No more media shock value - have to move on to the Ebola Crisis. Sells more ads.

According to Wikipedia, they are still trying to get containment under control for this facility and contaminated water is still being spilled into the sea. So apparently the entombment was abandoned as unworkable.

They quit covering it in the US a long time ago. Last I remember hearing they were going to entomb in concrete. Similar to what they did at Chernobyl. Don't know if that was finished or not.

I think this model might be based on guesswork about contaminated water leakage volume, but I didn't access the whole article. You have to create an account for that.

Guess that heat/radiation is too great for drones to be useful in getting the leaks/ongoing reactions under control?

In any case some simple assumptions can be made.

1. Pacific sea life will be impacted more than Atlantic sea life due to proximity to the material.

2. Most of the impact of this, whether it is really significant or not will be in the North Pacific basin.

+1 For you

That would hit pets before people I would think

Agree on the grain of salt.
We are seeing how well the global warming computer models modeled reality.

Any non seafood protein that doesn't eat (a) seafood or (b) something that ate seafood or something that ate seafood or something that ate seafood etc.

Or any non-seafood protein.

Not enough context in the extract to tell if its really a health concern or not.

My inclination is to think not given the amount of radioactive material involved Vs the volume of the oceans.

Khalling

1. This is talking about a computer model of Cesium 137 contamination in marine life.

Major point made was that the gilled life forms (fish) collect more than non-gilled (whales) so the implication is an impact on the food species higher than the rest.

2. The government standards they are referring to are for Canada.

No idea how that compares to the US or anyone else. Nor do I have any idea what the radioactivity levels they are quoting mean to us. Higher than normal background on land? Lower? How much either way?

3. Its a computer modelling exercise, I did not see any mention in that extract of actual sampling having been done to test the model's congruence with reality. Without evidence of that testing I would take the results with a grain of salt.

(There might be something in the full paper about that, but I was unwilling to make an account on there to see)

Eat more chicken.

I need this article translated