[ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination of the ocean

[Robert Bradley]

Great point.  We seem to be missing the bigger picture of this tragedy.

-    -  RPB
Health Canada (ret'd)

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) <
Mike.Brennan at doh.wa.gov> wrote:

> Of far, far greater environmental risk are the cars (5,000?  10,000?
> More?) that were washed out to sea, and sit on the bottom within a
> couple miles of shore.  Or the chemical contents of homes, shops,
> warehouses, refineries, ships, etc., that were sucked out when the water
> receded, and have either leaked into the ocean, or will over the coming
> months and years as the containers fail.
>
> I agree with Jerry that the dilution capability is great (well short of
> infinite, but still great), and that against the background of NORM in
> the ocean what has come from the reactors is not significant.  In fact,
> I hope they don't get so hung on contaminating the ocean that they don't
> pump water out of the reactor buildings.  This frankly isn't time to
> sweat amounts that would have been show-stoppers a month ago.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 3:02 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Radioactive contamination of the ocean
>
> In todays news, we see alarming stories of radioactive contamination
> found in
> ocean waters near Japan. In a previous post, I cited the tendency of
> people to
> equate detectability with hazard, and our capability to readily detect
> radioactivity in miniscule concentrations.
> The capacity of the ocean to dilute any contaminant is almost infinite.
> It can
> readily be calculated that any amount of radioactivity released to the
> ocean
> will be diluted to innocuous levels in a relatively short time. All of
> the
> nuclear waste conceivably produced by the most ambitious nuclear power
> production in the world would pose no significant health hazard if
> dispersed in
> the world's oceans  compared to the natural radioactivity (U, Ra, K-40,
> etc)
> that nature has already placed in the ocean. Actually, as I have
> previously
> discussed on radsafe, oceanic disposal is our best bet for disposal of
> all radioactive waste.
> Unfortunately, politics and hysteria will always trump science.
>
> Jerry Cohen
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>