General Discussion

uppityperson

(115,957 posts)

2. I noticed you skipped an important part of the 1st sentence: But is likely to be harmless

Mon Oct 14, 2013, 07:30 PM

Oct 2013

The radioactive ocean plume from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant disaster will reach the shores of the US within three years from the date of the incident but is likely to be harmless according to new paper in the journal Deep-Sea Research 1.
(clip)
“However, people on those coastlines should not be concerned as the concentration of radioactive material quickly drops below World Health Organisation safety levels as soon as it leaves Japanese waters.”

Gee, I wonder why anyone would skip these 2 sentences?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

84 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Fukushima radioactive waters to hit US any day now [View all] RobertEarl Oct 2013 OP

Cool, grab the hot dogs mindwalker_i Oct 2013 #1

I noticed you skipped an important part of the 1st sentence: But is likely to be harmless uppityperson Oct 2013 #2

Can't do scaremongering and say "likely to be harmless" at the same time...nt SidDithers Oct 2013 #3

When it comes to Plutonium, there can't be enough 'scaremongering.' Octafish Oct 2013 #32

Damn you BFEE!!...nt SidDithers Oct 2013 #33

Funny how you never find anything wrong with the BFEE, SidDithers. Octafish Oct 2013 #35

One could get the impression RobertEarl Oct 2013 #39

Good for you RobertEarl Oct 2013 #5

So we are supposed to believe your link, except it is asinine? Huh? uppityperson Oct 2013 #7

Yes the WHO is asinine RobertEarl Oct 2013 #8

Not attacking you, just trying to figure out what you mean. Your linked article says "harmless" and uppityperson Oct 2013 #9

The messenger intentionally mangled the message pintobean Oct 2013 #11

Hello. Would you please answer, seeking clarification here. I won't insult or attack, just uppityperson Oct 2013 #18

I answered you RobertEarl Oct 2013 #20

Thank you. Is the Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science WHO? uppityperson Oct 2013 #21

I think you have a point, that can be made by the "tainted Tuna" recall Johnny Ready Oct 2013 #22

Reality is.... RobertEarl Oct 2013 #23

And here's what Woods Hole has to say: muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #31

"close to 1000 different isotopes"? List them muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #29

Thanks for bringing that up RobertEarl Oct 2013 #34

There is no such thing as harmless radiation ..... oldhippie Oct 2013 #15

My old buddy the non-hippie RobertEarl Oct 2013 #17

Hi, Robert, good to see you again! oldhippie Oct 2013 #19

Have you noticed? RobertEarl Oct 2013 #25

That's why I miss you so much over there ...... oldhippie Oct 2013 #26

Well, I don't find you funny RobertEarl Oct 2013 #28

"He is so over-the-top about it that he has been banned from the Environment and Energy group." zappaman Oct 2013 #24

While it is likely to be mostly harmless, the thought of it is disgusting flamingdem Oct 2013 #4

Recent studies of Chernobyl have uncovered science squashing RobertEarl Oct 2013 #6

I am in agreement with you here. uppityperson Oct 2013 #10

So radium coated surf boards will light up a bit more than usual ...K00L L0oniX Oct 2013 #12

Not all ionizing radiation is the same. Alpha and beta particles are easily shielded against. Gravitycollapse Oct 2013 #13

Exactly RobertEarl Oct 2013 #14

I'm sure nobody has studied that yet ....... oldhippie Oct 2013 #16

Haven't seen any studies yet RobertEarl Oct 2013 #27

"over 1,000 elements"? muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #30

Perhaps the poster meant ''Isotopes.'' Octafish Oct 2013 #36

I made a mistake RobertEarl Oct 2013 #37

Did you see this on plutonium? Octafish Oct 2013 #56

I plead ignorance RobertEarl Oct 2013 #58

and 'isotopes' would be wrong too muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #38

True, I don't know much. I do know Fukushima's no laughing matter. Octafish Oct 2013 #41

What is it with you, mv? RobertEarl Oct 2013 #42

You haven't responded to #31 muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #44

You cover up well, mv RobertEarl Oct 2013 #48

The Woods Hole FAQ was last updated Aug 2013 muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #49

Updated in 2013? Links to west coast sampling? RobertEarl Oct 2013 #52

What I've read about the sea stars is local overpopulation leading to fast disease transmission, uppityperson Oct 2013 #53

is that a problem faced by Crown of Thorns? reddread Oct 2013 #73

I mean the ones up inside BC between Vancouver Isle and mainland that are uppityperson Oct 2013 #78

Again, you provide no links for your random claims muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #59

Actually I claim it is already here RobertEarl Oct 2013 #61

Your title: "to hit US any day now" muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #66

We have debris from Japan RobertEarl Oct 2013 #68

If you want some 'science': debris floats, so part of it is above the surface muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #71

Well said ...... oldhippie Oct 2013 #60

Again, oldie? RobertEarl Oct 2013 #62

I'm really sorry, but .... oldhippie Oct 2013 #63

You are no environmentalist, eh? RobertEarl Oct 2013 #65

Eh? oldhippie Oct 2013 #67

IDK about the releases from Fukushima... hootinholler Oct 2013 #40

That is a great app RobertEarl Oct 2013 #45

I'm not really sure about the radioactive water hootinholler Oct 2013 #50

Good questions, hoot RobertEarl Oct 2013 #54

Maybe the starfish deaths along the Northwest coast are related to it? Baitball Blogger Oct 2013 #43

We need real science RobertEarl Oct 2013 #46

You asking for real science is quite ironic. n/t zappaman Oct 2013 #47

Fukushima is here PROTESTS this weekend in SF Bennyboy Oct 2013 #51

Good to see, thanks bennyboy RobertEarl Oct 2013 #55

And it will be harmless. Thanks for the good news. nt. NCTraveler Oct 2013 #57

You mean it hasn't all boiled away yet from the radioactive heat? NickB79 Oct 2013 #64

OMG. You? Again? RobertEarl Oct 2013 #69

So, when one of the leading nuke critics on EE calls you a sockpuppet NickB79 Oct 2013 #70

Crushed!!... SidDithers Oct 2013 #74

Is that a fact? XemaSab Oct 2013 #75

Yes zappaman Oct 2013 #76

Well, maybe for a little while... SidDithers Oct 2013 #77

Look who is here, it's Xema RobertEarl Oct 2013 #80

Thank you for the links! zappaman Oct 2013 #72

You side with TEPCO and you write about another DUer's credibility? Octafish Oct 2013 #79

Was that response meant for me? NickB79 Oct 2013 #83

More bad news from the coast. RobertEarl Oct 2013 #81

I hope that the Canadian government flamingdem Oct 2013 #82

Do you really think this has to do with Fukushima? NickB79 Oct 2013 #84