Blogs Mar 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Radioactive Fish

Bethany Jean Clement
Back to article

Comments

1
Just like how misinformation is concentrated as it bounces around the intertubes.
RonK, Seattle on March 14, 2011 at 5:41 PM Report this
2
Hmm.

Looks like we will have mutated sea bass.
Will in Seattle on March 14, 2011 at 6:03 PM Report this
3
@2:
>implying that sea bass don't normally undergo mutation.
venomlash on March 14, 2011 at 6:05 PM Report this
4
@3 well, these might be extra grumpy, and have a fondness for evil henchmen near easily escapable death traps.
Will in Seattle on March 14, 2011 at 6:15 PM Report this
5
We need Mr. Burns to spit out the three-eyed fish that he tries to eat.
Simone on March 14, 2011 at 6:19 PM Report this
6
You need to stop speculating right now and start doing your job. Next thing we know, somebody actually reads your idle blabberings with Golob as cold hard fact and starts circulating them as such.

It would be a crying shame if some lunk heads started a rumor that caught on about radioactive salmon, things then clear up, but the rumor sticks around. I would lose my livelihood.

The coverage of the reactors on Slog is horrifying.
Cecil on March 14, 2011 at 6:23 PM Report this
7
Cecil,

You know, you're right. This was some speculation on my part earlier today, considering how the radioactive isotope release might cause problems for the Pacific Northwest.

I'll say it here: There is no evidence for risk of radiation in salmon or halibut, or other fish in the North Pacific.
Jonathan Golob on March 14, 2011 at 6:42 PM Stranger Staff
8
Details:

The primary isotope of concern for Iodine has a half-life of 8 days (implying a 1,000:1 reduction in 80 days and 1,000,000:1 in 160 days).

The primary isotope of concern for Cesium has a 30-year half-life, but Cesium is highly water-soluble and thus tends not to concentrate in the food chain or anywhere else for that matter.

Strontium 90 has a half-life near 30 years, and can concentrate in bone and build up in food chains.
RonK, Seattle on March 14, 2011 at 7:37 PM Report this
9
Thanks Jonathan. I just finished reading that article by Josef Oehman you posted and that uh... cooled me down me a bit too.
Cecil on March 14, 2011 at 7:50 PM Report this
10
I still think the spent fuel rod storage pools are the next shoe to fall--and one of potentially significant magnitude.
Jonathan Golob on March 14, 2011 at 9:06 PM Stranger Staff
11
Jonathan, I've still got a million questions. How do they move the fuel rods into place when they are being inserted into a reactor? And how do they get the spent rods into the storage pools without disasters? And how do they keep the fuel "cool" when manufacturing it?

I understand that water is critical to the running of a nuclear power plant because it acts as a heat sink. That is, because boiling water never gets above 220 degrees, however hot whatever is that's touching it. In a sealed container, it can get hotter, of course, but nowhere near the umpteen thousand degrees of the reactor. Which makes me wonder: can you use substances OTHER than water to cool the rods?
on March 14, 2011 at 9:26 PM Report this

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview
Posted by (your name here)

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.

Editors' Picks

Seattle's All-Star Sweeps Remind Me of the Time the Pope Visited Harare
The Different Kinds of People That There Are
How Portland Became Seattle Is Dying
Moses Sun’s Future is Bright
My Mom Came to Visit This Weekend
Versace, Nipples, and a Promo Shoot
The Stranger
is a proud member of the media network
Masthead Ad Info & Rates Jobs at The Stranger Contact Privacy Policy Terms of Use Takedown Policy Find The Stranger Near You
Support The Stranger
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134