Fukushima - will there be a problem Alaska?

[Metlakatla]

Nothing unusual. If you're afraid of it, however, don't eat it.

I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'll find some "information" online about how some crabber somewhere saw a crab with 10 legs or something.

[Metlakatla]

Here's some -- there are bloody tumors and such showing up in the seafood here.

https://www.davidwolfe.com/fukushima...-fish-seafood/

FWIW, I've never seen anything like what the alarmist POS clickbait above portrays.

ETA -- now for some real news, although I always hesitate to enter into this sort of conversation because it's very popular these days for people to simply dismiss what they don't want to hear as being some sort of conspiratorial cover-up.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/scie...ima-radiation/

For the third consecutive year, tests have found no radioactivity in Alaska seafood stemming from the 2011 tsunami and nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, state officials announced Monday.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said in a statement that seafood samples from Alaska waters in 2016 tested negative for three Fukushima-related radioactive isotopes: iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium-137. The findings for the tested species — including king, chum, sockeye and pink salmon, as well as halibut, pollock, sablefish, herring and Pacific cod — matched those from 2014 and 2015.

A couple of years ago, a family-owned Seattle based fishing company that fishes primarily in Alaskan waters had their catch tested because of customer concerns. There were traces of radiation in two different types of salmon, chum and pink.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/allyou...ima-radiation/

Of course, I would suggest to anyone who has concerns that they simply not eat it.

It would be nice to get some updates on whats going on in the Pacific now that the Fukushima reactor has pretty much completely melted down and the radiation levels are skyrocketing there.

Maybe start here. It's not as simple as your above statement makes it sound.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...own-180962050/

The material, however, remains safely within the outer containment vessel and only poses a risk within that protective barrier.

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by CAjerseychick

Ever since National Geographic got bought out... (taken over) I find its validity doubtful...

That article was written well before they were bought out. I shared similar concerns, but recent publications don't indicate any change in their approach that I can discern.

Here's an old NY Times article saying the same thing. No Global Risk Seen in Nuclear Waste in Oceans - NYTimes.com

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by CAjerseychick

Ever since National Geographic got bought out... (taken over) I find its validity doubtful.

Yet you post clickbait written by people in Third World countries for less than a penny per word on sites that only exist for ad revenue purposes.

[starlite9]

Radiation is neutralized by Sodium Chloride, (Salt) which slows and stop the atoms. Long story short, the Bikini atoll where they set off all the nukes is a place where you would figure there would be high radioactivity, there isn't in the ocean, but the land on the islands still has high radiation deposits all over it.

There is a special about it that was done and you can see it on YouTube, maybe later I will try to find it. But it explains why there isn't anything in the water. The radiation from Japan has two things going for it, one its salt water that the radiation cooling water is flowing into and second, the shear volume of the ocean will dissipate it as well to normal background levels.

That's the short version. Sad thing is that the land in Japan by the nuclear plant is toast for a lot of years. Should one of the Nuclear plants on the Great Lakes have a similar spill, fresh water doesn't do anything for the radiation and that will be a real problem for that region for years!

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by starlite9

That's the short version. Sad thing is that the land in Japan by the nuclear plant is toast for a lot of years. Should one of the Nuclear plants on the Great Lakes have a similar spill, fresh water doesn't do anything for the radiation and that will be a real problem for that region for years!

Fukishima didn't have a 'spill' - it had a meltdown after a 9.0 earthquake that is not possible in the Great Lakes area (because only megathrust quakes on plate boundaries are capable of such magnitudes, and of generating large tsunamis).