If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Nature Network)   If you're concerned about how much radiation has leaked into the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, relax. It's only as much as if you dropped 76-million bananas into the water   (mnn.com) divider line 55
    More: Weird, Fukushima, Fukushima nuclear power, nuclear power, radiation leaks, oceans  
•       •       •

3340 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Aug 2013 at 4:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-13 04:58:57 PM  
 

 www.japannewstoday.com

Earless Fukushima bunny.

 
2013-08-13 04:59:54 PM  
I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I HAVE A BANANA IN MY EAR.
 
2013-08-13 05:00:33 PM  
Remember, kids! Nuclear power is safer than solar or wind! Because birds, or somethng.
 
2013-08-13 05:01:18 PM  
How much is that in average housecats?
 
2013-08-13 05:01:27 PM  
Which is still, fortunately, not even close to a level that would harm human health.
 
2013-08-13 05:02:28 PM  
orange you glad i didn't say banana
 
2013-08-13 05:04:34 PM  
ftfa: 76 million bananas per hour,

Per hour.
 
2013-08-13 05:05:56 PM  
I figured it would be around a billion Brazil nuts by now.
 
2013-08-13 05:06:53 PM  
b-i.forbesimg.com
Catching some rays down at the beach with Homer. Nothing to worry about. Except that the clean up will take another decade or more, so long as nothing more happens on the fault zone.
 
2013-08-13 05:07:37 PM  

Fubini: Which is still, fortunately, not even close to a level that would harm human health.


Well, depends on where you put the bananas.
 
2013-08-13 05:07:50 PM  
Worstall writes, "I really don't think that half the radiation of the world's banana crop being diluted into the Pacific Ocean is all that much to worry about."

The Pacific Ocean - hmmm.

About how many Olympic size swimming pools is that?
 
2013-08-13 05:08:04 PM  
fukushima-diary.com

Mutant Fukushima giant slug.


/a couple of more years, we will get a real Mothera.
 
2013-08-13 05:12:58 PM  
Thats really racist.
 
2013-08-13 05:14:02 PM  

basemetal: [www.japannewstoday.com image 485x347]

Earless Fukushima bunny.


What?
 
2013-08-13 05:16:29 PM  

derpy: Remember, kids! Nuclear power is safer than solar or wind! Because birds, or somethng.


2/10
 
2013-08-13 05:22:14 PM  
http://xkcd.com/radiation/ yeah, he waived any copyright stuff, but should have sourced it to be nice.

Jument: derpy: Remember, kids! Nuclear power is safer than solar or wind! Because birds, or somethng.

2/10


 I don't think that was a troll I think that was snark/sarcasm at people that don't want solar/wind power because of (non-existent) noise pollution and the occasional bird death that will be solved in a generation or two from learned behaviors.

that and the 'derpy' screen name might give it away.
 
2013-08-13 05:22:16 PM  

derpy: Remember, kids! Nuclear power is safer than solar or wind! Because birds, or somethng.


A becquerel is the volume of radioactive material which yields one atom decaying per second.

Suppose the worst case scenario: FORTY TRILLION becquerels have LEAKED INTO THE OCEAN. That means you get forty trillion radioactive decays per second.

How dangerous is that? Not very, by my calculation, but I am by no means an expert.

The specific activity of tritium (counts per minute per gram) is 357 terabecquerels. Worst case scenario is 40 trillion becquerels, divide it by the specific activity to get the number of grams. The result: a 40-trillion becquerel spill is about 0.1 grams of material.

But thanks for freaking the hell out in the meantime.

Source: Tritium Safety Data Sheet -  http://www.ncsu.edu/ehs/radiation/forms/nuclide_sheets.pdf
 
2013-08-13 05:26:29 PM  
www.elektra.com
Bananas?

/Hot like 76 million bananas dumped into the sea
 
2013-08-13 05:26:46 PM  
How big of a Twinkie is that?
 
2013-08-13 05:30:07 PM  
I think that XKCD's what if did a thing a while back about whether someone was to go swimming in the spent fuel rod containment pool of a nuclear reactor. It would be remarkably safe, apart from someone shooting you if you tried. So i'd avoid going swimming in the Pacific without wearing some body armor.
 
2013-08-13 05:31:40 PM  

derpy: ftfa: 76 million bananas per hour,

Per hour.


Thank you... that's what I came here to say...

In one year, that's the equivalent of the radiation of 39,945,600,000,000 bananas.

/ I know there's a joke in there somewhere.
 
2013-08-13 05:32:36 PM  
Interesting metric to put things in perspective... but as someone else pointed out its per/hour and thats a LOT of K-40 (potassium isotope forty)!
 
2013-08-13 05:36:45 PM  

elffster: basemetal: [www.japannewstoday.com image 485x347]

Earless Fukushima bunny.

What?


HE SAID, "EARLIESS FUKUSHIMA BUNNY!"
 
2013-08-13 05:38:22 PM  

Fubini: Source: Tritium Safety Data Sheet -  http://www.ncsu.edu/ehs/radiation/forms/nuclide_sheets.pdf


Also, to anyone who cares, that sheet also lists how far beta decay from radioactive tritium travels:

In air, the decay from tritium travels about a quarter of an inch. In water, it travels six-thousandths of a millimeter (0.006mm). It cannot penetrate the skin. Unless you happen to spend most of your time a quarter of an inch away from the surface of the ocean, or drink a lot of ocean water, you're completely safe. Fish and the like are routinely scanned for radiation exposure (especially after in Japan, especially after Fukushima), though so far there have been no significantly radioactive fish reported.

There's really no way that 40 trilllion becquerels of tritium dumped into the ocean is likely to harm anyone, or anything.
 
2013-08-13 05:39:44 PM  

derpy: ftfa: 76 million bananas per hour,

 or just under half the exposure caused by the global consumption of bananas

Per hour.

FTFY
 
2013-08-13 05:42:33 PM  

basemetal: [www.japannewstoday.com image 485x347]

Earless Fukushima bunny.


That doesn't bother me nearly as much as all the bunkies that keep crawling out of their garbage disposals.

s11.postimg.org
P.S.
It is interesting to note that the first result in a GIS for "standing monkey" (with safe search on, mind you) is a naked chick doing the splits.
 
2013-08-13 05:43:16 PM  
call me crazy, but that doesn't sound all that bad.
 
2013-08-13 05:44:06 PM  
So that is roughly 40 trillion bananas a year. A banana was about 1/2 a pound which leaves us 20 trillion pounds of bananas. A pound is a type of currency used by the United Kingdom, who is ruled by a queen who is really a reptilian overlord. Reptiles are not like cockroaches and are resistant to radiation. Therefore feed the bananas to cockroaches instead of dumping them into the ocean. Problem solved.
 
2013-08-13 05:52:33 PM  
Say what you will about Fukushima, but at least they didn't let that happen on purpose. Read up on the contamination at Hanford that is well on the way to ruining Puget Sound from planned negligence before you point and laugh.

Start here- google further if you are up to it.


Three underground tanks at the Washington-based nuclear reservation were last week found to be leaking at an initially-estimated rate of 300 gallons of waste per year. But Department of Energy investigators this week discovered three additional tanks were leaking, bringing the total estimated annual waste to 1,000 gallons per year.


The Hanford Nuclear Reservation, which was established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project, is mostly decommissioned but still holds two-thirds of the nation's radioactive waste in its 177 tanks. The millions of gallons of radioactive material, which still remain from Cold War-era plutonium production, are highly dangerous and are quickly dripping into American soil.


Leaks were discovered years ago, but the Department of Energy said the problem had been solved when it was initially discovered in 2005.



http://rt.com/usa/washington-radiation-leak-nuclear-635/
 
2013-08-13 05:57:04 PM  
Just remember: when cancer rates and birth defects surge, it's your genes that caused it.
 
2013-08-13 06:07:21 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2013-08-13 06:10:02 PM  

realityVSperception: Say what you will about Fukushima, but at least they didn't let that happen on purpose. Read up on the contamination at Hanford that is well on the way to ruining Puget Sound from planned negligence before you point and laugh.


"Planned negligence" is an overstatement. Groundwater contamination isn't expected at the Columbia river for another 12-40 years. The holdup is more an issue of wrangling an acceptable technical and political solution, rather than negligence on the part of any people. One of the biggest problems Hanford has (like all other waste sites in the US) is a lack of a long-term storage alternative. Something like a Yucca Mountain would go a long way towards making all this safer for everyone.
 
2013-08-13 06:10:23 PM  

and Natasha: elffster: basemetal: [www.japannewstoday.com image 485x347]

Earless Fukushima bunny.

What?

HE SAID, "EARLIESS FUKUSHIMA BUNNY!"


What? Someone buried a live bunny? OMG HOW HEARTLESS!
 
2013-08-13 06:20:10 PM  
Beta radiation does not equal gamma radiation - he is probably right but he is really wrong.
 
2013-08-13 06:27:40 PM  
Okay, Poe's Law clarification.  The "Fukushima bunny", "Fukishima giant slug" and "Fukishima baby" pictures here are all lampooning the fact that anti-nuclear people have a penchant for posting up vivid or gruesome images and claiming it was due to nuclear radiation poisoning when it wasn't in order to scaremonger, or are actually are anti-nuclear people posting up vivid or gruesome images and claiming it was due to nuclear radiation poisoning when it wasn't in order to scaremonger... which is it really?
 
2013-08-13 06:34:22 PM  

Fubini: In reality, mutations due to toxicity or background radiation are far, far more common than mutations due to acute radiation exposure. There's an extremely high likelihood that photos you see of this type are due to one of those two (natural) causes rather than acute exposure.


I should also say: biologists have used a number of methods to measure the natural mutation rate in humans and have come up with values as low as 40 to as high as 150 genetic mutations per generation. The vast majority of these are benign, some lead to cancer or chronic genetic illness, some cause large scale deformity. The vast majority of these genetic mutations are random, due to either the body's chemical processes or natural background radiation.
 
2013-08-13 06:37:20 PM  

MadCat221: are actually are anti-nuclear people posting up vivid or gruesome images and claiming it was due to nuclear radiation poisoning when it wasn't in order to scaremonger


A variety of graphic deformities make the rounds on the internet whenever a nuclear scare occurs; fearmongers use them to stir up disapproval.Needless to say, these people are just shock jocks trying to get an emotional reaction.  In reality, mutations due to toxicity or background radiation are far, far more common than mutations due to acute radiation exposure. There's an extremely high likelihood that photos you see of this type are due to one of those two (natural) causes rather than acute exposure.

Believe it or not, but people consume far more uranium through inhalation and water consumption than through exposure to the nuclear industry or nuclear accidents. This is especially true in areas with high uranium ore concentrations.

Biologists have used a number of methods to measure the natural mutation rate in humans and have come up with values as low as 40 to as high as 150 genetic mutations per generation. The vast majority of these are benign, some lead to cancer or chronic genetic illness, some cause large scale deformity. The vast majority of these genetic mutations are random, due to either the body's chemical processes or natural background radiation.
 
2013-08-13 06:58:52 PM  

Fubini: derpy: Remember, kids! Nuclear power is safer than solar or wind! Because birds, or somethng.

A becquerel is the volume of radioactive material which yields one atom decaying per second.

Suppose the worst case scenario: FORTY TRILLION becquerels have LEAKED INTO THE OCEAN. That means you get forty trillion radioactive decays per second.

How dangerous is that? Not very, by my calculation, but I am by no means an expert.

The specific activity of tritium (counts per minute per gram) is 357 terabecquerels. Worst case scenario is 40 trillion becquerels, divide it by the specific activity to get the number of grams. The result: a 40-trillion becquerel spill is about 0.1 grams of material.

But thanks for freaking the hell out in the meantime.

Source: Tritium Safety Data Sheet -  http://www.ncsu.edu/ehs/radiation/forms/nuclide_sheets.pdf


I would also like to point out that the major environmental quibbles with solar and, in particular, wind power have to do with the large amounts of rare earths required to produce it. It is easy for a lot of people to miss the problems with it as the rare earth metal processing is typically handled in locations like China where laws are lax and in manners that would make a Captain Planet villain proud.
 
2013-08-13 08:00:13 PM  
Suppose the worst case scenario: FORTY TRILLION becquerels have LEAKED INTO THE OCEAN. That means you get forty trillion radioactive decays per second.

that's FORTY TRILLION becquerels

...of BANANAS!
(in Scranton Pa)
 
2013-08-13 08:01:46 PM  
Please stop confusing radiation with radioactive matter. It's like confusing light with light bulbs. One is light and/or high energy particles, and the other is just matter, as in stuff you can make things out of like, oh I don't know, school desks.
 
2013-08-13 08:03:09 PM  

Fubini: realityVSperception: Say what you will about Fukushima, but at least they didn't let that happen on purpose. Read up on the contamination at Hanford that is well on the way to ruining Puget Sound from planned negligence before you point and laugh.

"Planned negligence" is an overstatement. Groundwater contamination isn't expected at the Columbia river for another 12-40 years. The holdup is more an issue of wrangling an acceptable technical and political solution, rather than negligence on the part of any people. One of the biggest problems Hanford has (like all other waste sites in the US) is a lack of a long-term storage alternative. Something like a Yucca Mountain would go a long way towards making all this safer for everyone.


BS- I don't normally slam other posters but you must be some sort
of shill. Without even trying-

This isn't Hanford's only ongoing leak. At least six
single-walled tanks are leaking radioactive waste as
well. In mid-February, the DOE confirmed that T-111 was
leaking 150 to 300 gallons of radioactive liquid waste
each year. (The following week, five more leaking tanks
were reported by DOE.) It's accepted that, over the
decades since the tanks were built, 67 have leaked over
one million gallons into the soil, contamination that
over time makes its way into groundwater a few hundred
feet below the tanks, and toward the Columbia River,
some five to eight miles distant.

http://thesunbreak.com/2013/06/21/a-different-kind-of-leak-gives-lie -t o-does-hanford-clean-up/

Hanford is a nightmare. It could have been delt with 10,20,30,or 40 years ago.
It's been ignored because no one wants to spend  the money
or take the responsibility. It will only be addressed when it's
an in your face disaster.
I'd argue the point further, but I dare you to post a link
to the contrary or name just one powerful politican
who will spend the billions needed to clean this up.

/my dad wrote the math model for ce's system 80 safety injection
system. I have 13 years of DoD + DoE contracting in DC. I get the industry
and the polotics
 
2013-08-13 08:32:32 PM  
I quit following Fukushima stuff a while back, but in all the previous discussion, I don't recall any mention of how much nuclear pollution was left by all those Pacific bomb tests in the 50's and 60's.

Maybe somebody will leak that now.

And we'll have a new traitor to chase!
 
2013-08-13 08:41:06 PM  
That's more bananas than will comfortably fit up your ass.
 
2013-08-13 08:45:34 PM  
How many Rhode Islands is that? I prefer all of my measurements in Rhode Islands. Thanks.
 
2013-08-13 09:27:48 PM  
So less than if about 2 or 3 shipping containers of bannanas washed off a container ship in a storm?
 
2013-08-13 10:20:23 PM  

Fubini: Fubini: Source: Tritium Safety Data Sheet -  http://www.ncsu.edu/ehs/radiation/forms/nuclide_sheets.pdf

Also, to anyone who cares, that sheet also lists how far beta decay from radioactive tritium travels:

In air, the decay from tritium travels about a quarter of an inch. In water, it travels six-thousandths of a millimeter (0.006mm). It cannot penetrate the skin. Unless you happen to spend most of your time a quarter of an inch away from the surface of the ocean, or drink a lot of ocean water, you're completely safe. Fish and the like are routinely scanned for radiation exposure (especially after in Japan, especially after Fukushima), though so far there have been no significantly radioactive fish reported.

There's really no way that 40 trilllion becquerels of tritium dumped into the ocean is likely to harm anyone, or anything.


The radiation does not travel far.   But the tritium does.   It reacts with and bioaccumulates in plants and animals, and if you eat those animals then the radiation it will emit directly affects your body.   So this only affects you if you eat anything that lives or swam near Japan.   Nobody here eats fish from the pacific, right?   Good!
No way 40 TBq can harm anything?   You've gotta be kidding me.   The maximum contamination level for tritium in water is 0.00000002 bequerels per liter.   1 terrabequerel can contaminate 12098303655952134 gallons of water, which is about 13,000 cubic miles.   Figure 110 miles by 110 miles of ocean from the top to the bottom.   You call that nothing?

Fun part is, this is just one of dozens of isotopes that were (and STILL ARE being) released in massive amounts.   Its about time the international community pulled this crisis out of the hands of a private company that is trying to maintain profit and started actually trying to contain this mess.
 
2013-08-13 10:31:52 PM  

jakrabit: derpy: ftfa: 76 million bananas per hour,

Per hour.

Thank you... that's what I came here to say...

In one year, that's the equivalent of the radiation of 39,945,600,000,000 bananas.

/ I know there's a joke in there somewhere.


Yeah... the entire world population just died from slipping on the peels...
 
2013-08-14 12:56:35 AM  

realityVSperception: Say what you will about Fukushima, but at least they didn't let that happen on purpose. Read up on the contamination at Hanford that is well on the way to ruining Puget Sound from planned negligence before you point and laugh.

Start here- google further if you are up to it.


Three underground tanks at the Washington-based nuclear reservation were last week found to be leaking at an initially-estimated rate of 300 gallons of waste per year. But Department of Energy investigators this week discovered three additional tanks were leaking, bringing the total estimated annual waste to 1,000 gallons per year.


The Hanford Nuclear Reservation, which was established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project, is mostly decommissioned but still holds two-thirds of the nation's radioactive waste in its 177 tanks. The millions of gallons of radioactive material, which still remain from Cold War-era plutonium production, are highly dangerous and are quickly dripping into American soil.


Leaks were discovered years ago, but the Department of Energy said the problem had been solved when it was initially discovered in 2005.


http://rt.com/usa/washington-radiation-leak-nuclear-635/


What does Puget Sound have to worry about? Nowhere near Hanford. Right down the Columbia into the South flowing Pacific. I have a friend that lives on the Columbia and had cancer in his 30's. Of course Trogan Nuclear was there at the time. Puget Sound shouldn't worry. Of course, I live in Oregon. Between the Nevada Test fallout landing here, Hanford, Trogan, and now the little problem from Japan hitting the coast, I feel very safe. Why? Because they tell me I'm safe and give nice graphs of the individual occurrences. We're really lucky radiation doesn't accumulate. Just stop smoking - it's the smoking that causes cancer. In fact, let's blame 2nd hand smoke.

My Grandma and Grandpa worked for the Army in Nevada during the testing - they would never talk about it, other than they were there. (Grandma would change the subject to when they worked at Boeing and helped develop the B-29 any time I brought up Nevada.) Both died from multiple cancers, slowly, starting in their early 60's. Doctor told me...No, he actually didn't tell me; he would just mention Grandma's cig habit and shake his head in a knowing way. What about Grandpa? He didn't smoke. Lol, there's 2nd hand smoke. That's when I learned that smoking causes cancer and everything else, like nuclear waste, is pretty safe. If you get cancer it's probably from walking by the smoking area at work one too many times.
 
2013-08-14 02:34:55 AM  
My mistake. I thought the Columbia emptied into the Puget
sound. That's not the point. The radiation from Hanford
hasn't reached the river yet. When it does, it will
make Fukushima look like an oopsie.
Can't really follow your logic- Your grandparents worked
near or at Nevada nuclear test sites and died early from
cancer, no?
Radiation kills. Hanford is pouring massive amounts into
the water table which leads to the river. When it gets there
it will kill or drive away the people who depend on that
watershed. Olympic pool sized tanks of stronium-90 flooding
the watertable are a bit more damaging than a puff of 2nd hand
smoke.

The cosequences have yet to hit. But when they do- nobody has the  money
to fix it. Its going to suck when it does.

But AY-102 is one of 28 double-walled tanks built to hold millions of
gallons of the most radioactive waste Hanford had created - waste that
literally boils from the heat generated by Strontium-90. If its
containment failure is proven, it's not a good sign for the health
of the remaining tanks, which the DOE had been hoping would last
until 2052. AY-102 was also supposed to play a crucial feeder role
in the clean-up of tanks going forward.

http://thesunbreak.com/2013/06/21/a-different-kind-of-leak-gives-lie -t o-does-hanford-clean-up/
 
2013-08-14 04:19:49 AM  
A Becquerel here, a miliSievert there.. and pretty soon you're talking real radiation!
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report