Tsunami Debris

[mike]

Again hes missed the point, people are taking iodine not because they live near a US reactor
(which Senator Blakeslee, has claimed are more vulnerable to quakes than their operators claim.)

People are rushing out and sourcing iodine because of the fallout from fukushima thats falling on the US.

To say "dont take iodine because US reactors are safe", is to completely miss the point of why they are taking it, THIS is why people are taking iodine

Radiation from Japan has been detected in drinking water in 13 more American cities, and cesium-137 has been found in American milk—in Montpelier, Vermont—for the first time since the Japan nuclear disaster began, according to data released by the Environmental Protection Agency late Friday.
Milk samples from Phoenix and Los Angeles contained iodine-131 at levels roughly equal to the maximum contaminant level permitted by EPA in drinking water, the data shows

Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More US Cities, Cesium-137 In Vermont Milk - Forbes

Once again, hes completely missed the point

 

[Kim323]

Well, yes, I am concerned about those comments, because if the forum is to be taken seriously, there has to be some individual restraint on what's posted. Little read forum, probably true. But we are here on it, and separating the signal from the noise is something that should be done before certain comments are posted. Sinking millions of Japanese trying to force their way into Australia, and those other comments, take away from what you and others are, accurately sometimes, saying about this very real tragedy, which I have never failed to stress it is.

So I have decidedly not downplayed this tragedy. But when certain comments are made, and stories told about experiences in American nuclear power plants, I am simply presenting clear and compelling evidence that there is, indisputably, another side to such stridency.

And yes, Rick, I have read extensively about this situation in Japan, but it has been overblown, and when it was first happening that can be not only excused but expected. But when more than a year has passed, and studies are showing that the radiation levels are being consistently downsized and reduced, and that steps are and have been taken, I think it is clear that this situation will be solved and then learned from. In a post in this thread you talk of the U.S. military evacuating family members of military personnel. It was a voluntary evacuation, the families were paid quite generous "safe haven" amounts of money, and that is good that those precautions were taken. However, from what I've been reading, those safe haven funds are ending, and because, too, the situation in Japan is safe, thousands of military families have returned.

I just think you should stay updated, so a more balanced understanding can be discussed in the forum. Time does move forward, things change, and things are not always static and anachronistic.

But to extrapolate what happened in Japan to United States reactors (and clearly Americans are learning from it) and to say things like fuel rods are being misplaced by the persons running them and to describe those people in language of some stridency and invective, does not do your argument any good. Those comments are simply not true. So when things like that are said, yes, I do sit up and take heed.

So, like other topics, the topic itself becomes muddled and convoluted, extrapolations and stridency are invoked, this must mean that, and that must lead to this, and then the clarity of the topic becomes very muddied.

I'm very surprised, for instance, that in these threads about Fukushima, I have not read any posts that see the situation from any perspective but panic, recrimination, told you so, we know better, it's all a conspiracy, the workers in U.S. plants, are, ahem, this thing and that thing personally, etc. Go back and read them. I don't remember any comments that show any respect whatsoever for people who work in these plants worldwide, their educations, their skills, their own very real horror at what happened, and so on and on. It's all about personal condemnation and hyperbole, and that certain posters know better.

And that brings me to this point: where are the solutions offered? In all the hyperbole and stridency, where is the actual, specific mention of any solutions. Are we as readers of these threads to think that those posting believe that, well, tomorrow if not sooner all nuclear plants in the U.S./world should be shut down? And then what? And then what? So, yes, the comments, when so hyperbolic, show only one side, a narrow side. And I have simply (in only several posts total on this topic among the threads on it) have been simply presenting contrary evidence. That's ok, isn't it? I have been polite, I have presented my thoughts and evidence, so that is ok, isn't it? Kim

 

[stonehart]

Kim, you strain a gnat and swallow the camel. You are so concerned about a few comments made in a little read forum on the Internet yet you are willing to ignore the incredibly upsetting evidence that we have been repeatedly lied to concerning the magnitude of the Fukushima disaster and the safety of the nuclear industry in general.

Kim, I really think that anyone who downplays this incredible disaster and the price future generations are going to pay for it at this point is in extreme denial. While I hope that you are right, I think the evidence points to the contrary.

I think this may help to back up your stand point there Trained.
Fukushima radiation seen in tuna off California | The Paracast Community Forums
Yes it is only small amounts of contamination being found for now but since this is an on going disaster how long until the food chain becomes contaminated beyond a level at which safe consumption can be promoted..
No this will get worse and people are fooling themselves if they think its all over now.

 

[mike]

When fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster began appearing last Spring in U.S. air, rainwater, drinking water, and milk, many U.S. media outlets ignored the story.

It was a difficult story to cover. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was releasing raw data erratically, sometimes late on Friday afternoons, and reporters either had to possess radiation expertise or take a crash course in picocuries, millisieverts, MCLs and DILs.

It was much easier for reporters to accept reassurances from government officials that the fallout drifting across the U.S. was “well below levels of public concern.” And it was much easier to heed pleas from government and industry that we not alarm the public. (PMSL, sound familiar ?)

But experts in low-dose radiation will tell you scientists know too little about the effects of low-dose radiation for public officials to make such sweeping statements, and most scientists believe that across large populations, more exposure means more cancer:

“There is scientific consensus on a prevailing hypothesis that, down to near-zero levels, the occurrence of future cancer is proportional to the dose of radiation received,” writes Gordon Thompson, executive director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies, in the May/June issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
This hypothesis is called the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Hypothesis. It implies that no additional dose of radiation, however small, can be described as absolutely safe.

Government and Industry officials downplay that implication, and reporters have been complicit in hiding it from the public. Thompson suggests this policy approach may be patronizing, obsolete, and a threat to public faith in science:

When radioactive strontium appeared in Hilo, Hawaii milk, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser stated matter-of-factly in a headline that the radiation was “no cause for concern.” That statement is at odds with scientific consensus.
Reporter William Cole relied on assurances from his expert, Lynne Nakasone, administrator of Hawaii’s Environmental Health Services Division, who told him, “There’s no question the milk is safe.”
Of course, there is a question whether the milk was safe.
Why would public officials downplay risk to the public? Because radioactive strontium can put a damper on milk sales.
In The Bulletin, Gordon writes that political pressure from economic interests too often influences policy approaches to low-dose radiation:

Should We Hide Low-Dose Radiation Exposures From The Public? - Forbes

 

[trainedobserver]

And that brings me to this point: where are the solutions offered?

I think the thing you are hearing here is, "Something needs to be done." This is going to take an international effort. The U.N. or the U.S. and Russia need to step in.

The only solution at this point seems to be to tunnel underneath the cores some 80 feet or so and build a structure to encapsulate them. I imagine a great deal of boron will be involved as well. To do something like that will be an incredible feat of engineering and fund raising to say the least.

Kim, time will tell whose reactions have been more appropriate. I have no intention of debating you or anyone else about the critical nature of the situation we find ourselves in today.

 

[mike]

Its worth noting we have what is essentially an electric company, trying to manage a nuclear disaster.
These are US built reactors, Tepco is just the utility operating them