Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fukushima Radioactive Seawater Computer Model
#11
seems like an epa issue to me .... once they find a hot Ahi or other food fish - then maybe the fda will carry out its mandate be and get involved

one can always hope........

Funny as the feds have no limit on funds to protect the "arroyo toad" near my other place, sending in hydrologists, biologists and restricting human activity near "potential habitat".... even if one has not been found for the last 50 years..... go figure......
Reply
#12
I forgot, the FDA is out to destroy us all.

I think many people fail to appreciate just how large the Pacific Ocean is.

More ahi for me!
Reply
#13
I was just trying to make sense of what was being said by those who put together that graphic. It stated, and I quote, "The computer simulation presented here is obtained by continuously releasing particles at the site during the 2 months folllowing the earthquake and then by tracing the path of these particles."

I guess I was refering to these "particles" as tracers. Sorry for my confusion on this subject. But just what did they drop in for 2 months then?
Reply
#14
They actually have mostly tracked the land fall & boat pick up of floating items, (along with a few trawled up pieces of heavier debris) Some of these pieces were very easy to trace (boat plaques, address & bill boards, very little of it actually did use the radiation isotope signatures of particles - & the water diffused into the ocean was way to dilute to pick up a trace radioactive isotope that was in the original spill water....)

Then, based on the place the items were picked up, they modeled the currents back to the origin of the debris, the forward modeled the paths of the debris. these models use debris release (one famous one was a container ship of tennis shoes... those tennies were traced for a few years as they traveled the Pacific...and formed much of the modeling base work - for tennie sized objects)

Although you made up adding tracers that signal location, the ease of just following lots of signaling tracers would be a dream for many oceanographers, rather than following debris & floating floatsam around the oceans.

ETA: Link to tennie tracers & other current modeling tools:
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANE...nts_2.html
Reply
#15
Probably very little minute traces ... Tho nothing to worry about. I'd say it might actually be a good thing. Might keep the fish just a little fresher when caught. Smile
Reply
#16
The radiation may take the edge of the mercury.....

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/articl...40344.html

"The amount of mercury in a particular fish depends on what it's been eating, as well as its age and size. In general, older and bigger fish have higher levels of mercury than younger, smaller fish, but that's not always a safe assumption, Rosen said.

"We did find the highest levels of mercury in a 213-pound 'ahi, and half that level in a 246-pounder," she said."

I think it safe to assume radiation consolidation would show up in relation to fish size and habitat
Reply
#17
quote:
Originally posted by P.T.

Whether or not you trust FDA is one thing.What a regular person cam do -buy expensive gadgets to check the radiation himself?


Actually P.T. the gadgets aren't so expensive. No surprise Japan is now developing radiation-detecting products. When I was there late last year, an electronics show in Tokyo unveiled a smart phone device that functions as both a cell-phone case and radiation detector app. Also notable is that Japanese news programs on tv now routinely report radiation levels around the country, right up there with the weather. The distrust of the government has created a grass-roots movement to monitor and stay on top of radiation levels.
Tim

A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions--Confucius
Reply
#18
Thanks,fish):
I am trying to picture myself walking around fish isle in a store with the gadget.
Reply
#19
GEIGER COUNTER? Can get them off ebay for cheap!

Reply
#20
Here's an article from Yale University written almost a year ago.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivi...less/2391/

The concern is radioactive contamination has entered the food chain in the Pacific and it's just a matter of time for it to work it's way up the food chain to us. Radioactive fish are being found four hundred miles east of Japan. The big question is how long will it be safe for us to eat seafood?

Since we live in the middle of the Pacific we should be aware of this and be asking questions and having this conversation. My wife and I haven't eaten beef or pork in 14 years so we eat more fish than most people so this is a concern for us and our solution is to build an aquaponics system.

I have been reading fukushima-diary.com for the past year and I have to say the situation in Japan is much worse than we are being told.

http://fukushima-diary.com/
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)