides from the Fukushima incident are present in the U.S. food supply at levels that would pose a public health concern.”
After the $1,200 endeavor, Loki’s web page reported that “All seven stocks of salmon were tested for the radionuclides associated with the nuclear plant failures in Japan: Cesium 134, Cesium 137, and Iodine 131. Of the seven samples, five did not register detectable levels of radionuclides. Two of the samples registered at trace levels – Alaskan Keta at 1.4Bq/kg for Cesium 137, and Alaskan Pink at 1.2Bq/kg for Cesium 134. There were no detectable levels of iodine-131 in any samples.
“To put those numbers in perspective, the critical limit set by the FDA for either Cesium-134 or Cesium-137 is 370 Bq/kg, far above the amount found in Loki’s Alaskan Keta and Pink salmon.”
A lot of ink was consumed by media after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station disaster in March 2011, and then everything got quiet. With most of the media silent about the cleanup, the public may think the worst is over and the operating company TEPCO is cleaning up the site.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
is this just a thread to post arbitrary scary nuclear quotes? hahahaha
im a nuclear electricians mate qualified in submarines. we laugh at how ridiculous people are about nuclear power because we understand it. its obvious when someone doesnt know what they are talking about. a big give away is not knowing the difference between radiation and contamination.
the only thing i would worry about is heating surrounding environmental waters and keeping your iphones plugged in to the grid it powers.
United States Naval Nuclear Program, over thirty years of the public not realizing we had one.
Do you mean that the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Mihama, Hessen, Saint- Laurent, Idaho- USA army experimental nuclear power plant, Goiania, Sellafield, Kyshtym, Fukushima (1978 2006 and 2011) , along with another 10,000 or so nuclear accidents that have been reported since 1952 are laughable occurrences?
I am not sure what you mean.
The Nautilus was launched in 1954, which was about 60 years ago.
I think that the majority of the American public (along with the rest of the world) knows that the USA has nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers.
no people that attack nuclear power are laughable occurances. when nuclear power accidents happen its not the plant that is a fault. its the operator. if you want to attack anything go after nuclear HR and training. although, the army experimental plant deserves a darwin award.
the plants these days are inherently safe and over engineered because if they fail...we cant supply cheap reliable and long lasting clean power to the masses because idoits will have them all shut down because they dont understand it and are needlessly afraid.
fukishima, a more modern plant, damaged as a result of a SUNAMI, should have been immediately scrammed upon indication of loss of coolant, driving the reactor subcritical with impending loss of pressure control. they should have initiated fill immediately following (to remove decay heat) and poisoned the reactor (to absorb decay nuetrons further preventing heatup resulting in violating the core peak central temperautre. they tried to keep the grid up so people in hospitals didnt die...terrible mistake. those prideful humainly considerate japanese. non of which people who attack nuclear power understand.
my bad, it has been twice as long as i said of naval nuclear power operated by highschool grads and college rejects without incident.
if you want to change the world and kill nuclear power cover your roof in solar panels or join an amish community. as long as the world needs it, and they surely do, its not going away. learn to live with it, actually learn about how it works and why MAYBE it could possibly give you cancer IF we ever let it get to you, and stop making my job so ridiculous.
radiological safety officers at hospitals laugh at us when we tell them our limits are based on energy equivalents of mosquitos, icecream, and bananas (because none of those things will ever kill anyone) because they are releasing walking HIGH RADIATION AREAS oozing MASSIVE amounts of contamination from their pores in their skin from barium treatments. those people go home, hug children, have sexual intercourse, sellect fresh produce from the local grocery (gotta get the best mellon) until they pass it all out of there anus, penis, and/or vagina a good time later.
and what about household sources of radiation? granite countertops are real classy but they fill a whole floor of a house with radon gas at right about the baby breathing zone. not to mention, tv's, cell phones, fruits and vegetables, dyes in your clothing, paint on your walls, the soil in your garden, and dont forget about outer space. oh my god, the stuff that smacks you in the gord from out there, with energy so high it travels clear through planets.
i have served on a nuclear submarine. i ate, slept, worked, and pooped right next to an operating nuclear reactor. my odds of contracting cancer are 0.04% higher than yours because of it. that means 0.04% of the people that do the same job as me CONTRACT CANCER (which means it could just be genetic or from smoking or stress induced by idiots who dont understand nuclear power).
before you begin to talk about nuclear power and how terrible it is...you should at least NUCLEAR PHYSICS BRO...because you sound as dumb as that did. you might just learn that the worst part about nuclear power is people like YOU.
that barium treatment bit is no joke. they release patients reading up to 100mRem/HR at 3ft. that is a walking talking high rad area. and things they touch would be above our limits for contamination (which, not kidding, is one banana).
our remedial action for >1banana would be
put up boundaries
put on yellow clothing
contain everything touched and the source(double bagged/double j-sealed)
handle it as radioactive material
place with other radioactive material
bury deep in a mountain
all because of stupid
poned. my work is done here.
It's so good to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about.I just hope he isn't put off by someone who obviously is a bit ignorant about the subject. We can all look up details and quote them as our own. Sometimes we need to listen to a 'hands on' person. And that's MHO.
Go get em mszostek.
A word of advice,
most people I know (including me) would not usually bother to read such a long posting as you made here.
That is why I usually do not bother reading what John Galt posts.
If you want people to read what you post, keep it short and simple.
As an example, look at my above post that upset you so much.
Truly humane people to not immediately scram the reactors so the people in the hospitals did not die.
Isn't it unfortunate these noble reactor operators did not know that hospitals have emergency back-up generators for just such a grid power-loss situation.
In fact, what you describe is nothing like what actually happened.
The reactors automatically scrammed as soon as the earth quake occurred- just like they were designed to do.
Even in a scrammed condition, the reactor still produces heat and needs to be cooled. When the cooling pumps lost grid power, diesel generators cut in and kept the cooling water flowing. Everything was fine until about an hour later when the tsunami came along and swamped these generators.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
It does worry me when a person claims to be an expert in a field and does not know such basic information.
I was not in the USN I knew that the Navy nuclear program is much older than 30 years.
Also, just to point out that you (and now me) seem to be the only one talking about the US Naval nucular program.
Most of the posts in this thread are about commercial power plants.
Why do you think your job is so ridiculous?
I was in the USAF. While I did not sleep or poop in the airplanes I worked on, I routinely worked on and in aircraft that were loaded with thousands of pounds of high explosives without a second thought.
The USAF and probably the USN was/is anal about safety. They went to great lengths to insure everyone's safety while at work.
They do not mind if you die in the war, but by God you better not do anything that injures someone or damages anything.
If you want to work in an ultra safe environment, the military is hard to beat- except if you are in a war.
Do you notice that I only responded to the relevant parts of your post and deleted the rest. That makes it much more readable.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tilly,
The people who are afraid of nuclear, are generally the same people who are afraid of 'fracking', for all the same dogmatic, non scientific reasons.
I am afraid that is not what it means.
It means that people that do your job are slightly more at risk of contracting cancer than people who do not do your job.
As an example, according to the internet, about 43% of the US male population will contract cancer sometime in their life. That means that in a group of 10,000 men from the general population, about 4,300 of them will contract some form of cancer in their life time.
According to the information you provide, an additional 0.04% of the people who do your job will contract cancer.
0.04% of 10,000 is 4. That means an additional 4 men from a group 10,000 men who do your job will contract cancer.
So if your number is correct, that makes a total of about 4304 men from a group of 10,000 men who do your job will contract cancer in their life time.
I would not worry too much.
no, its a running tally of naval nuclear operators. 0.04% have been contracting cancer. <<and this is a period. that includes naval nuclear operators that smoke, use microwaves, excessivly sun tan,...etc. 4 of us in a force of 10,000 get cancer. way to anal-yse my rant. excelent math lesson.
now teach me about nuclear physics, atomic mass of particles of concern and their energy levels, fission, xenon transients, properties of shielding material an thier respective tenth thicknesses, what a tenth thinckness is, methods of primary and secondary containment, methods of primary and secondary shielding, what contamination is, what radiation is, what radiac i would use for each one and what region of detection each of them operates in and why, what a range selector switch on a radiac does, reactivity and the role that various materials play in its equation and their affects on startup rate, average coolant temp, reactor power, hot leg and cold leg temperature, and therefor steam pressure. teach me about heat up and cool down rate and how that affects stress accross a core wall, what kind of material should be used and why, various types of stress testing and what each one represents, why i care about that, what chemicals should one use, why, where do they come from, where do they go, where and how do i get grade A water, why water, teach me about pressure control, boiling vs. liquid primary and the pros and cons of each.
i automatically discount anyones argument against nuclear power unless they have worked in the nuclear industry or for some reason have a random nuclear degree. because if not, you have no idea what you are talking about and should stay out of the room when the adults are talking.
i hate nuclear power because its political and i have to deal with opposition directly or ultimately from morons. its safe, reliable, clean, and abundant but i dont want myself or anyone else to have the same level of employment disatisfaction that i and many of my coworkers do. we are unsung behind the curtain heros providing affordable energy to the masses from a seemingly invisable source. we cant comunicate our job to normal people and normal people are too lazy to comunicate about our jobs. normal people wont learn about it, and because they wont learn they dont understand, and because they dont understand, they fear, vote, and regulate. its idiocracy.
like...if you think the cloud billowing into the sky from a nuclear plant is poluting the world with "radiation"...im talking about you. its a cooling tower, its just fresh water steam, and you mean to say contamination.
im an eagle scout. if i believed in my heart that i was doing a terrible thing, i would stop doing it. i havent stopped yet. now let us do our job.
and the japanese had to have messed up and not said anything. our plants have about eight different ways to remove decay heat with and without electrical power. we can do a scram-shutdown and a cool down from 100% power history and if for some reason that doesnt work we carry enough chemical poisons on board to shut the reactor down forever.
irregardless, its a learning point. we are lucky to get off as easy as we did with that one. because of it nuclear power can only get safer.
that's without electrical power. if your plant and its operators cant do that it shouldnt be allowed to go critical.
What is your opinion on small scale <10MW Thorium fueled reactors? The Cdn CanDu system was scaled into that range using SLOPOKE reactors but with uranium fuel. Apparently Thorium would work even better.
Exactly what happened. Their nuclear industry is/was very 'yes man' oriented. Underlings didn't question the orders of superiors. That's why the Fukushima diesel fueled back-up generators were still located where they were susceptible to known tsunami heights, instead of on higher ground. People knew better, the plant was due for decommissioning, nobody wanted to do anything... nothing was done. Then TSHTF.
Every hundred years or so a big tsunami scrubs off the land and exposes large ancient rocks with carved inscriptions that say "Don't build below here".
i am only an expert on small uranium water moderated reactors. as long as a reactor is designed with all the what ifs in mind and the operators are properly trained...i think its a safe clean long lasting supply of energy. i do think that instead of burying our spent fuel, that we should use it again in reactors designed to use the "spent". we are throwing it away when its still good and already in a controlled status. its a huge waste.
nuclear power is the most responsible of all active energy production methods because its under such scrutiny.
if anti-nuclear energy fear mongers understood what they were talking about...they wouldnt be anti-nuclear energy.
the only real affect i can say it has on the environment is its thermal footprint, but that goes with any steam/electric production. (this is the real anti-nuclear arguement) its too good. it produces 100's of MW of power per hour for about half a century from essentially one rock the size of a small car. we took that energy stored by the universe in the ground and released it. where does it go? what does it do? how does it affect the environment? all of it turns into thermal energy in some way shape or form, at the plant or in your home. it would seem to me that its enough to at least effect weather patterns...which is a huge deal.
this is why i think everyone should paint their roofs white, dig their homes in the ground, install wind and solar power with a backup multifuel deisel generator, switch to LED light bulbs, and plant a food producing garden. as long as people require massive amounts of power there will always be a need for earth-unfriendly power. its irresponsible living that is the problem, not the power source.
but for god's sake, dont hate on the best one.
You seem to be confused.
First you said the Fukishima disaster was the result of the humanely considerate Japanese not scramming the reactors to try to save the people in hospitals from dieing when the electricity failed and now you say the Japanese had to have messed up and not said anything.
Or was it something else?
Being an Eagle scout, I thought you were an expert in all this and knew what had happened. Now I am starting to have serious concerns about the accuracy of what you have posted.
On behalf of the masses of everyone in my family who use the affordable energy, please accept this Award.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tilly,
At last we seem to have someone who knows what he's talking about, and talking about Nuclear power.
I think the comment 'when nuclear power accidents happen its not the plant that is a fault. its the operator', says it all. I live in Cape Town South Africa where we have our one and only reactor, scares me silly, not because of the reactor, but because of the operators.
A while back maintenance was done to one if the generators, a bolt or nut was dropped into the generator innards, nothing was said, and on start up, one generator kaput, cost into the millions for repair.
This is what scares me.
Mszostek would you mind if I quote you.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6|