@humy saidI will only add to this that Metal Brain's frankenfish causing cancer scenario is purely hypothetical, while coal-related health issues are well-established.
Who of any relevant reputable scientific credentials said burning coal is simply 'safe'?
And in what way would be getting and/or dying from a disease from air pollution from burning coal be any "better" than getting cancer from eating radioactive fish?
And why ignore the fact that, but any sane estimation, VASTLY greater numbers of people get sick and/or die of air pollution f ...[text shortened]... use a different and completely contrary kind of 'logic' to justify your belief of a different thing.
The Pacific Ocean has 187 quintillion gallons of water. I think the radioactive water can be effectively diluted.
10 May 19
But the randomness of such dilution can still make for pockets of higher concentration and there is the problem of the lowest levels of the food chain collecting such radioactive material just by sucking up the water when getting its own nutrients and thereby concentrating those contaminants when higher predators eat the lower ones and THAT set of predator then gets eaten by yet a higher predator so when we as top predator eat the second tier predators like tuna or whatever, we get a much higher dose of said contaminants that exist in the open ocean.
That is well proven also, and not confined to just radioactives. @wildgrass
10 May 19
5 edits
@sonhouse saidYour point is well taken.
But the randomness of such dilution can still make for pockets of higher concentration and there is the problem of the lowest levels of the food chain collecting such radioactive material just by sucking up the water when getting its own nutrients and thereby concentrating those contaminants when higher predators eat the lower ones and THAT set of predator then gets eaten by ...[text shortened]... st in the open ocean.
That is well proven also, and not confined to just radioactives. @wildgrass
The concentration of pollutants can increase, and often does increase, in fish relative to the water. In this case, gobs and gobs of Fukushima radiation has already been released into the Pacific Ocean by accident. So we have an experiment. Obviously it is being monitored very closely by governments, clean up teams and scientists to ensure that food supplies stay below recommended limits. The data is publicly available, so there's no coverup [1]. All evidence I have seen indicates that this massive radiation release caused a slight increase in the radioactivity present in fish off the coast of Japan. Since 2015 there have been no fish caught that exceeded Japan's limit (their limit, by the way, is much less than the US limit). I posted that article a while back that said the average Pacific tuna fillet (a big fish) has less total radiation, and at least an order of magnitude less Fukushima-derived radiation, than you'd get by eating a banana. Studies show that the damage done to Japanese fisheries is reputational, but not linked to any valid health concerns [2]. Demonstrable human health concerns from radioactive fish do not exist. I could be wrong, but I've seen no evidence of this "much higher dose" you allude to.
Here's a quote from a very good article on the topic. I think this is the article that sparked US concern, because they detected radiation in the first place. But just because you can detect it doesn't mean much at all. The primary goal of the study was to track migration patterns of Pacific Blue Fin Tuna using the Fukushima radiation bolus as a tracer. They make this point too...
it is important to put the anthropogenic radioactivity levels in the context of naturally occurring radioactivity. Total radiocesium concentrations of post-Fukushima PBFT were approximately thirty times less than concentrations of naturally occurring 40K in post-Fukushima PBFT and YFT and pre-Fukushima PBFT (Table 1). Furthermore, before the Fukushima release the dose to human consumers of fish from 137Cs was estimated to be 0.5% of that from the α-emitting 210Po (derived from the decay of 238U, naturally occurring, ubiquitous and relatively nonvarying in the oceans and its biota (13); not measured here) in those same fish (12). Thus, even though 2011 PBFT showed a 10-fold increase in radiocesium concentrations, 134Cs and 137Cs would still likely provide low doses of radioactivity relative to naturally occurring radionuclides, particularly 210Po and 40K.[3]
Side note 1: The food supply in general gives us a small fraction of the radiation that we receive from other sources: airplanes, bricks, and medical imaging. Fish in general are much healthier for you than other meats. And since there's no indication that Fukushima fish are bad, you are statistically better off eating a Fukushima tuna fillet than a hamburger.
Side note 2: The reduction in Japanese tuna fishing in recent years is a good thing. For way too long, the Pacific tuna has been overfished, and a push was needed to cut down harvest numbers [4].
[1] http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/e/inspection/
[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12562-017-1129-6
[3] https://www.pnas.org/content/109/24/9483.long
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2012/05/31/could-the-fukushima-radiation-found-in-bluefin-tuna-actually-help-save-the-imperiled-species/#1ba9dde12ac1
10 May 19
@wildgrass saidSome folks are saying there won't be ANY fish worth eating anywhere in any ocean in 50 years if fishing continues using the floating fish industry boats.
Your point is well taken.
The concentration of pollutants can increase, and often does increase, in fish relative to the water. In this case, gobs and gobs of Fukushima radiation has already been released into the Pacific Ocean by accident. So we have an experiment. Obviously it is being monitored very closely by governments, clean up teams and scientists to ensure that ...[text shortened]... the-fukushima-radiation-found-in-bluefin-tuna-actually-help-save-the-imperiled-species/#1ba9dde12ac1
11 May 19
1 edit
@sonhouse saidWell, basically everything on the planet is moving towards extinction as we speak. None of it is attributable to nuclear power, yet some still think nuclear power is bad for the environment.
Some folks are saying there won't be ANY fish worth eating anywhere in any ocean in 50 years if fishing continues using the floating fish industry boats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/ipbes-global-report-species-extinction-rate-is-accelerating/f724e478-da85-4e89-83f9-f663c496f08c/?utm_term=.d1619c616ae5
12 May 19
@wildgrass saidRelease of nuclear fuel is the least of our worries on that front. Just the idea of humans taking over habitats previously belonging to many many species of animals now driven out of their territory is the main driver, that and contamination of many kinds around the planet. Climate change caused by mankind also is a driver of extinction so humans will have a lot to answer for if there really is a deity judging us.
Well, basically everything on the planet is moving towards extinction as we speak. None of it is attributable to nuclear power, yet some still think nuclear power is bad for the environment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/ipbes-global-report-species-extinction-rate-is-accelerating/f724e478-da85-4e89-83f9-f663c496f08c/?utm_term=.d1619c616ae5
YOU ASSSWIPES, I CREATED A FRIGGING GARDEN FOR YOU AND YOU FUKKED IT UP COMPLETELY. YOUR TIME ON THIS PLANET IS OVER.
ZZAPPP, no more humans.
12 May 19
@sonhouse said"Climate change caused by mankind also is a driver of extinction"
Release of nuclear fuel is the least of our worries on that front. Just the idea of humans taking over habitats previously belonging to many many species of animals now driven out of their territory is the main driver, that and contamination of many kinds around the planet. Climate change caused by mankind also is a driver of extinction so humans will have a lot to answer f ...[text shortened]... OR YOU AND YOU FUKKED IT UP COMPLETELY. YOUR TIME ON THIS PLANET IS OVER.
ZZAPPP, no more humans.
False! More extremist nonsense comparable to Theodore John Kaczynski.
12 May 19
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.businessinsider.com/1-million-species-could-go-extinct-un-report-2019-5
"Climate change caused by mankind also is a driver of extinction"
False! More extremist nonsense comparable to Theodore John Kaczynski.
How DARE they post fake news, right?
12 May 19
4 edits
@sonhouse saidSan Onofre: Twin 1070 MWe of emission-free electricity "built to withstand a 7.0 magnitude earthquake directly under the plant". It was decommissioned in 2013 in the wake of Fukushima fear mongering, with no plans for replacement.
Release of nuclear fuel is the least of our worries on that front. Just the idea of humans taking over habitats previously belonging to many many species of animals now driven out of their territory is the main driver, that and contamination of many kinds around the planet. Climate change caused by mankind also is a driver of extinction so humans will have a lot to answer f ...[text shortened]... OR YOU AND YOU FUKKED IT UP COMPLETELY. YOUR TIME ON THIS PLANET IS OVER.
ZZAPPP, no more humans.
Diablo Canyon: Twin 1100 MWe of emission-free electricity annually (8.6% of total California generation and 23% of carbon-free generation), supplying the electrical needs of more than 3 million people. Yet it is also set to be decommissioned.
Environmentalists are/were wrong and short-sighted to push for the closure of nuclear power plants. The risk of meltdown is so low that it should be ignored unless you're a safety inspector. While your comment earlier about whether it was a mistake to build them in their current location might be true (I guess we'll see?), it is without a doubt a mistake to close them now. With all the heralding of wind power, in the last 10 years of building and trucking these turbines all over the state (at a huge environmental cost) it hasn't replaced the capacity in California of these two nuclear plants. After Diablo closes, wind can't replace that loss in terms of emissions. It's being made up for with more gas power plants.
If we want low emssions quickly, there is no substitute for the zero emissions, high capacity constant output of nuclear.
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Wind-turbines-nuclear-compared.pdf
12 May 19
@sonhouse saidCould?
https://www.businessinsider.com/1-million-species-could-go-extinct-un-report-2019-5
How DARE they post fake news, right?
Okay nostradumbass!
It is fake news. Your dick could fall off. News at 11
@metal-brain saidI put in MY fake news words as a prediction. You performed as I expected.
Could?
Okay nostradumbass!
It is fake news. Your dick could fall off. News at 11
The one thing that stands out in all your tirades against anyone suggesting mankind is one large cause of climate change is your TOTAL lack of empathy for either the folks directly affected by CC or the lives of animals in the direct path of CC like polar bears. You just put out some BS like, OF COURSE life undergoes extinctions, something better will replace it. Maybe in a million years but that doesn't bother you in the slightest since you display an obvious lack of empathy.
12 May 19
@sonhouse saidPredictions are a BS tactic to deliberately deceive. Do you call that science? You cannot pin even one extinction on AGW, not one!
I put in MY fake news words as a prediction. You performed as I expected.
The one thing that stands out in all your tirades against anyone suggesting mankind is one large cause of climate change is your TOTAL lack of empathy for either the folks directly affected by CC or the lives of animals in the direct path of CC like polar bears. You just put out some BS like, OF COU ...[text shortened]... ion years but that doesn't bother you in the slightest since you display an obvious lack of empathy.
12 May 19
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.ft.com/content/8eabe848-3597-11e9-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5
Predictions are a BS tactic to deliberately deceive. Do you call that science? You cannot pin even one extinction on AGW, not one!
Here is one. Gone forever. But with your limited fund of empathy, it won't matter to you EVER.
12 May 19
@sonhouse saidWhat that report makes abundantly clear is that nature in general is on the decline.
I put in MY fake news words as a prediction. You performed as I expected.
The one thing that stands out in all your tirades against anyone suggesting mankind is one large cause of climate change is your TOTAL lack of empathy for either the folks directly affected by CC or the lives of animals in the direct path of CC like polar bears. You just put out some BS like, OF COU ...[text shortened]... ion years but that doesn't bother you in the slightest since you display an obvious lack of empathy.
It's very interesting that the report does not argue maintaining diversity as a morality tale. It argues maintaining diversity from a human quality-of-life perspective: the changes to our ecosystems are going to have negative impacts on the livelihoods of fisherman, farmers. Natural disasters like floods are more severe because our land use decisions are short sighted.
People are free to argue that our impact on climate and diversity is negligible. But it is changing for the worse, and we should be planning either a harder road ahead because of it, or an investment in mitigation strategies. I prefer the latter option.
@wildgrass saidI think what will happen is a few countries will try mitigation but the right wingnutters of the big economy countries like Germany or Brazil or the US will just keep going, nothing to see here, go back to your homes so the money flow can continue till it is way too late and the whole world suffers for it.
What that report makes abundantly clear is that nature in general is on the decline.
It's very interesting that the report does not argue maintaining diversity as a morality tale. It argues maintaining diversity from a human quality-of-life perspective: the changes to our ecosystems are going to have negative impacts on the livelihoods of fisherman, farmers. Natural disa ...[text shortened]... der road ahead because of it, or an investment in mitigation strategies. I prefer the latter option.
And you can bet dimes to donuts MB will come back and scream 'Alarmist bullshyte'.