Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Fukushima is an ongoing problem [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)123. You wouldn't think it from the lack of science.
Ocean water off La Jolla coast being monitored (and not) for Fukushima radiation
By Pat Sherman
La Jolla Light, Feb. 4, 2014
EXCERPT...
In 2011 Thiemens and a crew of UCSD atmospheric chemists reported the first quantitative measurement of the amount of radiation leaked from the damaged nuclear reactor in Fukushima, following the devastating earthquake and tsunami there.
Their estimate was based on radioactive sulfur that wafted across the Pacific Ocean after operators of the damaged reactor had to cool overheated fuel with seawater causing a chemical reaction between byproducts of nuclear fission and chlorine ions in the saltwater.
Thiemens has, for the past several years, unsuccessfully sought to obtain grant funding to follow-up his research, first reported on Aug. 15 2011 in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
However, he said neither the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board or National Academy of Sciences (of which he is a member) were interested in funding additional research to measure the Fukushima fallout.
Its probably one of these things that just fell through the cracks, Thiemens said. It doesnt quite fall under classical (research criteria).
CONTINUED...
http://www.lajollalight.com/2014/02/04/ocean-water-off-la-jolla-coast-being-monitored-for-fukushima-radiation/
I wonder if the respondents above, who find fault with you for posting about Fukushima, can show where up-to-date information on radiation from Fukushima and its effects can be found. If academics can't find funding for research on the subjects, shouldn't the governments of the United States and Japan step forward with the necessary resources?
By Pat Sherman
La Jolla Light, Feb. 4, 2014
EXCERPT...
In 2011 Thiemens and a crew of UCSD atmospheric chemists reported the first quantitative measurement of the amount of radiation leaked from the damaged nuclear reactor in Fukushima, following the devastating earthquake and tsunami there.
Their estimate was based on radioactive sulfur that wafted across the Pacific Ocean after operators of the damaged reactor had to cool overheated fuel with seawater causing a chemical reaction between byproducts of nuclear fission and chlorine ions in the saltwater.
Thiemens has, for the past several years, unsuccessfully sought to obtain grant funding to follow-up his research, first reported on Aug. 15 2011 in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
However, he said neither the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board or National Academy of Sciences (of which he is a member) were interested in funding additional research to measure the Fukushima fallout.
Its probably one of these things that just fell through the cracks, Thiemens said. It doesnt quite fall under classical (research criteria).
CONTINUED...
http://www.lajollalight.com/2014/02/04/ocean-water-off-la-jolla-coast-being-monitored-for-fukushima-radiation/
I wonder if the respondents above, who find fault with you for posting about Fukushima, can show where up-to-date information on radiation from Fukushima and its effects can be found. If academics can't find funding for research on the subjects, shouldn't the governments of the United States and Japan step forward with the necessary resources?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
125 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I don't hate science. I hate your strawmen and failure to grasp basic concepts.
NuclearDem
May 2014
#77
have you washed the exterior of your house with a combination of bleach and ammonia yet?
snooper2
May 2014
#73
No, the chlorine gas produced neutralizes any radioactivity, you should know this
snooper2
May 2014
#76
dude, you just stated that you have radiation all over your home and wildlife and bugs, what are YOU
snooper2
May 2014
#84
Nah, people have given you links in all your threads but call them deniers, enablers
maddezmom
May 2014
#97
"...its impacts are increasing daily." - That is a factually incorrect statement.
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#13
News would imply it hasn't been known already. Just because you don't know doesn't make it news...
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#16
"So you admit that the pollution is ongoing. It has not stopped." - I never said it had stopped.
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#18
You realize that "ongoing" and "increasing" are not the same, right? You have to.
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#21
Except it was demonstrated in your own thread the anomalous increases happened 2 years before...
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#26
"Nuclear is more dirty and less safe than renewables." - Myself circa April 27th
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#22
We should use deep bore holes or deep geological repositories for our current waste.
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#31
And How Do You, Or Anyone Else, Know That The Posted Studies Are Legitimate - Trust In Authority?
cantbeserious
May 2014
#30
Peer-Reviewed - Easily Manipulated By Authorities - Only Publish Atomic Industry Friendly Articles
cantbeserious
May 2014
#33
So you just dismiss the entire institution of statistical investigation...
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#38
I Dismiss Blind Trust Placed In Online Articles When TPTB Can So Easily Corrupt Any Process Or Person
cantbeserious
May 2014
#47
So your argument essentially amounts to an irrational fear of the internet...
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#49
No Fear Of Internet - Only Great Concern For The Faith Some Place In Posted Studies And Articles
cantbeserious
May 2014
#50
So you are saying we cannot trust the websites for academic journals...
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#51
Are you saying that because the chance of corruption exists it must be happening?
Gravitycollapse
May 2014
#57
It's both depressing and amusing that people are still alarmed over this non-issue
JJChambers
May 2014
#42