posted 01-10-2014 04:25 AM ET (US)        

I have read varying opinions from this event being harmless to the start of the end of the world. It is obvious that many writing about it have their own agendas. Complicating the digestion of information are allegations and evidence of lies and cover up by TEPCO, the government of Japan, and the US government.

I am interested in the actual risk to those that spend time on, in, and under the surface of the Pacific From the Baja to Alaska, for those that consume seafood from the Pacific, and the physiological risk to divers from contaminated water under pressure in contact with mucous membranes.

Are any of you guys keeping up on this stuff? What do you think?

posted 01-10-2014 08:19 AM ET (US)            

http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp

Dave

posted 01-10-2014 09:59 AM ET (US)         

From WHOI http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989

and this one http://www.scientificamerican.com/article. cfm?id=what-to-worry-about-after-fukushima-nuclear-disaster

posted 01-10-2014 12:44 PM ET (US)            

And jimh, don't worry about contaminated water flowing uphill into the Great Lakes. Ask any plumber, the first thing they are taught is that shxt always flows downhill.

posted 01-10-2014 06:26 PM ET (US)            

Thanks to TEPCO and the Japanese government concealing the initial extent of the leaks, the ship unwittingly sailed into the contamination zone. The ship's water purification system makes fresh water from sea water and sucked in radioactive water. Maintenance crews also had to clean aircraft that flew through the radioactive zone.

posted 01-10-2014 07:28 PM ET (US)            

Any hope of a credible source of your report?

posted 01-10-2014 07:56 PM ET (US)            

None.

Dave

posted 01-10-2014 09:22 PM ET (US)            

Sources for radiation study and cancer:

University of Hawaii
University of Texas

many more too...but not all are going to be published right away in the news

Scientist pay very profitable? Hardly. Many of the foot soldiers in that business are unpaid graduate students. The tenured professors do decent when doing research on the side, but we are not talking wall street money.

It makes me very suspicious what news channel people watch when I see this type of talk.... as if you somehow know FOR SURE that there is no harm in the radiation.

Any junior college educated individual knows that it will take years to know the scientific impact of the reactor accident.

Notice I did not take a side on what true effects the reactor meltdown will have... yes because we don't really know yet.

I can tell you for sure a scientific university, while not perfect, will be a more reliable source than "news channel X" and in some cases "news channel X" will source a university and not a political leaning blog...

posted 01-11-2014 02:31 PM ET (US)            

Here's the latest on the legal proceedings. It was dismissed on a technicality dealing with foreign jurisdiction, not the merits of the case. Note the age and type of ailments that the sailors have developed.

Wish Elaelap was still with us to help these fellow Californians.

posted 01-11-2014 04:42 PM ET (US)            

But, the Reagan, being nuclear powered, also had radiation monitors and health physicists on board. Those guys would have certainly monitored the deck and detected any radiation. Had there been a significant amount of contamination on the deck, they would have had all personnel involved with the cleanup properly suited up for the task. Seeing the deck hands with just kercheifs over their faces tells me that the airborne contamination was not significantly bad.

Had the problem been associated with the water system, all personnel on the Reagan would have been similarly exposed. And though I don't know, I suspect that the water purification system on the Reagan would have incorporated a very fine filtration system.

posted 01-11-2014 07:50 PM ET (US)            

I don't doubt the sailors, we are not hearing from them. It's the credibility of your information I doubt. I don't doubt that you believe what you've posted I just don't think it's credible.

I spent a good many years of my life in powerplants, some of which were nuclear. I would not hesitate to visit the Fukushima reactor to collect evidence with a team of my choosing. As I'm not familiar with TEPCO I have no opinion concerning their ethics. I certainly don't question them. When things are going crazy around you and you are questioned about them it is quite normal to find the information provided in the early days of a disaster may be found later to have been inaccurate. Think TMI.

BTW, the link you provided didn't work for me.

posted 01-15-2014 05:11 PM ET (US)            

The Lawrence Lab at UC Berkeley is studying Kelp as an indicator species for radiation accumulation. Should be interesting.

posted 01-15-2014 10:10 PM ET (US)            

Is there any Boston Whaler content in this thread?

Dave

posted 01-16-2014 12:45 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Are any of you guys keeping up on this stuff?

---

I am not following with any sort of attention or rigor the effects of the release of nuclear radiation into the water of the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima power plant.

I don't think the Fukushima event is of great concern to me. Most of the attention given to it recently appears to be due to the development of an urban myth regarding a chart or mapping of another phenomenon, as pointed out by SNOPES.COM, which is being circulated by the usual email method.

quote:

---

What do you think?

---

In terms of impact on the food chain in the Pacific Ocean, I am probably more worried about other pollutants, such as plastic. For example, see

http://www.takepart.com/oceans/plastic-pollution

I occassionally visit Curtis Ebbsmeyer's website

http://flotsametrics.com/

and I have (tried to) read his book on ocean currents and pollution. (I found it to be a bit too much of an autobiography rather than an analysis of pollutants.)

I also happened to see a documentary about accumulation of toxins in top-level predators (like Orca) in the Pacific Northwest that said there had been an alarming increase in the toxicity found in them. However, the last time I encountered an Orca in the Pacific Northwest, it was clear to me that the chance that the Orca would eat me was much greater than the chance that I would eat the Orca. On that basis, I am not worried about consuming tainted Orca meat. Besides, they are probably a protected species.

(The Orca toxicity was not the focus of the documentary, but rather a sidebar story. The real focus of the documentary was the reduction in scientific research being paid for by the government of Canada in certain areas. The scientists and researchers whose funding had been cut back or eliminated were all suspicious that there was a sinister motive for the government eliminating the money they were using to conduct the research. I am sure this point of view is probably possible to hold whenever the person paying for your work decides to not continue to pay you for any more of that work. In order to be able to conduct scientific research or any work without any restraint or direction by the people paying for the work, a scientist or other worker probably needs to be in an academic setting, and then, even in academic settings, there will be demands from the people actually paying the bills for the work that the work product be something they find to be valuable. The irony in this documentary was that the people producing the documentary worked for the same government that was being accused of shutting down the other work. If the government were really conducting some sort of sinister plot to suppress the work, they would probably also be acting to suppress a documentary about the suppression of the work. The fact that a government sponsored agency was reporting about the work suggests that the government is not trying to suppress the information, or, if it is, they're not doing a very good job.)

ASIDE: I used to get frequent emails from one fellow that would alert me to be concerned about things like this Fukushima radiation emission. Almost every email he sent me would turn out to be on a topic that had been studied by SNOPES and found to be an urban myth. I would always send a reply email to him to point out that the topic he was spreading with his emails was false and misleading. Despite sending him all of these return emails, he never stopped sending me more of the circulating emails, and, again, they always turned out to be urban myths. My conclusion was that there is a certain sort of person who seems to be enthralled with topics that suggest certain dire outcomes will be soon upon us, and there is no stopping them from spreading this information, even if the information is specious.

posted 01-18-2014 09:22 PM ET (US)            

I have processed over 50 lbs of wild caught salmon from California. I shouldn't worry about salmon but I admit to a bit of paranoia about toxins and radiation.

Having worked beside scientists from UC Davis Marine Lab in Bodega Bay, and watched the mindless process of low level data collection and processing of data, I have some faith in the efforts of scientists studying the matter.

posted 01-19-2014 06:56 PM ET (US)            

Many years ago, the DOE and it's predecessor, the AEC, conducted extensive research on the effects of radiation and higher temperature water on marine wildlife at the Hanford nuclear facility in South East Washington. At the time, there were operating nuclear reactors on the river. This was done via a separate, specific research test facility using salmon. Though I never saw a report of that work, there was never any warning or notice regarding fishing in the Columbia River during the many years I was at Hanford. I take this to indicate that there was not a problem with the salmon. Good - as I have eaten fish taken from the river.

There were also individual(s) in the Portland area who were contracted to frequently eat oysters and other marine wildlife taken from the confluence of the Columbia to the Pacific. Those individuals were periodically brought to Hanford and scanned for radiation. To the best of my knowledge, there was never a problem in those efforts.

posted 01-28-2014 04:41 PM ET (US)            

This is an organization I helped create. We have applied for a Scientific Collecting Permit with the California Fish and Wildlife department to allow us to collect fish samples to test. In addition, we've submitted a few proposals for grants to help fund this research.

posted 01-28-2014 11:36 PM ET (US)            

We've submitted proposals to California Sea Grant and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.  Both are funded by NOAA and both requested formal proposals after seeing a summary of the proposed work.  Now I know a submitted proposal does not mean support provided but they did express interest.  I'll keep you posted on the status.

I can provide my literature citations to back up my comments, however some of the materials are not free.

posted 01-29-2014 09:08 PM ET (US)            

They claim that you get three times as much radiation from the background sources such as the sun, x rays, and smoke alarms per year as you would from sources in side the plant. We will see.

posted 01-29-2014 10:01 PM ET (US)            

Indeed, one picks up more radiation in the out of doors, in airplanes, x-rays, on top of a mountain - than you will inside of a plant such as FERMI II or the other operating reactors in the country. In fact, those in Fort Collins Colorado pick up more radiation from the sun than in any other city. The smoke alarms use a slightly radioactive sensor - but it would not be used if it were harmful to your health.

posted 03-18-2014 05:53 PM ET (US)            

But first - there is NO!! question regarding leakage of radiation into the ocean from the event - as the reactor core has been breached and exposed to the environment. And all reasonable efforts must be taken to protect the public from harmful levels of radiation.

Yes, there is some hydrogen in a nuclear power plant, and with the destruction of the coolant system, some hydrogen will be released. But an explosion of any fuel source requires a combustable fuel/oxygen ratio and an ignition source - and with all electrical power disrupted, that ignition source is not available. Remember, all reactors had been automatically shut down via the earthquake and then the tidal wave wiped out all off-site power transmission from all sources and the reactor facilitie's emergency power supply. Therefore, electrical power was not available.

Frankly, the release of radioactive material was not from a hydrogen explosion, but from the melt down of the hot fuel elements which resulted from the destruction of the facilities emergency power supply system and of the destruction of the regions power system. While the reactors had been shut down automatically, the fuel elements will melt down if not cooled - and with no power, there was no way to circulate coolant water to the nuclear core.

Three hundred ton of water per day is a LOT of water. Again - a guess or what? Let's see, 300 ton/day spells about 9600 gallons/day and for 3 years - some 10 million gallons to date. If so, this has to be via sea water being splashed into the facility and draining back out. Be assured that there is no water storage within the plant that would hold that amount of water. --- Jerry/Idaho

posted 03-18-2014 07:17 PM ET (US)            

The article was sort of a summary of what happened and the current status. The explosions released a lot of radioactive material into the atmosphere. Direct contamination of the ocean came as a result of the plant dumping the reactor cooling water to make room for more water. You are correct, they don't have storage for the cooling water so it is being dumped.

posted 03-19-2014 06:22 PM ET (US)            

In the disaster time-line of events when did the "hydrogen gas explosion" take place? What was the source of ignition?

posted 03-20-2014 06:04 PM ET (US)            

Well, these guys have huge cred amongst the member nations. Forgive me if I have doubts.