Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this anything to worry about?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    I was born in 1953. There has been radiation floating around me for all my life. I remember reading about fallout being found in cow's milk in the 60's. Maybe that is what has lowered male sperm counts in the US?

    Pruitt
    That would be feminism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Reiryc
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I'm not going to comment on the article, nor will I make any effort to give equivalent measures of the isotopes listed. The question is, reading this article and using your own knowledge, is the article discussing something that should concern you?



    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fuk...cid=spartandhp
    It's hitting the left coast....no concern here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I'm not going to comment on the article, nor will I make any effort to give equivalent measures of the isotopes listed. The question is, reading this article and using your own knowledge, is the article discussing something that should concern you?



    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fuk...cid=spartandhp
    Without sufficient solid evidence, I would have to say "no".

    Since I live high up in the Rockies, I will have to say "Hell, no!"

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    I was born in 1953. There has been radiation floating around me for all my life. I remember reading about fallout being found in cow's milk in the 60's. Maybe that is what has lowered male sperm counts in the US?

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    I don't know.
    how do these "measurable levels" compare to levels that are actually harmful in some way?
    The level measured is just above unmeasurable... Think of this as a microscopic grain of salt dissolved into a swimming pool full of water.

    I'm wondering how they managed to sort the reading out from background radiation in the seawater samples...

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    I don't know.
    how do these "measurable levels" compare to levels that are actually harmful in some way?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    From the article...

    Cesium-134, the so-called fingerprint of Fukushima, was measured in seawater samples taken from Tillamook Bay and Gold Beach in Oregon, according to researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
    Because of its short half-life, cesium-134 can only have come from Fukushima.

    The Oregon samples, marking the first time cesium-134 has been detected on U.S. shores, were taken in January and February of 2016 and later analyzed. They each measured 0.3 becquerels per cubic meter of cesium-134.
    Note, that converting becquerels to something useful for decision making with regard to the danger to organic life with regard to radiation is difficult. .3 becquerels per cubic meter of water means that there's a beta radiation count of 1 Cesium atom disintegrating every 3 seconds...
    Basically, that amounts to nothing. It's literally almost unmeasurable.
    It also means that the spread of radioactives from Fukushima is irrelevant by the time what's left gets across the Pacific. Whatever there was, is so diluted as to be shrugged off.

    Then there's the source used for the article...

    https://fukushimainform.ca/

    If you look at their graph of their measurements, it is linear to the almost white box then suddenly becomes exponential in the last three categories. The way it is presented is somewhat disingenuous. The first boxes (the green ones to the almost white one) are all 10^1 measurements. The last three (yellow to red) go 10^2, 10^3, 10^4, or 100 times the green boxes, a thousand times them, and finally ten thousand times them.
    They present what amounts to a Log scale as linear. That is it goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Nah.

    It will provide useful data, so it should be studied.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naffenea
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I'm not going to comment on the article, nor will I make any effort to give equivalent measures of the isotopes listed. The question is, reading this article and using your own knowledge, is the article discussing something that should concern you?



    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fuk...cid=spartandhp
    Nope. Nothing to be concerned about.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    The poll options lacked a sufficiently definitive, "NO."

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    started a poll Is this anything to worry about?

    Is this anything to worry about?

    11
    Yes, there is reason for serious concern
    18.18%
    2
    No, nothing to see here, move along
    81.82%
    9

    The poll is expired.

    I'm not going to comment on the article, nor will I make any effort to give equivalent measures of the isotopes listed. The question is, reading this article and using your own knowledge, is the article discussing something that should concern you?

    Fukushima radiation has reached U.S. shores
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fuk...cid=spartandhp

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X