Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(35,718 posts)
2. Virtually all of the radioactivity in fish in the North Pacific has the same source it has had for millions of years.
Sat Aug 24, 2024, 12:15 PM
Aug 2024

It is related to the decay product of the nearly five billion tons of uranium present in the ocean since the evolution of oxygen in the planetary atmosphere, specifically 210Po, an isotope of polonium that is present in the decay series of 238U.

I discussed the very stupid media drive brouhaha about fish in the north pacific here:

Deluded Scientists Think They Can Reassure the Public on the Fukushima Tuna.

The Fukushima tuna fish was one of the best indicators of my often stated (partially) joking assertion that one cannot get a degree in journalism if one has passed a college level science course with a grade of C or better.

The concern over radioactivity in fish, particularly the very, very, very stupid carrying on about tritium releases, is absurd and silly to the extreme. However the upside is that fear of radioactivity in fish may be environmentally advantageous inasmuch as it may help restore depleted fish stocks. The concentration of tritium in seawater has been falling dramatically since the abandonment of atmospheric nuclear testing by the US and the former Soviet Union in 1963. People have been eating fish in the entire period between 1963 and the present day, with the environmental result, again, of the depletion of certain fish stocks.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Fuel debris removal attem...»Reply #2