Damage being done to the Pacifics eco-system due to the Fukushima incident

[overtone]

And yet you implied that I had done all of those things

Your calculations and arguments assumed several of those things, and their validity depends on that assumption being good enough.

 

There's nothing wrong with that approach - if it in fact these assumptions match reality closely enough. If Cesium in reality approximates Potassium closely enough in the relevant circumstances so that reassuring calculations and observations of Potassium inform us, for example, your observations of Potassium concentrations and bioaccumulations do in fact reassure.

 

Nobody knows, for sure, whether that is so. Hence the issues, which are many. (are millisieverts, which are cslibrated for particular biological setups, good units to use in measuring oceanic ecosystem rediation exposure, for example)

 

as for the rest of the list: I never implied that you said the background radiation in high radiation places was harmless, or that anyone said there was dose that was harmless. I was simply countering any possibility of a false impression from Moontanman's posting (as quoted) and yours b(indirectly) of natural areas and circumstances with similar or higher radiation than the average of the plume.

Edited March 18, 2015 by overtone

[pavelcherepan]

So it is, in fact, an assumption. You have some reasons ("actual facts") for making it (you think whatever the carrier element or isotope, we are safe in assuming it will behave in all the relevant organisms and ecosystems about as potassium behaves), and I have some reasons for casting doubt on it (the ocean, she is a complicated and poorly understood collection of beings, and this quite complex matter is a blank spot on the information map).

 

It's not an assumption. Both Caesium and Potassium reside in group 1 of periodic table and all elements of the same group of periodic table have very similar chemistry due to similar configuration of outer electrons.

 

A group or family is a vertical column in the periodic table. Groups usually have more significant periodic trends than periods and blocks, explained below. Modern quantum mechanical theories of atomic structure explain group trends by proposing that elements within the same group generally have the same electron configurations in their valence shell.

 

 

(are millisieverts, which are cslibrated for particular biological setups, good units to use in measuring oceanic ecosystem rediation exposure, for example)

 

No. Sievert is the unit of measuring effects of ionising radiation on a human body. You can't use it to measure effects on ecosystems.

Edited March 18, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[John Cuthber]

 

(are millisieverts, which are cslibrated for particular biological setups, good units to use in measuring oceanic ecosystem rediation exposure, for example)

 

Nobody did that, so it's yet another straw man.

Why not just stop?

[overtone]

It's not an assumption. Both Caesium and Potassium reside in group 1 of periodic table and all elements of the same group of periodic table have very similar chemistry due to similar configuration of outer electrons.

The assumption is that such similarity implies a relevant identity, a sufficient identity in the specific circumstances that obtain. Since these circumstances are complicated, complex, and largely unknown, that assumption is not completely and perfectly safe - agreed?

 

One can then make risk assessments, estimations of the safety of that assumption, at variance with those who dismiss risk from positions of obvious ignorance, without being harassed by the careless or illiterate beyond one correction, made politely. One would hope. On a science forum.

 

 

 

\(are millisieverts, which are cslibrated for particular biological setups, good units to use in measuring oceanic ecosystem rediation exposure, for example) No. Sievert is the unit of measuring effects of ionising radiation on a human body. You can't use it to measure effects on ecosystems.

Which means "Yes", not "No", if you quote the complete post and context. You are agreeing with my point.

 

Nobody did that, so it's yet another straw man.

As you can read in, for example, post 21, people are posting dismissals of risk in this thread,

 

the thread topic and reference of every post here being risk of damage to the Pacific ecosystem and its consequences ,

 

based on calculations in milliseiverts.

 

Your claim that "nobody did that" is in error, along with every other claim of "strawman" in this thread. You are failing to follow an argument, which is ok, and dealing insult from your mistaken position, which is not.

 

Edit in: note, in the posts of those arguing for an assumption of low Pacific ecosystem risk, highlighted in the latest glib dismissal and reassurance,

 

(accompanied by the ritual disparagement of the adept-presumed non-adept by the self-presumed adepts, completely typical of this kind of technological matter)

 

the difficulties posed by the absence of a unit such as the Seivert for measuring even a small part of the Pacific ecosystem risk. That is a hint, or clue, to the sheer size of the information void and arena of ignorance involved. The Seivert is imperfect, and has its problems, but nothing like those posed by the absence of the knowledge base necessary to establish such a unit.

Edited March 18, 2015 by overtone

[Strange]

As you can read in, for example, post 21, people are posting dismissals of risk in this thread

 

Post 21 says absolutely nothing about the risks in this thread.

[overtone]

Post 21 says absolutely nothing about the risks in this thread.

Really? Its dismissive tone and role. its agreement (by direct post reference) with the notions of "hype" and disproportionate focus (the dead from the wave) posted earlier in clear disparagement of those worried over much about the potential damage from Fukushima, escaped you?

 

One of the issues I have with the faux-tech dismissal of ecosystem risk from Fukushima is its employment of such methods - visible here in posts that dismiss the risk and disparage the worried while pretending to say "absolutely nothing" about the entire context in which they are put forward. Wrapping the mantle of science around such techniques is a mistake, on several grounds.

 

edit in: Note the pattern thereby continued, beginning with the initial faux-tech response to the bad news from Fukushima: experts on TV spending most of their screen time talking about the difference between a power plant and a bomb, and reassuring everyone that Fukushima could not explode like an atomic bomb; later with official reassurances that the single one, then two, reactors in trouble were not like Chernobyl; later with reassurances that the total leakage from the plants was small compared with the Pacific Ocean or the land area of Japan or the total amount of radiation normally surrounding us in various circumstances or the like.

 

Irrelevancies all. Of course.

Edited March 18, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

"The assumption is that such similarity implies a relevant identity"

No it does not.

"One can then make risk assessments, estimations of the safety of that assumption, at variance with those who dismiss risk from positions of obvious ignorance,"

Ad hom

"without being harassed "

Unsupported slanderous allegation.

"by the careless or illiterate "

Another ad hom

"Which means "Yes", not "No", if you quote the complete post and context."

Ok, lets have a look at that context.

Someone asked (explicitly) about the effect of Cs dispersal on dry land.

I gave an estimate of the dose that someone might get there in Sv.

Someone cited some places, also on land where the background levels were high and they cited doses in Sv.

And your context was "(are millisieverts, which are cslibrated for particular biological setups, good units to use in measuring oceanic ecosystem rediation exposure, for example)"

which is plainly , at best, irrelevant

 

"As you can read in, for example, post 21, people are posting dismissals of risk in this thread,"

As pointed out; no they are not.

 

"based on calculations in milliseiverts."

Nope, the only calculation I did in mSv (rather roughly- but I did point that out) was for a scenario that was explicitly stated to be on land- Central park to be exact.

 

"Your claim that "nobody did that" is in error,"

Prove it.

Show where someone did.

 

" That is a hint, or clue, to the sheer size of the information void and arena of ignorance involved. "

Another ad hom.

 

Incidentally, you seem to be upset that I'm treating all beta and gamma emitters the same.

Are you aware that I'm in good company?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#Radiation_type_weighting_factor_WR

Edited March 18, 2015 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

 

 

" That is a hint, or clue, to the sheer size of the information void and arena of ignorance involved. "

Another ad hom.

There is no ad hominem there. There are no other ad hominems in any post of mine, anywhere on this forum, let alone thread. None of that stuff you are so labeling is ad hominem argument, any more than its predecessors in illiterate disparagement by you were strawmen.

 

"As you can read in, for example, post 21, people are posting dismissals of risk in this thread,"

As pointed out; no they are not.

Yes, they are. On this thread, and everywhere else they appear.

I'm calling that stuff, because I object to it - the deployment of irrelevancies for disparagement of critics and false reassurance of the public in these kinds of situations (nuclear power, GMOs, fossil fuel extraction, CO2 and other waste accumulation, anywhere money attracts marketing to a new and high tech field) is unethical.

[Strange]

Really? Its dismissive tone and role. its agreement (by direct post reference) with the notions of "hype" and disproportionate focus (the dead from the wave) posted earlier in clear disparagement of those worried over much about the potential damage from Fukushima, escaped you?

 

You think it is disporportionate to be upset about 16,000 deaths, which might include people I know, who I haven't heard from since the disaster?

 

I know you are in the "Aaarrghhh! Radiation!!" crowd but your attitude is pretty sick and offensive. And I will ignore this thread from now on.

 

 

One of the issues I have with the faux-tech dismissal of ecosystem risk from Fukushima is its employment of such methods

 

And yet your responses to the objective data consist of hysterical straw-man arguments.

 

 

experts on TV spending most of their screen time talking about the difference between a power plant and a bomb

 

Maybe you should go into business selling your straw men as scarecrows.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

There is no ad hominem there. There are no other ad hominems in any post of mine, anywhere on this forum, let alone thread. None of that stuff you are so labeling is ad hominem argument, any more than its predecessors in illiterate disparagement by you were strawmen.

 

Yes, they are. On this thread, and everywhere else they appear.

I'm calling that stuff, because I object to it - the deployment of irrelevancies for disparagement of critics and false reassurance of the public in these kinds of situations (nuclear power, GMOs, fossil fuel extraction, CO2 and other waste accumulation, anywhere money attracts marketing to a new and high tech field) is unethical.

 

Do you realise that, if you actually point out where I said the things you say I did, then you will win the argument and make me look an idiot?

All it would take was a bit of quoting.

Why not try it?

Are you scared?

Incidentally, calling those who disagree with you ignorant is an ad hom.

[overtone]

I know you are in the "Aaarrghhh! Radiation!!" crowd but your attitude is pretty sick and offensive

I'm going to take that, and the rest of that garbage post, as clear demonstration of my point, regarding the deployment of these irrelevancies.

 

The one beginning thus:

"the deployment of irrelevancies for disparagement of critics and false reassurance of the public in these kinds of situations . "

 

That's their role, these irrelevant matters. And there is an ethical issue involved. How long are we supposed to accept the good faith of people who suddenly can't identify the assumptions in their own simple, straightforward argument? Who can't look up "straw man" or "ad hominem" in a dictionary, if they've forgotten?

Edited March 18, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

I'm going to take that, and the rest of that garbage post, as clear demonstration of my point, regarding the deployment of these irrelevancies.

 

The one beginning thus:

 

the deployment of irrelevancies for disparagement of critics and false reassurance of the public in these kinds of situations .

 

That's their role, these irrelevant matters. And there is an ethical issue involved. How long are we supposed to accept the good faith of people who suddenly can't identify the assumptions in a simple, straightforward argument? Who can't look up "straw man" or "ad hominem" in a dictionary, if they've forgotten?

 

Do you realise that, if you actually point out where I said the things you say I did, then you will win the argument and make me look an idiot?

All it would take was a bit of quoting.

Why not try it?

Are you scared?

[overtone]

Do you realise that, if you actually point out where I said the things you say I did, then you will win the argument and make me look an idiot?

For starters, I'm not claiming you said the things you say I said you said. So there's nothing to point out, no such argument as you want to create out of your bullshit and illiteracy, and I'm not chasing your every rabbit.

 

There's a thread, with a topic. Try it.

 

 

 

 

Incidentally, calling those who disagree with you ignorant is an ad hom

1) I didn't. I called everybody ignorant. Myself included. You have had extraordinary trouble following the argument, here. 2) It wouldn't be anyway. That's not what ad hominem means. It is not a synonym for insult.

 

edit in:

 

Why not try it?

Are you scared?

So I can simply refer to this pattern, the role of these irrelevancies, as a given, well and solidly demonstrated on this thread - agreed?

Edited March 18, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

OK, prove what you did say.

 

This seems to be a pretty clear claim

" 2) Why are you assuming the concentration is even throughout the plume? "

prove it.

Edited March 18, 2015 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

" 2) Why are you assuming the concentration is even throughout the plume? "

prove it.

Prove that your argument as responded to in that post depends on an assumption of even distribution?

Among the several posts of yours riding on that assumption, I quoted one, explicitly labeled a "presumption" by you, in the exact post you reference, two sentences before. Here it is again:

 

I presume that, since the life in the ocean is used to the radiation present, adding a percent or so to it won't make much difference.

Do you think that there's some means by which the biology can cope with 6200 Bq/tonne, but not 6300?

That is exactly and specifically and explicitly what I was responding to.

Edited March 18, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

You said "Why are you assuming the concentration is even throughout the plume? "

I didn't make that assumption.

So that's a strawman.

Unless you can show that I did assume the concentration was even.

In reality I made no such assumption.

What I actually said was "Almost all of it is less than 100 Bq/m^3"

Which implies that I knew the concentration varied.

 

There is, of course nothing wrong with making assumptions.

As you say, I did so; and I said that I did so.

[overtone]

 

 

Unless you can show that I did assume the concentration was even.

When you calculated the concentration and posted it as relevant here, and compared the existing concentration to the new one as a relevant comparison, you made that assumption.

 

You can't get that number, or ask that question about it, any other way.

 

You can't ask whether adding a small percentage to the concentration would make any difference, without assuming the percentage addition and the concentration are meaningful single numbers - which they are not, if in reality they vary too much. I already noted that, in an earlier post.

[John Cuthber]

Nope, I can make a meaningful comparison between the background and an upper bound to the contamination level. If the highest levels of contamination are a lot less than the background it is reasonable to say that any effect is small.

I remind you that what I said at the outset was "Almost all of it is less than 100 Bq/m^3"

So, As I have pointed out repeatedly, your assertion is a strawman.

I never said the levels in the plume were "even throughout the plume".

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you are doing a PR job for the nuclear industry. You seem to me to be discrediting those who are opposed to nuclear power by putting forward such a poor argument.

Edited March 18, 2015 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

If the highest levels of contamination are a lot less than the background it is reasonable to say that any effect is small.

But you do not know what the highest levels of contamination experienced by the relevant ecosystems were, or are. Nobody does.

 

And you do not know how much of a change from the background is consequential, in the many and varied parts of the relevant ecosystems. Nobody does.

 

And you do not know whether the new and different extra exposure is directly summable, whether this contamination from different isotopes of different elements can be simply added to the background as it were more of the same. Nobody does.

 

 

 

 

I never said the levels in the plume were "even throughout the plume".

And I never said you did. I said you assumed it, in your argument. Which you did. Your entire reassurance depends on it: everything you have posted in dismissal of the likelihood of ocean ecosystem damage from Fukushima, depends on an intuitive presumption of harmlessness in low average concentrations of Fukushima contaminants.

 

One would hope that if you had actually typed that assumption, explicitly in so many words, and then read it, you would have amended your argument yourself. But better late than never - now is not too soon.

Edited March 18, 2015 by overtone

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

The assumption is that such similarity implies a relevant identity, a sufficient identity in the specific circumstances that obtain. Since these circumstances are complicated, complex, and largely unknown, that assumption is not completely and perfectly safe - agreed?

One can then make risk assessments, estimations of the safety of that assumption, at variance with those who dismiss risk from positions of obvious ignorance, without being harassed by the careless or illiterate beyond one correction, made politely. One would hope. On a science forum.

 

This 'assumption' you're referring to is based on some actual facts. Caesium and potassium share the same configuration of outer electrons 6s1 and 4s1, respectively. They also have pretty similar covalent radii: 2.44*10^-10 m and 2.03*10^-10 m, respectively (compare that to sodium, for example with 1.66*10^-10). If you look at Van der Waals radii of these atoms , those are also quite close 3.43*10^-10 and 2.75*10^-10 m. This generally means that Caesium is capable of replacing Potassium in majority of chemical compounds and crystal structures.

 

Here's also a quote for you:

 

 

 

The biological behavior of caesium is similar to that of potassium and rubidium. After entering the body, caesium gets more or less uniformly distributed throughout the body, with the highest concentrations in soft tissue.

 

Also, you might want to check this paper on Physiology of Rubidium and Cesium or this abstract on accumulation of caesium by microorganisms.

 

P.S. I'm not quite sure how I managed to harass you, but if I did, you have my apologies.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

overtone

 

Characterising another member as speaking from a position of obvious ignorance, and being careless and illiterate is unacceptable. You have been warned and suspended in the past and you will not be warned again - if you continue to insult other members sanctions will follow.

 

...

One can then make risk assessments, estimations of the safety of that assumption, at variance with those who dismiss risk from positions of obvious ignorance, without being harassed by the careless or illiterate beyond one correction, made politely. One would hope. On a science forum.

 

...

 

Which means "Yes", not "No", if you quote the complete post and context. You are agreeing with my point.

/...

 

The point on moderating your language and attitude to fellow members is non-negotiable.

 

However, on a more substantive note; this is clearly a matter that you feel impassioned about - but you are letting this cloud your reason and lashing out at all comments and members who are foolish enough to question your assertions. Please allow for the possibility that other members have rational and evidenced opinions that do not coincide with yours.

 

Do NOT respond to this moderation in the thread.

 

[overtone]

This 'assumption' you're referring to is based on some actual facts

Why yes. I am still, as always before, in perfect agreement with that observation.

 

The assumption involved, the one based on the actual facts, is that none of the differences in chemical activity or radiation emission between cesium and potassium are significant in the the current context - which is assessing the risk of Fukushima's contamination to the ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean in contact with it. As long as one is comfortable with that assumption, the completely accurate observation that the ocean is full of potassium now and without apparent ill effect is reassuring, in that the risks of the cesium content in the Fukushima contamination plumes would then be much reduced.

 

The difficulty I have in being comfortable with that assumption is that I, along with the rest of the planet's curious except for the posters here, don't know very much about the ecosystems in question, the effects of exposure to radioactive cesium in the apparently (again, to us, not the posters here) possible passing plume concentrations on these poorly researched and quite complex communities of beings, and so forth. We don't even have a solid handle on what the actual exposure regimes have been, or where large fractions of the emitted contaminants have gone. We have large gaps in our information, and do not feel comfortable making such assumptions in such a condition of ignorance - the examples of TMI, Chernobyl, and other directly similar situations, as well as general situations of general similarity in state of information etc, warn us against glibly reassuring ourselves without knowing what we are talking about.

 

So is it OK if we, the ignorant people out here in the world, avoid making the assumptions that the ever so much better informed posters here find so completely justified as to need no argument?

 

We might even go on to speculate, in our benighted state of confusion, about worst case scenarios and particular areas of potential trouble that seem to us to be worth checking out, in a thread on a science forum devoted to that topic - just in case, you know?

 

illustration of what reminds us ignorant folk, so unlike the posters here, of the quirks of the universe: from Wiki:

 

 

Radiocaesium follows potassium and tends to accumulate in plant tissues, including fruits and vegetables.^{[107][108][109]} Plants absorb caesium differently, some do not absorb it much, and some take it large amounts, sometimes displaying great resistance to it. It is also well-documented that mushrooms from contaminated forests accumulate radiocaesium (caesium-137) in their fungal sporocarps.

 

 

and comparing: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20334900

 

and kindly provided from the second of these

 

Also, you might want to check this paper on Physiology of Rubidium and Cesium or this abstract on accumulation of caesium by microorganisms.

we notice from the summary immediately:

 

 

although certain internal structures, e.g. ribosomes, become unstable in the presence of Cs+ and Cs+ is known to substitute poorly for K+ in the activation of many K+-requiring enzymes.

 

and looking around:

 

Potassium concentrations increased in the order: bulk soil<rhizosphere<fungal mycelium<soil-root interface<fungal sporocarps; and Rb concentration in the order: bulk soil<rhizosphere<soil-root interface<fungal mycelium<fungal sporocarps. Caesium was more or less evenly distributed within the bulk soil, rhizosphere and soil-root interface fractions, but was actively accumulated by fungi. Fungi showed a greater preference for Rb and K than Cs, so the uptake of (137)Cs could be prevented by providing additional Rb or K at contaminated sites.

from here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.2478%2Fs13545-011-0023-6#page-2

 

we can't help but notice that cesium and potassium are not, apparently, biologically interchangeable in all circumstances. We also notice that fungi - clearly capable of selective uptake and/or rejection of cesium - are among the least studied types of marine organisms.

 

meanwhile:

 

What’s puzzling to Fisher, Buesseler, and many other scientists is the persistence of these low but significant levels of radioactivity in the ocean. Jota Kanda, an oceanographer at the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, has extensively studied coastal waters off Fukushima and calculated the amount of cesium still present in coastal waters shallower than 200 meters (660 feet) and in sediments on the seafloor. By his reckoning, what remains is less than three percent of the total discharge, with the rest long since flushed out to the open ocean.

Yet levels of the cesium radioisotopes are still being measured at several tens to hundreds of becquerels per cubic meter in this area, Kanda noted, considerably higher than the levels prior to the Fukushima disaster. More importantly, levels measured in coastal sediments and in some species of fish are higher than those in the surrounding water.

As Kanda sees it, there are three sources responsible for this stubborn presence. One is river runoff—the fallout washed by rainfall into nearby rivers that drain to the sea. He also suggested that a small amount of contaminated water from basement compartments in the reaction unit housing is continuing to leak from the plant itself. But the biggest culprit—the only plausible explanation for the steady levels of radioactive cesium being measured in fish tissue—is continuous input through a food source. And that, he said, points to sediments.

Kanda has estimated that a total of 95 terabecquerels of cesium (10¹² becquerels) is present in coastal sediments. The question, he maintained, is how it got there. It could have drifted down to the seafloor in the fecal pellets of plankton that consumed it at the surface—and in fact, plankton in shallow waters sometimes showed elevated levels of cesium. It could also be arriving with organic bits and pieces carried along by river water. It could have adhered to clay particles that came in contact with contaminated water; such radioactive cesium is tightly bound to clay particles and may not be easily transferred to marine life.

from http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/how-is-fukushimas-fallout-affecting-marine-life

Edited March 19, 2015 by overtone

[pavelcherepan]

overtone, I was just making a point that potassium and caesium are chemically similar and Cs could replace K in majority of chemical reactions. I do agree that in certain reactions organisms might show preference for Rb or K, but that doesn't change the underlying fact of chemical similarity between those and caesium.

 

Examples that you have provided above can be explained by either bioaccumulation or bioconcentration. Caesium has a biological half-life of around 70 days and so with long-term above normal Cs¹³⁷ concentrations in sea water it can easily be accumulated in vast amounts in a marine organism.

 

Also there are studies that show biomagnification of Cs in fish. This, for example.

 

So, in a nutshell, I didn't argue with you on these points. I'm not quite sure who you're arguing with.

 

 

 

we can't help but notice that cesium and potassium are not, apparently, biologically interchangeable in all circumstances.

 

I did not say that. I said 'in majority of chemical compounds and crystal structures'. If you feel an urge to paraphrase me, please do so without losing original meaning.

[John Cuthber]

But you do not know what the highest levels of contamination experienced by the relevant ecosystems were, or are. Nobody does.

 

 

 

And I never said you did. I said you assumed it, in your argument. Which you did.

The first of those is an attempt to "move the goalposts" from the plume being even (which it isn't and I never said it was).

Nice try, but it won't work.

 

The second simply isn't true. As I pointed out, what I did was say that even the worst case only produced a small relative change in the number of Bq/ m^3 .

By choosing to look at the worst case I made it clear that I didn't think the concentration was even.

What's really silly here is that you are trying to tell people that you knew what I thought better than I knew it myself.

Then I asked you if you thought that the small change made a difference.

Rather than answering ( a simple yes or no would have been good) you have been insulting people and strawmanning.

[overtone]

By choosing to look at the worst case I made it clear that I didn't think the concentration was even.

Nobody except you knows how uneven the concentration within the plume has been, could have been, or is.

 

Assuming such small variation for the "worst case" is assuming quite even concentration, throughout the extent of the plume in both time and space. I and the others considering this matter do not know enough to do that.

 

Nobody except you knows whether the small variation you describe would have consequences in some of the ecosystems involved, because nobody except you has the done the research on the many and largely unstudied ecosystems involved, in particular their response to such exposures.

 

And so forth. Just repeating myself - except not claiming ignorance on your part, per instruction.

 

 

So, in a nutshell, I didn't argue with you on these points. I'm not quite sure who you're arguing with.

I'm arguing with anyone who thinks they can assert a lack of ecological consequences, including damages, from ecosystem exposure to the contamination plume from Fukushima,

 

based on the lack of consequences from ambient concentrations of potassium etc,

 

without having made significant and debatable assumptions that those points cast into question.

 

The question of ecological harm from the Fukushima contamination is not dismissible without such assumptions, given our (mine and those like me) current state of knowledge. It is a real question, with serious implications, for us.

 

As noted above, there are other questions of this kind connected with that tsunami - about the huge amounts of industrial waste and debris taken into the ocean, for starters. These questions are more pressing than the Fukushima plume, and probably more serious. But that does not invalidate the worries over Fukushima.

Edited March 19, 2015 by overtone