# Well this really sucks



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...million-tons-radioactive-water-Fukushima.html

Great. Glow in the dark salmon. Radioactive surfing and the list goes on.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Its been glowing since the tsunami trashed the nuke plant over there. All that drifted to the west coast. No wonder Californians have lost their minds. So after this batch is consumed some of us will turn into mutants... swell!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

One million gallons sounds like a lot, and it's terrible.
But let's compare it to the entire Pacific Ocean.
The Pacific Ocean holds ~187 quintillion gallons of water.

This 1 million gallons represents 5 trillionths of a percent of the entire Pacific Ocean.
That's 0.00000000000053476%

Check my math. Even if it's off by a factor of 1000, it's still literally minuscule.
Should they do it? No.
Is it catastrophic? Nah.
Shoot, the ocean still has nuclear fallout from nuke tests back in the 60's.

From March 2018:


> Our most recent coastal sample collected in Bodega Bay, Calif., in 2017, showed 7.2 Bq/m3 of cesium-137, with other sites showing 4.8±0.1 Bq/m3 (Hawaii), 4.4±0.2 Bq/m3 (Mulkiteo, Wash.), and 6.4±0.2 Bq/m3 (Eureka, Calif.). In these site and elsewhere, the trend continues upward (Figure 2), with slightly higher levels found offshore. *While elevated, these levels are still well below regulatory limits of 7,400 Bq/m3 set for drinking water (U.S. EPA). By our calculations, even if levels increase Bq/m3, swimming eight hours every day for an entire year would only increase one's annual dose by an amount, 1000 times less than a single dental X-ray.* Canadian researchers measuring cesium-137 in fish, are finding similarly low levels relative to regulatory thresholds in seafood, such as salmon.


(source: How Radioactive is Our Ocean?)


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

So it's a million this time, next time how much will it be??


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Here comes Godzilla . Do you really think that is the worst that countries have dumped in the sea?
PS CA went nuts long before we had nukes of any kind.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

I don't think that they have an answer for the problem, and they are going to be forced to dump water into the Pacific. They are over a barrel in Japan, and they have a problem that can't be solved.


----------



## mc3330803 (Aug 20, 2018)

Kauboy said:


> One million gallons sounds like a lot, and it's terrible.
> But let's compare it to the entire Pacific Ocean.
> The Pacific Ocean holds ~187 quintillion gallons of water.
> 
> ...


That's a really good point. Statistically its insignificant, but in real terms its not good.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I've read information that would indicate things are bad in the Pacific and other articles that suggest not. This semi-educated white boy from South Alabama is going to stick to fish from the Gulf of Mexico. Just to be safe.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

I eat salmon once or twice a week. I was told to stay away from farm raised fish. They're supposedly loaded with antibiotics. Nothin' simple anymore.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

hawgrider said:


> Its been glowing since the tsunami trashed the nuke plant over there. All that drifted to the west coast. No wonder Californians have lost their minds. So after this batch is consumed some of us will turn into mutants... swell!


Crazy ass wide eyed liberal mutants from California? Are we sure it's the water? :tango_face_grin:


----------



## Lunatic Wrench (May 13, 2018)

Everytime I hear someone talk about nuclear power as a clean energy, I feel the need to grab a shovel and slap the stupid out of them.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Lunatic Wrench said:


> Everytime I hear someone talk about nuclear power as a clean energy, I feel the need to grab a shovel and slap the stupid out of them.


Comparatively speaking, it is.
Even when you account for ALL of the nuclear disasters that have happened at various plants around the world, and compare it to every other type of mass produced energy, it still wins by far.
We just really don't like the idea of radiation in our wildlife, so it stirs a strong emotion.
We seem to accept all of the disastrous consequences of the other energy types without much fuss.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Kauboy said:


> Comparatively speaking, it is.
> Even when you account for ALL of the nuclear disasters that have happened at various plants around the world, and compare it to every other type of mass produced energy, it still wins by far.
> We just really don't like the idea of radiation in our wildlife, so it stirs a strong emotion.
> We seem to accept all of the disastrous consequences of the other energy types without much fuss.


This is why a fairly even mix is required: by the time our burning coal and fossil fuels blots out the sun, we will all be glowing in the dark and still able to navigate.


----------



## Lunatic Wrench (May 13, 2018)

Kauboy said:


> Comparatively speaking, it is.
> Even when you account for ALL of the nuclear disasters that have happened at various plants around the world, and compare it to every other type of mass produced energy, it still wins by far.
> We just really don't like the idea of radiation in our wildlife, so it stirs a strong emotion.
> We seem to accept all of the disastrous consequences of the other energy types without much fuss.


I acknowledge you point, and don't disagree with it.
I think the consequences are faster and more divistating at a more immediate time frame for nuclear.
I also prefer the by products of my energy source doesn't make my food, or anything else for the matter, glow in the dark, or my skin fall off, or liquify my innards, or my hair fall out seeing I'm more then a 1/2 century old and still have it all.


----------

