On 04/12/2011 09:48 PM, bpnjensen wrote:


The problem Dave relates, that of further meltdown and steam
explosion, is demonstrably more immediate and dangerous locally.
Earthwide, however, not a big deal, for the same reason - dilution.
If it goes on for a LONG time, like years, I suppose it could have
effects on populations of nearby Pacific Islands, assuming favorable
wind patterns...but I'd have to see some better analysis to be
convinced.

That, from a die-hard environmentalist.

Bruce Jensen

You can't dilute radioactive particles and make them less mutagenic; you
are just dispersing them more.

When the secondary containment of F.D. reactor 3 exploded three days
into the incident its spent fuel (waste) pond was pulverized and the
contents were scattered for many kilometers around the plant. At that
point the incident was in Chernobyl category 7 territory, but the
authorities were afraid to panic rescue workers away from the region.

On Apr 13, 6:31*am, dave wrote:
On 04/12/2011 09:48 PM, bpnjensen wrote:



The problem Dave relates, that of further meltdown and steam
explosion, is demonstrably more immediate and dangerous locally.
Earthwide, however, not a big deal, for the same reason - dilution.
If it goes on for a LONG time, like years, I suppose it could have
effects on populations of nearby Pacific Islands, assuming favorable
wind patterns...but I'd have to see some better analysis to be
convinced.

That, from a die-hard environmentalist.

Bruce Jensen

You can't dilute radioactive particles and make them less mutagenic; you
are just dispersing them more.

When the secondary containment of F.D. reactor 3 exploded three days
into the incident its spent fuel (waste) pond was pulverized and the
contents were scattered for many kilometers around the plant. At that
point the incident was in Chernobyl category 7 territory, but the
authorities were afraid to panic rescue workers away from the region.

Yes, but higher concentrations are demonstrably more likely to cause
mutagenesis problems. An average increase in rads above background
levels of less than 0.001% in oceanic waters is not going to cause
significant increases in cancer anywhere. I do agree with your last
point.

On 04/13/2011 09:22 AM, bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 13, 6:31 am, wrote:
On 04/12/2011 09:48 PM, bpnjensen wrote:



The problem Dave relates, that of further meltdown and steam
explosion, is demonstrably more immediate and dangerous locally.
Earthwide, however, not a big deal, for the same reason - dilution.
If it goes on for a LONG time, like years, I suppose it could have
effects on populations of nearby Pacific Islands, assuming favorable
wind patterns...but I'd have to see some better analysis to be
convinced.

That, from a die-hard environmentalist.

Bruce Jensen

You can't dilute radioactive particles and make them less mutagenic; you
are just dispersing them more.

When the secondary containment of F.D. reactor 3 exploded three days
into the incident its spent fuel (waste) pond was pulverized and the
contents were scattered for many kilometers around the plant. At that
point the incident was in Chernobyl category 7 territory, but the
authorities were afraid to panic rescue workers away from the region.

Yes, but higher concentrations are demonstrably more likely to cause
mutagenesis problems. An average increase in rads above background
levels of less than 0.001% in oceanic waters is not going to cause
significant increases in cancer anywhere. I do agree with your last
point.

Plankton-phytoplankton-krill-etc. Each step in the food chain
concentrates the toxic materials. By the time the chain gets to us,
there could be problems. Burning coal has made some wild fish inedible
due to mercury.

Cesium and strontium dumped into a major ocean current is going to
result in an increase in cancer in the North Pacific and most likely a
collapse in the seafood industry.

On Apr 13, 10:08*am, dave wrote:
On 04/13/2011 09:22 AM, bpnjensen wrote:





On Apr 13, 6:31 am, *wrote:
On 04/12/2011 09:48 PM, bpnjensen wrote:

The problem Dave relates, that of further meltdown and steam
explosion, is demonstrably more immediate and dangerous locally.
Earthwide, however, not a big deal, for the same reason - dilution.
If it goes on for a LONG time, like years, I suppose it could have
effects on populations of nearby Pacific Islands, assuming favorable
wind patterns...but I'd have to see some better analysis to be
convinced.

That, from a die-hard environmentalist.

Bruce Jensen

You can't dilute radioactive particles and make them less mutagenic; you
are just dispersing them more.

When the secondary containment of F.D. reactor 3 exploded three days
into the incident its spent fuel (waste) pond was pulverized and the
contents were scattered for many kilometers around the plant. At that
point the incident was in Chernobyl category 7 territory, but the
authorities were afraid to panic rescue workers away from the region.

Yes, but higher concentrations are demonstrably more likely to cause
mutagenesis problems. *An average increase in rads above background
levels of less than 0.001% in oceanic waters is not going to cause
significant increases in cancer anywhere. *I do agree with your last
point.

Plankton-phytoplankton-krill-etc. Each step in the food chain
concentrates the toxic materials. By the time the chain gets to us,
there could be problems. Burning coal has made some wild fish inedible
due to mercury.

Cesium and strontium dumped into a major ocean current is going to
result in an increase in cancer in the North Pacific and most likely a
collapse in the seafood industry.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I understand the process and the know of the issue; but oceanic mixing
over time is pretty good, and significant dilution occurs even as we
speak. Do you know of any uptake data on Pu and related contaminants
by plankton? I honestly do not know.

And you have to admit - the ubiquity and longevity of coal burning
(kajillions of tons over several centuries) GREATLY exceeds by
multiple orders of magnitude those same factors as applied to nukes in
general or this one in particular. Mercury in the global environment
is common and widespread; same with radon gas. The same will never be
true of Pu or U235, at least from an accident of this type.

We need to keep this in perspective. In terms of global effects, we
currently have problems that really make this one a piker. That is
not say we should be concerned about Japan and vicinity; but compared
to all the other things we are faced with daily in NAm, for example,
this appears to be an insignificant blip.

I live on the West Coast NAm too - and I just don't see any numbers
that create concern in my mind.

Bruce

On 04/13/2011 11:48 AM, bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 13, 10:08 am, wrote:


I live on the West Coast NAm too - and I just don't see any numbers
that create concern in my mind.

Bruce

Like I said, Red Snapper will cost more.

Article at http://www.rense.com
says the biggest Yapanee Nuke cloud is over Vietnam.
Vietnam getting Nuked?

Hillbillies are Californians, ergo there are so many hills over
there.Some of those hills are sliding down, some of those hills are
taking sections of highways and homes and cars and trucks with them
too.Missy Sippy is mostly flatland Territory.No Hillbillies over here,
only backwater hicks.
cuhulin