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

[John Cuthber]

Yes, you did. Among other people.

 

Then you will have no problem quoting where I did so.

That is a presumption based partly on the aforementioned delusion of biochemical interchangeability, and partly on an assumption of radiation equivalence between the two (they are not identical emitters).

Actually, it's based mainly on the fact that there'as a lot more radioactivity in the water due to potassium, than due to caesium.

If there's a hundred times more beta particles from potassium then form caesium, then, unless the relative enrichment of caesium over potassium is a hundredfold then most of the radiation dose will still be from the natural background.

 

They don't need to be "identical" or anything close to it.

Pointing it out five times doesn't affect it, but it indicates that you don't understand it.

Edited May 9, 2015 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

Actually, it's based mainly on the fact that there'as a lot more radioactivity in the water due to potassium, than due to caesium.

 

" Given that, why not simply point out, during the meltdown, that the stuff that didn't hurt anything would be diluted to harmlessness, so there was no reason to be concerned about ecological damage in the first place?

That's your argument now. Why not make it then? "

 

 

 

If there's a hundred times more beta particles from potassium then form caesium, then, unless the relative enrichment of caesium over potassium is a hundredfold then most of the radiation dose will still be from the natural background.

So? You keep repeating that like it means something. It sounds as if you are estimating the cesium radiation risk from the current open water concentrations of cesium, and finding it to be low.

 

Beta particles from ambient water concentrations of cesium are not what most concerns anyone worried about ecosystem damage from Fukushima cesium exposure. As repeatedly pointed out, the cesium still dissolved in the open water of the plume is the stuff that probably hasn't hurt anything.

 

The cesium radiation dose of most ordinary ecosystem concern would be from cesium ingested and biochemically incorporated in some way. .

 

Now if you assume the potassium/cesium radiation is equivalent, and assume the cesium is handled biologically just like the potassium, and assume the hundredfold enrichment exposure never happened during the Fukushima meltdown emissions, and bioaccumulation never happened anywhere, and so forth and so on, you can sort of stretch from your illegitimate assumptions about the ambient exposure regime made from the plume dilution to some kind of provisional reassurance about the radiation damage to unknown or unstudied ecosystems in the Pacific - but you don't want to claim those assumptions any more, I thought. You've moved on, from posts like 62 [What I said was "Both will bioaccumulate to a similar extent ) because they have fairly similar chemistries."

- - -

"What we are talking about are two materials that are chemically fairly similar, tend to get mistaken for one another by biological systems and are both beta emitters." ] and 96 and so forth.

Edited May 10, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

" Given that, why not simply point out, during the meltdown, that the stuff that didn't hurt anything would be diluted to harmlessness, so there was no reason to be concerned about ecological damage in the first place?

That's your argument now. Why not make it then? "

 

 

 

So? You keep repeating that like it means something. It sounds as if you are estimating the cesium radiation risk from the current open water concentrations of cesium, and finding it to be low.

 

Beta particles from ambient water concentrations of cesium are not what most concerns anyone worried about ecosystem damage from Fukushima cesium exposure. As repeatedly pointed out, the cesium still dissolved in the open water of the plume is the stuff that probably hasn't hurt anything.

 

The cesium radiation dose of most ordinary ecosystem concern would be from cesium ingested and biochemically incorporated in some way. .

 

Now if you assume the potassium/cesium radiation is equivalent, and assume the cesium is handled biologically just like the potassium, and assume the hundredfold enrichment exposure never happened during the Fukushima meltdown emissions, and bioaccumulation never happened anywhere, and so forth and so on, you can sort of stretch from your illegitimate assumptions about the ambient exposure regime made from the plume dilution to some kind of provisional reassurance about the radiation damage to unknown or unstudied ecosystems in the Pacific - but you don't want to claim those assumptions any more, I thought. You've moved on, from posts like 62 [What I said was "Both will bioaccumulate to a similar extent ) because they have fairly similar chemistries."

- - -

"What we are talking about are two materials that are chemically fairly similar, tend to get mistaken for one another by biological systems and are both beta emitters." ] and 96 and so forth.

"" Given that, why not simply point out, during the meltdown, that the stuff that didn't hurt anything would be diluted to harmlessness, so there was no reason to be concerned about ecological damage in the first place?

That's your argument now. Why not make it then? " "

OK, the answer to that silly question is

Because there's a difference between short term and long term and also because people live in the vicinity of reactors, rather than the middle of the ocean.

 

"So? You keep repeating that like it means something. It sounds as if you are estimating the cesium radiation risk from the current open water concentrations of cesium, and finding it to be low. "

Yes and no.

It was measured and found to be low- you may remember that there was a picture of the distribution

It's about a hundred times less radioactive than the natural background and the ecosystem copes with the background so it will cope with this small increase.

The assumption I'm making is that a cell cannot tell if a beta particle has come from a potassium nucleus or from a caesium nucleus.

If you don't agree with that then please let us know what particular re-writing of the laws of physics you are using.

"Beta particles from ambient water concentrations of cesium are not what most concerns anyone worried about ecosystem damage from Fukushima cesium exposure."

OK, what is?

You may wish to consider two factors.

If it's more mobile than Cs (like Xe for example) then it's even more dilute.

If it's immobile then it won't have got far from the reactor and is trapped in a small area that is unfortunately, a write-off as far as normal life is concerned.

 

It's not clear what you mean by

"assume the hundredfold enrichment exposure never happened during the Fukushima meltdown emissions, "

OK, where the meltdown happened was inside a building. That's a fundamentally artificial system, and the only bit of the ecosystem there I'm bothered about is people.

Now there's no evidence that people selectively enrich caesium rather than potassium a hundredfold from their diet.

Or are you talking about the fact that at some point in time the concentration was a hundred times higher?

 

 

I already mentioned the fact that there will have been damage to the system near the site but , since the area affected is small and the raised levels temporary, the long term effect will be small.

 

And thanks for quoting what I said.

Now see if you can understand why it differs from what you claimed.

Here are some hints.

what you said was "We avert our eyes from the one that argued ecological harmlessness from cesium because it was in the same periodic element group as the potassium so much more abundant in the Ocean, and biological organisms treat elements in a given periodic group the same."

On theother hand, here's what I said.

"What I said was "Both will bioaccumulate to a similar extent ) because they have fairly similar chemistries."

"What we are talking about are two materials that are chemically fairly similar, tend to get mistaken for one another by biological systems..."

Now the point is that as long as they dissimilarities are not a hundred fold, I'm right.

 

Now you did spot that there's a difference between those- you called it weasel wording- though it's not, it's just an indication that the exact sizes of the effects aren't known.

So, why are you now saying that they are the same?

 

And finally, apart from "RADIATION!"

do you have any evidence yet

Edited May 10, 2015 by John Cuthber

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

This thread is going no where fast and so staff have decided to close it. Overtone, you need to learn what is meant by evidence. You've spent more time here telling us all the things you haven't said rather than addressing the criticisms of what you did say.