Scientists find that Fukushima-derived radioactivity in seafood poses minimal health risk

Jun 03, 2013
Scientists find that Fukushima-derived radioactivity in seafood poses minimal health risk
Migration track of a tagged Pacific Bluefin Tuna.

(Phys.org) —In 2012, Nicholas Fisher a distinguished professor in the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SoMAS) at Stony Brook University and postdoctoral scholar Zosia Baumann, working with a colleague at Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station, reported that they had detected radioactivity in Pacific bluefin tuna swimming off the California coast. The source of the radioactivity was Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi powerplants, which were damaged by the strong earthquake and subsequent tsunami on 11 March 2011 and released large quantities of radioactivity into the Pacific Ocean. The news prompted widespread media interest and speculation as to the possible risks to seafood consumers posed by the levels of radioactivity found in the tuna.

Now, Fisher, Baumann and colleagues at Stanford and the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) report in a paper entitled " Evaluation of and Associated Risk from the Fukushima to Marine Biota and Human Consumers of Seafood," published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US, that the likely doses of radioactivity ingested by humans consuming the contaminated fish, even in large quantities, is comparable to, or less than, the radiological dosages associated with other commonly consumed foods, many medical treatments, air travel and other background sources. The authors also conclude that contamination of Pacific bluefin tuna and other from Fukushima poses little risk to these animals.

Fisher and colleagues found that the sampled tuna contained elevated levels of -134 and cesium-137, important components of the radionuclide mix released at Fukushima. Pacific bluefin tuna spawn in the western Pacific off Japan and reach the eastern Pacific, off the California coast, after a transoceanic migration.

In the original paper, the authors presented data on the radionuclide concentrations in the tissues of the bluefin, but did not estimate doses or health risks to marine biota or human seafood consumers that these concentrations might represent. The new works takes this next step.

The levels of Fukushima-derived radionuclides in marine biota, including , were compared with the radiation doses from naturally-occurring radionuclides in the same organisms. The principal radionuclide found in all samples is polonium (specifically the isotope 210Po), a naturally-occurring isotope that is an alpha-emitter, which causes greater biological damage.

"For American and Japanese seafood consumers, the doses attributable to Fukushima-derived radiation were typically 600 and 40 times lower, respectively, than the dose from polonium," said Professor Fisher. "In estimating human doses of the -derived radioactive cesium in Bluefin tuna, we found that heavy seafood consumers – those who ingest 124 kg/year, or 273 lbs., which is five times the US national average – even if they ate nothing but the Cs-contaminated bluefin off California, would receive radiation doses approximately equivalent to that from one dental x-ray and about half that received by the average person over the course of a normal day from a variety of natural and human sources. The resulting increased incidence of cancers would be expected to be essentially undetectable."

Explore further: Nation's 'personality' influences its environmental stewardship, shows new study

More information: www.pnas.org/content/early/201… 834110.full.pdf+html

Related Stories

Radioactive bluefin tuna crossed the Pacific to US

May 28, 2012

Across the vast Pacific, the mighty bluefin tuna carried radioactive contamination that leaked from Japan's crippled nuclear plant to the shores of the United States 6,000 miles away - the first time a huge ...

Fishing for answers off Fukushima

Oct 25, 2012

Japan's "triple disaster," as it has become known, began on March 11, 2011, and remains unprecedented in its scope and complexity. To understand the lingering effects and potential public health implications of that chain ...

High cesium level found in fish by Fukushima plant

Mar 17, 2013

The Japanese utility that owns the tsunami-damaged nuclear power plant says it has detected a record 740,000 becquerels per kilogram of radioactive cesium in a fish caught close to the plant.

Recommended for you

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

12 hours ago

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 65

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (22) Jun 03, 2013
Can you trust the assessment of risk involved in eating contaminated fish from someone who eats his lunch next to the Stony Brook nuclear reactor? Pure propaganda. And why would you want to subject yourself to a dental x-ray if you don't need to? Also, the radioactive matter in the flesh of the fish you're eating makes direct contact with the cells in your esophagus all the way down to your asshole, which you'd have to be to actually believe this.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (13) Jun 03, 2013
The more fins, the better. Just think of all the sharks that will be saved due to the extra fins. Shark fin soup lives on!
Telekinetic
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 03, 2013
The more fins, the better. Just think of all the sharks that will be saved due to the extra fins. Shark fin soup lives on!

Except that diners will have twice the appetite with two stomachs.
Aaron1980
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 03, 2013
what else could they say? ... stop eating fish?

When everything is contaminated you just start saying ... its not so bad. minimal risk... It could be worse...
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (16) Jun 03, 2013
what else could they say? ... stop eating fish?

When everything is contaminated you just start saying ... its not so bad. minimal risk... It could be worse...

Whether it be Gulf seafood, Fukushima seafood/produce (northern hemi), mad cow, GMO, aspartame, CWD, pesticides, hormones, etc... Is it any wonder disease is skyrocketing? But hey, you can always invest in Monsanto and Pfizer to help pay for your med bills.
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (15) Jun 03, 2013
The world is waking up and doing something about it-

http://www.thedai...gm-corn/
Jimee
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2013
Would corporate sources deny our deaths as we were poisoned? Hmmmm.
Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2013
"Can you trust the assessment of risk involved in eating contaminated fish from someone who eats his lunch next to the Stony Brook nuclear reactor? Pure propaganda."

Having read the data myself, including that from the beginning of the situation, and running numbers as well, and also living in a region with not a single nuclear reactor for hundreds of miles, yes, I still can trust this assessment. The authors of the study are correct.

Thank you, Phys.org, for helping spread this story for cooler heads to prevail after reading and researching further for themselves.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2013
Like my prof in ionizing/non-ionizing radiation lectures said: "Dumping the stuff into a lake and stirring it twice is not an acceptable solution to radioactive waste"

...and I wholeheartedly aggree, because...
the radiological dosages associated with other commonly consumed foods, many medical treatments, air travel and other background sources.

...the dosage via fish food is ON TOP of all of those. It's not like air travel, medical scanners etc. are going to go away and compensate for the added dose from fish.

And it's not like this stuff goes away by itself (other than by slow decay) - unlike other natural desasters. So we'll just keep on adding with every accident until it makes a measurable difference. And then (as now) we have no way to clean it up - which means we'll basically have to live (or die) with it forever.
triplehelix
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2013
Nuclear material and Nuclear power isn't the issue. Stupid people are the issue.

Why oh why was it decided to build a load of nuclear reactors right near a fault line where known earthquakes occur?

More and more humans are being born and more and more power is being consumed. I'm afraid wind turbines can't quite deal with 7.5 billion people worth of electrical needs, which is why we're building nuclear plants.

The key to safe Nuclear power is ensuring they are built in suitable places with minimal risk of natural disasters, with many failsafes, and ensuring waste is put deep underground with no water to move it around, aka yukka mountain for USA.

Instead of having a hysterical "ban it" attitude how about looking at the abysmal state of most 70's nuclear power plants that are dangerous, but can't build new safer ones because they're not allowed. It's counter intuitive. De-comission the old crap ones and rebuild new much safer ones.
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2013
The reason also that diseases are increasing has a lot to do with population as a whole. It's all very well to state that in 1940 the rates of disease X were Y, and in 2013 the rates of disease X are now Z, but you need to realise that the worlds population in 1940 was only slightly more than just China today. Our population has almost quadroupled, also, our ability to find, record, and map out disease patterns and frequency and causes are much better than before. It's similar to when newspapers publish something shocking, usually dozens of similar stories follow giving the impression there has been a sudden spate of crime X. No, it's just before the original shock story, they weren't reported before.

Lack of data does not mean when data comes in the rates have increased. It means you don't have enough useable data.

I am sure disease rates have increased, but I am sure the majority of the increase is explainable with the above reasons.
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2013
Why oh why was it decided to build a load of nuclear reactors right near a fault line where known earthquakes occur?

Two reasons:
1) There is no place in Japan that doesn't fulfill that criterium
2) Nuclear reactors need water. Water runs in rivers. Rivers run in - you guessed it - old earthquake faults.

So really: There are very few 'suitable places' for nuclear reactors. And the number of failsafes in nuclear reactors is already very high.
But as with every failsafe: you can only guard against a desaster of such and such a magnitude (plane crash this big/fast, earthquake this big, tsunami yay high, human operator this drunk and or willfully diregarding safety procedures (like in Chernobyl), terrorists with explosives of such and such a maximum capability...).
and in the 30-50 years of operation things change (e.g. planes get bigger, ...)

The 'old crap' has already been refitted as well as possible. Building new ones will not change safety standards one bit.
Telekinetic
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2013
@triplehelix:
The problem will always be stupid people who engineer poorly-designed nuclear reactors and deem them safe. Old ones, new ones-it doesn't matter because when they fail, no one knows how to contain the disaster. The reporting from Fukushima was like a Keystone Kops movie- but not in the least bit funny. They wound up poisoning themselves and the sea. The Japanese government clamped down and minimized the damage in a classic PR campaign of deceit. There's plenty of natural solar energy to supply our energy needs. All it takes is a commitment to switch, like other countries full of smart people.
triplehelix
1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2013
Antialias-there are plenty of places in Japan that would have minimal risk, not completely risk free, but minimal risk.

Yes they do need water. If only humans had the capability to draw a lot of water to artificially created areas in vast volumes, it's such a shame we don't have that technology, alongside other more effective cooling agents mixed in, controlled and measureable, and even underground possibly.

Yes, refitted, my point exactly. Refits are usually worse than the original because you're working around things rather than designing new things. Of course building new ones will change safety standards. New reactors can shut down so much faster and quicker with many more failsafes. The issue with your logic is the human race wouldn't do anything. We would still be picking our arses in a cave with the mentality that it's "too dangerous"

Solar is nowhere near enough telekinetic, plus some countries like Alaska and Norway with barely 5 hours of faint light won't be very happy
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 04, 2013
And it's not like this stuff goes away by itself (other than by slow decay) - unlike other natural desasters. So we'll just keep on adding with every accident until it makes a measurable difference
Every accident. Lessee that would be fukushima, and chernobyl, and 3 mile island, and -?

Some 500 reactors worldwide, beginning in 1951, and we have had 3 significant accidents. Meanwhile

"Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal."

-Not to mention all the genuinely dangerous stuff we are forced to breathe from fossil fuel use.
Euros are so gullible. Arent you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 04, 2013
But not to worry. A note from rossi on his recent birthday:

"Dear Friends Giovanni Guerrini, Pierino S., Lucio Martini, Fabio 82,
Pietro F., Gian Luca:
Thank you for your kind greetings! I am celebrating working, but big surprises are arriving…
Warm Regards,
Andrea"

-'Big surprises'. Ohboyohboyohboy! You can cut the anticipation with a knife.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2013
}Antialias-there are plenty of places in Japan that would have minimal risk,

Japan is sitting (amongst other things) on a potentially pretty big active volcano. It sits right smack in the center of the meetingpoint of three tectonic plates. The entire coastline is in danger of tsunaims (and inland is almost all rocky/mountainous which is bad for building stuff).

When it comes to geography/geology Japan got the short end of the stick.
If only humans had the capability to draw a lot of water to artificially created areas in vast volumes

We do - but that requires more power than you would get out of your nuckear reactor.

New reactors can shut down so much faster and quicker with many more failsafes.

Which doesn't help in all cases (e.g. no failsafe could have prevented Chernobyl as it was operator error)...and if you know anything about engineering then you will agree that it's impossible to make complex systems failsafe.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2013
We would still be picking our arses in a cave with the mentality that it's "too dangerous"

It's always a gains vs. cost/risk assessment. And with nuclear we've too long ignored the risks (and the costs if something does go wrong). Possibly also because the costs for other types of energies were too high 50 years ago.

Today there are alternatives which are competitively priced and pose no risk whatsoever - even if they go wrong in the most catastrophic way you could think of.

You also have to consider that nuclear is a centralized power source (which means: susceptible to monopolies and profiteering - Japan's TEPCO being a prime example of that where retired politicians can be assured to get cushy seats on TEPCO boards)

So it's neither politically, socially, economically nor environmentally a smart choice to go nuclear.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 04, 2013
Today there are alternatives which are competitively priced and pose no risk whatsoever - even if they go wrong in the most catastrophic way you could think of
-As opposed to going wrong in a slow but inexorable way which ends up being a much bigger catastrophe? As in fossil fuel pollution and rape of the environment??
You also have to consider that nuclear is a centralized power source (which means: susceptible to monopolies and profiteering
Uh you mean like enron?
So it's neither politically, socially, economically nor environmentally a smart choice to go nuclear
-Well perhaps in regions where this is actually true. Elsewhere its not. Nuclear is still the most economical, safest, and most environmentally friendly option for many places at the moment.

"coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution among members of the public, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness" WP
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 04, 2013
This article makes me feel so very safe. Now I can eat seafood from the Pacific without any concern. I still have to worry about seafood from the Gulf of Mexico, containing Corexit, but this is a big relief.

Let's not forget about the added benefit of using uranium as a projectile in warfare, especially aerosolized uranium in the atmosphere. Also atmospheric nuclear testing, which will be with us for a while. And Otto, you forgot to mention the Sodium Reactor Experiment's partial meltdown in 1959.

What a strange new world we live in, that has such creatures in it.
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2013
Claudius,

If you eat nuts, you are eating uranium (larger amounts if you are eating Brazil Nuts). In fact, you have somewhere between 45 milligrams and 90 milligrams of the stuff in you at this very moment--oh, and about a milligram of radium, too. And, the vast majority of it is natural.

If you eat anything with potassium, you consume with that varying levels of K-40, which also just happens to be radioactive. Do you use real, unadulterated Mediterranean sea salt? Do you use potassium salts? You get the same and more, most of which are naturally occurring radeonuclides.

Even if we had no amounts of man made radeonuclides on the planet, you still would be consuming varying quantities of radionuclides every day of every week of every month of every year of your life.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 04, 2013
Sodium Reactor Experiment's partial meltdown in 1959
Which released -what?

"The document notes that 28 curies of fission gases were released into the environment through a stack, in a controlled manner which met federal requirements."

Comparatively speaking, nuclear power is arguably and demonstrably the safest of all alternatives. It is certainly safer than eliminating all forms of power production that have the potential to pollute, which would undoubtably and undoubtedly result in the deaths of billions.

We need power and so some will suffer and die no matter what.
Telekinetic
3.3 / 5 (16) Jun 04, 2013
Those of you who think the health risks involved with radiation exposure are overblown really need to do some research instead of hoping what you believe is true.

"Dental X-rays could double the risk for the most common brain tumor, according to a study released Tuesday from scientists and doctors at Yale, Harvard and other prestigious institutions published in Cancer, a scientific journal of the American Cancer Society."

And Ghost, when you and "open" down vote my post, isn't that redundant?
Estevan57
3 / 5 (22) Jun 04, 2013
Telekinetic - redundant is when Otto uses open AND toot, like he does on mine. lol
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2013
Telekinetic,

You missed the the three most important parts of the news article about this "study", which read as follows:

"Significantly, the study is the weakest type of epidemiology, a so-called "case control" study."

"The well-known pitfall of case control studies is "recall bias." People with a tumor or any other unwanted health outcome are far more likely to remember that they had X-rays, air pollution or pesticide exposure, cell phone use or anything else that might be suspected of causing the problem."

"It is also comforting that the dose for most dental X-rays has dropped hundred of times in recent decades.

'Our study,' Claus told me, 'refers to exposures in the past rather than exposures that people are receiving in this day and age.'"

In other words, not proven. Possible. Suggested, but only for those who received these x-ray exams decades ago. Truth is, many claims regarding the risks of radiation exposure are overblown. And, I have done the requisite research.
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 05, 2013
Claudius,

If you eat nuts,


You are absolutely right. It seems that we are relatively unconcerned about adding to the natural radioactivity that we live with. Aerosolizing tons of uranium into the atmosphere, with a half life in the billions of years, is one example. We are producing 50,000 tons of DU a year, adding to a 1.5 million ton stockpile. How long can we continue to release additional radioactive elements into the environment before it becomes a real problem? Once that level is reached, how will we mitigate it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 05, 2013
And Ghost, when you and "open" down vote my post, isn't that redundant?
Sorry dweeb but you will note that impotent vermin like lite and open and estevan have been 1/5ing me a lot lately.

But perhaps you attract such uniform derision because your posts suck? Did you consider this? Perhaps if your posts didnt suck so bad, you wouldnt get downvoted so much?

Scientists call this 'causality'.
Telekinetic
2.8 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2013
"In other words, not proven. Possible. Suggested, but only for those who received these x-ray exams decades ago. Truth is, many claims regarding the risks of radiation exposure are overblown. And, I have done the requisite research."- Oedipus Rex

That was a recent warning from Cancer, a scientific journal of The American Cancer Society, about sitting in today's dentist chairs. And in what journal can I read your "requisite research"?

Telekinetic
3 / 5 (14) Jun 05, 2013
By peppering your rank page with a couple of "1's" from "open" as you also did with "lite" isn't fooling anyone. Only a ten year old would consider that a believable strategy. But I suppose since you haven't got any friends anywhere, your enemies here are some semblance of human contact.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 05, 2013
By peppering your rank page with a couple of "1's" from "open" as you also did with "lite" isn't fooling anyone. Only a ten year old would consider that a believable strategy. But I suppose since you haven't got any friends anywhere, your enemies here are some semblance of human contact.
Even if this were true, which it is not, your posts would still suck, and you would still be consistently downrated because of it.

Scientists call this - I dont know, what do scientists call this?

"incongruent (ɪnˈkɒŋɡrʊəs)
— adj (when postpositive, foll by with or to )
1. incompatible with (what is suitable); inappropriate
2. containing disparate or discordant elements or parts

-Naw thats not it.
Telekinetic
3.1 / 5 (15) Jun 05, 2013
I don't know what term you're looking for, Ghost, but what I've delivered to you is what's known as the "coup de grace" , (the final blow to put a wounded foe out of his misery.)
DruidDrudge
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2013
3 mile island does not qualify as an "accident", which leaves 2, 1 of which was caused by an economic melt down. Even by wiki standards, this was not much of a "catastrophe"
in either case.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2013
DruidDrudge
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2013
If you really want to make a statement against nuclear, there was Hiroshima, Nagaskai, and on going depleted uranium weapons use. time better spent... hello... Greenpeace?? you there??
Telekinetic
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2013
@DruidDrudge:
My complaint about you is, as the inimitable Ralph Cramden would say- "You're a Blabbermouth. A BLAB-BER-MOUTH!

" Twenty-five years later, there has been no significant rise in cancer deaths among residents living near the Three Mile Island site. A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties."
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2013
Claudius,

If you eat nuts,


You are absolutely right. It seems that we are relatively unconcerned about adding to the natural radioactivity that we live with. Aerosolizing tons of uranium into the atmosphere, with a half life in the billions of years, is one example. We are producing 50,000 tons of DU a year, adding to a 1.5 million ton stockpile. How long can we continue to release additional radioactive elements into the environment before it becomes a real problem? Once that level is reached, how will we mitigate it?


This stuff is going up into the atmosphere with burning of fossil fuels all the time. Thing is, it also is all natural. We just are putting back what was there before. How to mitigate it when it becomes a real problem? That is a really good question. I think that is why there is a huge amount of research being done in this area. But, to stress over Fukushima is a waste of time. You'd get far less than current background radiation from it all.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2013
"In other words, not proven. Possible. Suggested, but only for those who received these x-ray exams decades ago. Truth is, many claims regarding the risks of radiation exposure are overblown. And, I have done the requisite research."- Oedipus Rex

That was a recent warning from Cancer, a scientific journal of The American Cancer Society, about sitting in today's dentist chairs. And in what journal can I read your "requisite research"?



And, that recent "warning" is based on the weakest of research possible and based upon surveys of people who were exposed decades before current technology. You cited the news article, in part, skipping other important information. This is why people tend to freak out over these things because they both do not understand what they read and they skip over any caveats present. This is what you did.

My research is not published by myself. However, the sources are all over the place, ready for you to sift through it all and learn for yourself.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Jun 07, 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9474312/Fukushima-caused-mutant-butterflies-in-Japan.html


Yes, Fukushima Prefecture still is in bad shape. That is why most people have not been allowed to return to their homes there until things are cleaned up. However, with that said, even this study reported is just one study. More detailed studies need to be done.

Something important to note from the article you quoted:

"But Otaki warned it was too soon to jump to conclusions, saying his team's results on the Fukushima butterflies could not be directly applied to other species, including humans."
Shootist
2.7 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2013
Can you trust the assessment of risk involved


Young dude,

Over one thousand above ground nuclear test occurred between 1943 and 1980. We all have radio-active Strontium 90 in our bones from these tests.

(As Americans get fatter and fatter and their life expectancies continue to rise) Only liberals and people with an ax to grind have an issue.
Telekinetic
3 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2013
Can you trust the assessment of risk involved


Young dude,

Over one thousand above ground nuclear test occurred between 1943 and 1980. We all have radio-active Strontium 90 in our bones from these tests.

(As Americans get fatter and fatter and their life expectancies continue to rise) Only liberals and people with an ax to grind have an issue.

Young dude? I consumed strontium-90 laced milk in my Rice Krinkles not long after the A-tests began. What I can't fathom is why people accept more poison in their blood stream by rationalizing that so much is already around us. Our responsibility is to protect future generations from rampant cancers and other assaults on our DNA. To not do or say anything about it is cowardly, and is not unlike bending over willingly. Be my guest if that's all the fight that's left in you.

Telekinetic
3 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2013
Can you trust the assessment of risk involved


Young dude,

Over one thousand above ground nuclear test occurred between 1943 and 1980. We all have radio-active Strontium 90 in our bones from these tests.

(As Americans get fatter and fatter and their life expectancies continue to rise) Only liberals and people with an ax to grind have an issue.

Young dude? I consumed strontium-90 laced milk in my Rice Krinkles not long after the A-tests began. What I can't fathom is why people accept more poison in their blood stream by rationalizing that so much is already around us. Our responsibility is to protect future generations from rampant cancers and other assaults on our DNA. To not do or say anything about it is cowardly, and is not unlike bending over willingly. Be my guest if that's all the fight that's left in you.

Telekinetic
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2013
Can you trust the assessment of risk involved


Young dude,

Over one thousand above ground nuclear test occurred between 1943 and 1980. We all have radio-active Strontium 90 in our bones from these tests.

(As Americans get fatter and fatter and their life expectancies continue to rise) Only liberals and people with an ax to grind have an issue.

Young dude? I consumed strontium-90 laced milk in my Rice Krinkles not long after the A-tests began. What I can't fathom is why people accept more poison in their blood stream by rationalizing that so much is already around us. Our responsibility is to protect future generations from rampant cancers and other assaults on our DNA. To not do or say anything about it is cowardly, and is not unlike bending over willingly. Be my guest if that's all the fight that's left in you.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2013
I think he may have meant young in the emotionally and intellectually immature sense. Radiation is what brings change to life. It is an intrinsic and necessary part of life. Radiation is our friend.

Sorry you are so afraid of the dark.
Telekinetic
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2013
Picture of TheGhostofOtto as a young man-

http://www.google...p;dur=72
Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2013
The trouble with many of the photos of Chernobyl children is that many of them actually are of children who suffered from prenatal malnutrition and fetal alcohol syndromes rather than from radiation exposure. Got to be careful what you rely upon as sources. The truth is out there.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 10, 2013
Picture of TheGhostofOtto as a young man-
-And here is Tk safely protected from cosmic rays and bird bombs
http://thebluedaw...foil.jpg

-You're so childish-
Telekinetic
3.3 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2013
The trouble with many of the photos of Chernobyl children is that many of them actually are of children who suffered from prenatal malnutrition and fetal alcohol syndromes rather than from radiation exposure. Got to be careful what you rely upon as sources. The truth is out there.

Take a close look at the picture- Fetal alcohol syndrome or malnutrition have none of the symptoms of grossly elongated limbs that need to be amputated because of cancer. Radiation sickness is the only possible cause of that. What you see in that photo are the real repercussions of nuclear disasters.
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2013
Some photos of Chernobyl really are Chernobyl children. Many aren't. And, there are other conditions not related to radiation exposure or even malnutrition and fetal alcohol and drug syndromes. Many of the mothers of these children were malnourished, and were abusing alcohol and hard drugs. Drugs and alcohol cause all sort of severe deformities. Some are genetic in spite of radiation exposure. There are a number of conditions that cause elongated limbs and deformities in the hands and feet. Here are examples of Marfan Syndrome:

http://www.primeh...rome.jpg
http://webeye.oph...n-5L.jpg

You can read about Beal's Syndrome, or Congenital Contractural Arachnoldactyly here:
http://www.wisege...rome.htm

Yes, the kid has cancer. A number of people outside the radiation zone got it, too. Not all are caused by radiation. Cancer has been with us well over 120,000 years.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 12, 2013
Take a close look at the picture
Id rather not.
What you see in that photo are the real repercussions of nuclear disasters
If you climb back up in the thread you will find out that fossil fuel use releases far more radioactive material into the environment than nuclear power ever has. As well as many other forms of crud which causes a LOT more cancer.

This is science tk. Science is rational thinking and reason not fear-mongering and fashion-du-jour. Science tells us that nuclear power is far safer than any of the alternatives, including no power at all. Read this article for more info
http://phys.org/n...ses.html

Telekinetic
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2013
" nuclear power is far safer than any of the alternatives," -TheGhostofHimmler

Dummkopf:
Your Fatherland, ja, Deutschland, will have NO nuclear reactors in ten years.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2013
So much for Germany's economy. Renewable sources of energy aren't going to cut it to match up the amount of power generation capacity they now have. . Hundreds of billions will be needed for infrastructure modifications alone. They will then be importing energy sources for the foreseeable future. They will be importing electricity from France, a nuclear irony. All a net liability and worse... I wish them good luck. They are going to need it. They certainly aren't going to meet their carbon footprint reductions, either.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2013
Renewable sources of energy aren't going to cut it to match up the amount of power generation capacity they now have.

Renewables already produce more power in germany than nuclear did - even before we started shutting them down.
We're currently at 25% of our electricity from renewables (nuclear topped out at 23% before we started shutting reactors down)

Hundreds of billions will be needed for infrastructure modifications alone

Yes. But since we're not pumping any more money into nuclear subsidies (and less and less into coal subsidies) that money is available.

Nuclear and coal subsidies have been an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE greater than those for renewables - EACH.

They will be importing electricity from France

Even after the shutdown we're still a net exporter of electricity. We're in a european grid. Temporary imports/exports of power from/to neighboring nations is normal.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2013
Somebody from Germany told me that this was not the case, so, do I believe you or the person who told me otherwise?
Telekinetic
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2013
"So much for Germany's economy."- Skepticus

Are you kidding? All of Europe looks to Germany to bail them out of their financial mess precisely because Germany has the most stable and solvent economy of any country over there. Germany can afford to jettison risky ventures like nuclear energy because they know it's a time bomb that will cost far more to dig out from under than investing in new, sustainable energy strategies. Skepticus, you're completely out of your league.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2013
Somebody from Germany told me that this was not the case

a) I am from germany, living in germany
b) You don't need to believe what someone tells you. Just look irt up (as I did before writing my reply)

Renewable energy in germany
http://en.wikiped..._Germany

Excerpt:
Every third solar panel and every second wind rotor is made in Germany, and German turbines and generators used in hydro energy generation are among the most popular worldwide

Seems like the switchover is paying off for the companies involved handsomely.

As for the numbers on nuclear in germany:
http://en.wikiped..._Germany

Germany being a net exporter of electricity from here:
https://www.desta..._51.html

So you have the choice: accept the facts or stick your fingers in your ears and continue going "lalalala".

Skepticus_Rex
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2013
Wikipedia is unreliable as a source. In the college system where I worked for years students would get 'F' grades on papers using it as a primary or secondary source. Sorry, but them's the breaks.

I'm just saying that someone I know who is in Germany, and who is German, has said differently than you do to me. I have the choice to accept what he says or to accept what you say. Are you by chance a member of the Greens? That might have something to do with it. The German individual to whom I allude is not. Seems like differences of opinion to me at this point in time.

I suppose I can do some more in-depth research on the subject for myself, barring lack of time. But, you claim to be German, and I don't know you from Adam. You are an anonymous internet poster with a good handle on the English language, and could be anyone but whom you claim to be. The person I know is known to me to be German.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2013
Wikipedia is unreliable as a source.

There you go again making baselses assumptions.

Wikipedia is no more or less reliable than Encyclopaedica Britannica a a study in the Journal "Nature" shows:
http://news.cnet....332.html

students would get 'F' grades on papers using it as a primary or secondary source.

And the reason for this is not the quality of the source material - the reason is that wikipedia is not a citeworty source in scientific papers (because the content can be edited after you quoted it)

I have the choice to accept what he says or to accept what you say

No. You have the choice of getting off your lazy ass and looking up the facts instead of relying on third hand say-so. You're on the friggin internet. Live up to your goddamn name.

Are you by chance a member of the Greens?

No. Why? Does opinion alter facts? Not in science it doesn't.

Skepticus_Rex
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2013
As to Wikipedia, it depends upon which subject matter one looks at. I couldn't care less what Cnet says about it. I know what I have observed and what happened where I worked. Use of material from Wikipedia as a primary source resulted in an 'F' grade on a student's paper. Period. I often found a great deal of plagiarism from that source in students' papers, too. the penalties for plagiarism were quite stiff.

No, I am getting my information second hand. Getting it from you is second hand at best, if you are what you say you are. As I write this, I have been reading up on the issue from research papers. The Greens and Greenpeace paint a rosy picture of the situation. Another paper I read showed five models as to what is happening and what will happen after 2015, only two of which are favorable. The other three paint a picture of an economy where the costs of everything go up. The paper I read with the five models states that there is no worst case scenario but needs to be.
Skepticus_Rex
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2013
cont...

The paper with the five models also states that there are as yet too many unknowns that have to be dealt with before so rosy a picture can be painted of what will come.

I asked as to whether you were a member of the Greens because, contrary to your statement that opinion does not alter facts in science, you are quite incorrect about that. Opinion quite often colors the presentation of varying findings in science, and even sometimes the outcome. Some quantum physicists sound more like Hindu believers. Some people have even gone so far as to make science their religion and I have found some of them are just as bad as certain kinds of religionists. You also can see it in their behavior toward those skeptical of any of the tenets of their new-found religion. Deny it all you want but I have seen it over the decades of my life in the sciences.

As to the ass comment, one sits in a chair to read & research. As an aside, you read more as American than German. Just saying.
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2013
"As to the ass comment, one sits in a chair to read & research. As an aside, you read more as American than German. Just saying."- Skepticus

Would it surprise you that some people are fluent in eight languages, and are MORE fluent than many in their native tongue, even capable of translating perfectly tracts from one language to another? Antialias' command of English is excellent, but he is German. I suggest as proof, Antialias, that you translate my post into German for this pest.

antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2013
As an aside, you read more as American than German.

No surprise there, as Iived 2 years in the US (1984-1986...got sort of lucky that I was far away when Chernobyl happened). Went to highschool there. That tends to force one to learn a language. It's hard writing essays when you don't know the language.
Since then I still try to get movies that aren't dubbed and most of my favorite authors are either UK or Canadian. I find that stuff tends to get lost in translation.

And since I grew up to work in science: Most of the literature there is in english (and of course my own publications had to be mostly in english)...posting on forumsalso helps to hone your skills in a language.
I couldn't care less what Cnet says about it

It's a study in 'Nature'. That isn't good enough for you? Hear-say is better? You have a weird way of judging facts. Wanna buy the Eiffel tower? I got one - cheap.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2013
No, I am getting my information second hand.

You're getting it third hand. Your friend gets it second hand from some source. Unless he's making it up based on gut feeling - in that case it's second hand.

Opinion quite often colors the presentation of varying findings in science

Since I just quote numbers from official sources based on hard measurements I don't see how those can be 'colored'. Measured numbers are measured numbers. 25% are 25% - no matter whether you try to color it by saying "already 25%" or "just 25%".

Some quantum physicists sound more like Hindu believers

They base their statements on observation. Whether you don't find these statements 'common sense' is your problem. But even you have to admit that our senses (and our 'common sense') has not evolved over thousands of years based on observations of what happens at the quantum level
So why would you expect it to be a good match to what is observed there?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2013
Wikipedia is unreliable as a source. In the college system where I worked for years students would get 'F' grades on papers using it as a primary or secondary source. Sorry, but them's the breaks
Wiki usually requires refs for the facts in their articles, for those who would choose to explore the validity of those facts rather than claim that, because wiki is bad, then they must be right.

Youre not.
that you translate my post into German for this pest
'Pest' in german means plague.
http://www.youtub...O8ceo7OI

Black metal - music for bitter old men
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2013
Well, in this case I wouldn't translate 'pest' as plague but rather as 'Plage'

'Plage' has the same word stem but carries not so much a 'disease' connotation* as a 'vermin' connotation...though it's subtly different from the english 'pest' - as I understand the word. 'Pest' seems to refer mainly to animals which are a nuisance or in some way harmful -. and can be a singular individual.

Whereas the german word 'Plage' refers to animals, but may also be used for some sort of detrimental state that is widespread (e.g. population-wide melancholy can be a 'Plage', but you wouldn't call something like that a 'pest' in english).

So calling him a 'Plage' is more in line with telling him that he's someone that has a negative effect on a wide swath of this forum.

*Bizarrely the english word 'plague' doesn't translate to Plage in german but to 'Seuche' (or to 'Die Pest' if you're specifically referring to the black plague...which brings us full circle again. Language is funny that way.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2013
Perhaps you might be referring to this

phage - a virus that is parasitic (reproduces itself) in bacteria; "phage uses the bacterium's machinery and energy to produce more phage until the bacterium is destroyed and phage is released to invade surrounding bacteria"
bacteriophage
virus - (virology) ultramicroscopic infectious agent that replicates itself only within cells of living hosts; many are pathogenic; a piece of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) wrapped in a thin coat of protein
coliphage - a bacteriophage that infects the bacterium Escherichia coli
typhoid bacteriophage - a bacteriophage specific for the bacterium Salmonella typhi