Nuclear contaminated Pacific
Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:56 PM
Canon 350D - Sea and Sea housed - 60mm - 10-17mm - twin YS90's ( currently lent to Louise )
Sony PC1000 Video - Ikelite housed - twin Nocturnal slx 800i lights
Posted 06 September 2013 - 09:10 PM
I suspect you don't hear much because there is absolutely nothing that can be done, and Govts are not seeing a reason to panic people. There is already dangerous levels of radiation in tuna caught off of our west coast. All the people of the Pacific who rely on fish will suffer. Period. The saddest thing is that Fukushima is STILL spewing our huge amounts of contaminated water.
Posted 07 September 2013 - 12:17 AM
Yes, it's a disaster that everyone wishes hadn't happened but from my perspective I find such articles rather strong on one sided rhetoric and weak on actual facts; certainly any that are comparative with previous background radiation.
These articles appear to me to be a bit better balanced - but who knows.
Posted 07 September 2013 - 02:19 AM
The oceans are big, and radioactivity is easy to detect with the right instruments. It's easy to say where the radiation from Fukushima has gone, just as it was easy to say where the plume of radiation from Chernobyl, or the fallout from the Nevada test-sites went. It's much harder to say what the effect on wildlife, and the effect on people, will be. Certain radioisotopes are much nastier than other and some of them are concentrated in the food chain. Only a disciple of Dr Pangloss would take the nuclear industry's reassurances at face value, but only a soothsayer would say that the West coast of North America is doomed...
... I know of several PhDs written including data from radioisotopes tracked around the Irish Sea (from Sellafield in England) and the North Sea (from Dounreay in Scotland); the Irish Sea and the North Sea certainly suffer from vigorous plankton, but I haven't seen any mutants!