Fish Fertilizer and saving fish stock

Strange thought entered my mind concerning the tragedy in Japan. With the higher levers do radiation entering the ocean. With this make the fish unsuitable for harvesting and will this enable the fish populations to have a long respite ? Anyone know about the ramifications ?

Reply to
Bill who putters
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
Steve Peek

The way they fish now, there is a lot of collateral damage. It's the collateral damage that ends up in fish emulsion. I'd buy organic.

As for the marketable fish, as is already the case, predator fish concentrate the most toxins, be it PCBs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or strontium-90.

In my conspiratorial outlook, I doubt the government would tell us anything, if it was low level chronic exposure. If it was acute poisoning, and instantly caused you to drop stone dean, they would probably put out a PSA advising prudence and cautioning against excessive consumption.

Bush's 3rd term: Obama

Reply to
Billy

Obviously, since this has never happened before, no one knows the ramifications. Duh.

Reply to
Thos

Probably not. The ocean is too big so dilution works. The isotopes have short enough halflives that the radiation will fade very quickly. The current situation is a huge mess but the effects will remain more local than what happened at Chernobyl. There will be more of a move farther away from shore by Japanese fishermen but that's nothing new - They are hunting whales in the Antarctic Ocean already now.

Approaches that work for DDT and mercury will work exactly the same way for the small amounts of long life isotopes - Eat lower on the food chain. Plant eating fish over predator fish, squid over fish, small critters over large critters. Conveniently this approach also helps fish populations.

Far more likely to have impact on land industry than sea industry. No shift from fossil fuel to nuclear so increased strip mining in coal belts. Increased CO2 release. And no change in the exponential growth curve of installed solar cells so the good promise on that front is not effected. Given how industrious the Japanese have been in the past they will recover, rebuild and be back near the top sooner than most expect.

Reply to
Doug Freyburger

Old news but be sure to look at the radio nuclide issues down in the article. Deals with increase of back ground radiation.

formatting link

Reply to
Bill who putters

So, are you better off now than you were 10 years ago? Are you better off now than you were 30 years ago, when we were introduced to the "Laugher's Curve"?

Me neither.

Reply to
Billy

What is the "Laughers Curve" ?

Reply to
Bill who putters

Except for Iodine-131 (8.02 days), most of the rest have half lives of

30 years and up.

I don't share your optimism.

All countries are trying to lock up energy sources, for their own benefit, and as a cudgel against others.

Jobs Not Guns.

Reply to
Billy

It's the economic joke that Reagan pulled on the U.S. Sometimes spelled by the less humorous as "Laffers Curve", it is supposed to justify "Trickle Down" economics, a.k.a. "VooDoo economics". The theory was that there was an optimum level that would generate the most revenue. The irony is that America was at its most prosperous between 1947 and 1964 when progressive tax rates went as high as 91% to 70%.

Bush's 3rd term: Obama

If you like weekends (8 hr./day & 40 hr./week), then thank a labor union. They paid for it in blood.

Jobs not Wars ===

Reply to
Billy

...

c'mon, i expect more brains from you billy.

study a small amount of history and note that the USoA from 1945 on was perhaps the only major industrial country that didn't suffer damage to it's manufacturing infrastructure.

given the state of the rest of the world we had no place to go but up. you can tax that sort of system heavily and not kill it. taxing a weak growth system (like we have now) with many other issues and it's not going to perform very well.

songbird

Reply to
songbird

And government spending was 10% of now.

Reply to
DogDiesel

Neither do I . I'm betting Japan within 50 miles of the reactor will never be rehabitated. As of right now. They have already said some cities are off limits for " tens of years " A big typhoon could wipe the whole island out. With radiation. The problem is ingestion of radioactive particles. . Not radiation levels from the air or background. As the news is telling you. Radiation levels are irrelevant. Ingest the smallest particle and its a guarantee of something bad. it will go somewhere in your body and do damage. The US is completely covered. They are dumping it (water ) in the ocean. And cant stop it. The water solution was a waste of time and foolish. It didn't cool anything. Because its just sitting there. They are talking about the concrete solution which may or may not work. Its more likely to explode. MOX cant never get away from you .You cant ever let it get away. There is no way to stop it. Its under there , melted down. Molten with the concrete. If its not in the earth. The politically correct term "cracks" may mean its melted a hole in it. And you cant do nothing about it. They tried to plug it and its not working.

The only real solution is too put an A bomb in each reactor and blowing it off and hope it vaporizes the fuel. As screwed up as that sounds . It would be the best solution.

The japs are also arrogant and didn't want to lose face so they dragged ass .And used water. So as not to admit defeat. Radiation levels are trillions and trillions of times a safe level.

The fishing industry is hosed. Manufacturing is hosed. farming is hosed, The ocean is hosed. Toyota is hosed. They are in fact. finished.

Reply to
DogDiesel

And Europe and Asia was rebuilding their nations and buying lots of US made goods during the post war years. I see the world and within the US as a zero sum game. Others misery is a blessing to others. However, the planets resources is past the breaking point so I see greater misery for many.

Now I will double and triple check my sources of vitamins. Fish and fish oils vitamins from the North Atlantic will be my first choice. Many vitamin manufactures are from Japan.

Reply to
Nad R

NOOOOO!!!!! Each of those reactors have about one hundred tons of spent fuel rods. That is equivalent, I read somewhere, to 400 Hiroshima's radioactive material.

Let's just hope those mega concrete pump trucks the US gave Japan can bury the the things. However I see TEMPCO CEO's as bad as BP CEO's... Reckless and belong in prison.

Reply to
Nad R

Woods Hole Chimes in.

formatting link
................................

Impact of radiation from Japan: Woods Hole expert answers your questions

March 29, 2011 " Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

On March 11, 2011 a magnitude 9.0 earthquake one of the largest ever recorded, occurred 80 miles off the coast of Japan. The earthquake created a series of tsunamis, the largest estimated to be over 30-feet, that swept ashore along the northeast coast of the main island, Honshu. In addition to killing more than 9,000 people, the earthquake and tsunamis badly damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, eventually causing four of the six reactors there to release radiation into the atmosphere and ocean.

What is being released from the Fukushima reactors and how dangerous is it? So far, we know that releases from the Fukushima reactors have been primarily composed of two radioactive substances: iodine-131 and cesium-137. In large doses, both of these isotopes or radionuclides, as they are called, can cause long-term health problems. So far, however, only those working at the plant face the most serious exposure.

More about iodine-131 and cesium-137

Are there different types of radiation? In general, there are two types of radiation, ionizing and non-ionizing. Non-ionizing radiation includes visible light and radio waves things that, as the name implies, do not have the ability to form charged ions in other materials. Ionizing radiation, however, can and as a result presents a serious health threat because it can alter the atomic structure of living tissue. Ionizing radiation also comes in several different types, including alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, all with different degrees of concern and health impacts.

More about types of radiation

How long is the radiation from these substances a risk to humans and the environment? Radioactive materials are, by their very nature, unstable and decline in strength over time. This change is measured in half-lives the length of time it takes for the radiation to decrease by one-half. Every radioactive substance has a different half-life, ranging from fractions of a second to billions of years. Those with longer half-lives are potentially more difficult to deal with because they remain radioactive for longer periods of time. Cesium-137, for example, has a half-life of

30 years and so is a potentially serious health threat for decades or centuries. Iodine-131, on the other hand, has a half-life of just 8 days and so loses much of its potency after just days and effectively disappears after one to two months.

More about half-lives

How far can radiation travel? Ionizing radiation itself cannot travel very far through the air. Typically, dust and other particles, seawater and other liquids, or even gases become radioactive due to exposure to radionuclides and are then transported great distances. In the months and years after the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine scientists were able to track the spread of radioactive material in the atmosphere and the ocean around the globe. Within a week after the explosions at the Fukushima plant, there were reports of very small increases in the continental U.S.

More about mapping and monitoring radiation from Japan

What is the normal background level of radiation? The normal background level of radiation is different for different places on the planet. Radiation in some places is higher because these receive less of the natural protection offered by Earth s atmosphere or because they are in places where the surrounding rocks contain more radioactive substances, such as radon. In the ocean, the largest source of radiation comes from naturally occurring substances such as potassium-40 and uranium-238, which are found at levels 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than any human sources of radiation (see illustration). The largest human release of radionuclides was the result of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests carried out by the U.S., French and British during the 1950s and 60s. Despite even the high concentration of nuclear fallout in the Pacific caused by U.S. tests on the Marshall Islands, there is no known adverse health effect associated with eating seafood from the Pacific.

More about natural background radiation

If there are warnings in Japan about eating certain products contaminated by radiation, why is it safe to eat the seafood? Except for the vicinity of the reactors, seafood and other products taken from the sea should be safe for human consumption. Radiation levels in seafood should continue to be monitored, of course, but radiation in the ocean will very quickly become diluted and should not be a problem beyond the coast of Japan. The same is true of radiation carried by winds around the globe. However, crops and other vegetation near the reactor site (including grass that cows eat to produce milk) that receive fallout from the atmosphere build up radioactivity can remain contaminated even if washed. When these foods are consumed, a person receives much of this dose internally, often a more severe pathway to receive radiation than by external exposure.

More about radiation and food safety

How does radiation released from the Japanese reactors compare to the accident at Chernobyl? We still don t know exactly how much radiation was released at Fukushima or how much will ultimately be released before the reactors are fully contained. The Chernobyl accident was much more violent and resulted in a complete breach of the reactor vessel. The event also started a very hot graphite fire that released large amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere equivalent to between 3 and 5 percent of the total reactor inventory. Winds carried the radioactive fallout first to the north and eventually into the Black Sea to the south. Radiation in the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, though elevated, remained well below EPA guidelines for radiation in drinking water.

More about the after-effects of Chernobyl

How will the radioactive material released in Japan affect humans? It s still too early to tell, but unless we learn that the type or amount of material released is larger than reported or changes dramatically it will likely have significant long-term impacts only within a few miles or tens of miles from the plant. This is because the further the radioactive material travels, the more dispersed (and the less harmful) it becomes. The effects of Chernobyl were felt well beyond Ukraine in part because the amount of radioactive material released was large and because it also included substances such as plutonium that have very long half-lives. That being said, people who live near the plants would be wise to follow the minimum safe distance restrictions and other precautions recommended by the Japanese government and at-risk individuals should take suggested extra precautions such as taking potassium iodide to avoid thyroid problems.

More about radiation in the environment

Is there any danger to people in other parts of the world? Prevailing winds over from Japan blow east towards North America; ocean currents in the region also flow generally east into the North Pacific, though much slower than winds. However, radioactive materials carried by winds or currents will be quickly diluted until the radiation falls below background levels. Unless radioactivity from Fukushima finds its way directly to another part of the world through food or other commercial products, it should become sufficiently dispersed over time that it will not prove to be a serious health threat elsewhere. Over time, the radioactivity associated with the Fukushima plant should continue to decline even further. In particular, radiation from iodine-131 will decay very quickly, but even the effects of the much longer-lived cesium-137 will decline in strength. Today, people who eat seafood from the Black Sea, which received a considerable amount of fallout from Chernobyl (see map), consume a dose of cesium-137 that is

100 times below the one provided by a naturally occurring radionuclide, polonium-210, that is not considered harmful to animals or humans.

More about the environmental health effects of radiation

Why is this event of interest to oceanographers? Oceanographers use substances called tracers to study the path and rate of ocean currents and of processes such as mixing that are important parts of the global ocean and climate systems. There are many different radionuclides that scientists use as "clocks" to measure how fast the ocean mixes and sediment accumulates on the seafloor. Some of these substances are natural, but many are the result of human activity, such as the Chernobyl accident or nuclear weapons testing, and now releases at Fukushima.

More about radioactive tracers in the ocean

Reply to
Bill who putters

I make it 2%: '56-$76.0B/'10-$3,591.1B

Obama's rescue plan is likely to cost at least $700 billion - and that would push Uncle Sam's bailouts near $8 trillion. January 6, 2009

Reply to
Billy

Thanks again, Bill.

"The best fertilizer is the gardener's shadow." - Anon

--

Reply to
Billy

Just wish the worlds media would address issues like this.

These days we have to identify the question and try to find a source that could address possible further study. Whew!

Here is a rainy day search engine............

Reply to
Bill who putters

One topic still to be learned is how much of what got onto the land. In the long run that will be worse than what is being leached into the ocean.

I figure some of those workers will die, likely many of them. Heroes of the most amazing sort who have a lot of time to reflect on the outcome who go in anyways.

This is why it's so important to have potasium iodide on hand if you live near reactors. But wait until the prices drops again. It's cheap when the demand is low.

That's 25 years later in a body of water much smaller than the Pacific. It's why I suggested there won't be much impact on fishing.

I was careful to not make an advance judgment about radiation release on the land. We know it will be orders of magnitude lower than Chernobyl. It will still be a mess to anyone not measuring it against Chernobyl.

The land effects remain unknown, not as bad as Chernobyl, and large. If I'm eating beef that might come from Japan I want to know where it was pastured.

Reply to
Doug Freyburger

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.