Jump to content

- - - - -

Nuclear contaminated Pacific

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 stewsmith


    Giant Squid

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1595 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southampton and Sinai
  • Interests:World travel
    winding Drew up

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:56 PM

I can't believe there has not been a thread started on this subject. It appears that the Japanese nuclear facility is in a terrible condition and high levels of contaminated water are entering the sea and heading towards the west coast of America. How long it will take for the true extent of the problem to be published I don't know, that is of course if it ever will be published. One thing is certain though, is that the Pacific Ocean is going to suffer.


Canon 5D MK2 - Sea and Sea housed - 17-40L 100mm - Sigma 15mm FE - twin YS250 pro's and gadgets galore




#2 MK2



  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cozumel

Posted 04 September 2013 - 06:25 AM

Myley Cyrus and the VMA Awards seems to be more important these days.....

Pelagic Visions Imaging

Blue H2O Cozumel Watersports



#3 AllisonFinch


    Manta Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Chapel Hill, NC
  • Interests:Caves, photos and long distance travel to dive.

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.


#4 Balrog


    Eagle Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poole UK

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.





#5 tdpriest


    Sperm Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Solihull, UK
  • Interests:Diving medicine, warm water, scenery...

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!



Plymouth 2011 039 HMS Scylla skeleton shrimps_1.jpg