More than just fish....

sf wrote:

If you aren't fishing / swimming on the beach next to the melted reactor
it will be safe pretty much immediately. Most of the planet is covered
by ocean, it is so vast that any contamination will be diluted to safe
levels in short order. Look at the BP Gulf spill and how little residual
issues they are finding now. The Gulf is a goldfish bowl compared to the
Pacific.
 
On Mar 17, 12:31?pm, notbob wrote:
If I fed my son "a tuna salad sandwich," he'd look at me like I'd gone
nuts.
The DiGiorino folks are right that their frozen pizzas are better than
the big chain pizza companies.
Their supreme thin crust is going quite well with a low priced ($7-
$8) Australian Riesling with a pinch of sugar added, over ice.


--Bryan
 
On Mar 17, 1:57?pm, sf wrote:

Has everybody somehow forgotten all the radiation released during
aboveground testing in the 1950s and (IIRC) 1960s? I'd wager
there was much, much more radiation involved, yet here we
still are.

Ah, here are some statistics, gleaned from
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3193136

A useful statistic in measuring how bad a radiation release is is how
many curies of 131I were released. 131I is an efficient carcinogen.
Three Mile Island released 20 Ci of 131I.
Chernobyl released 7x10^6 Ci of 131I
Above-ground nuclear testing in Nevada released about 1.5x10^8 Ci of
131I.

Obviously, there was more testing going on than just in Nevada.

Still, the Nevada tests ran over some years, while Chernobyl
happened pretty much all at once.

Cindy Hamilton
 
Back
Top