Jump to content

Ever Wonder Who Killed Santa Monica Bay?


Recommended Posts

There I was the other night, doing the one eyed lean watching the late night news and thought I heard this... then I went looking. 

It's rather a long read, but well worth the time for anyone So Cal Person. Water or Land Lubber.

Check out the "Zones" 

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground/

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I work at a state agency that got a lot of calls on this when it came out.  Seems like the interest died down quite a bit since then.  One significant issue with this mess is that it is outside "state waters".  State jurisdiction for things like environmental protection has a hard stop at three miles; outside that coastal zone it's all FedCo's responsibility.  And when this story came out last October, that particular administration's folks didn't have much interest.

 

I run across that three mile limit all the time and it's frustrating because 3 miles is nothing in terms of pollutant spread and impact in coastal oceanic waters.  We're fortunate that the contamination from this dump site does not seem to have gone very far, but that doesn't mean it won't at some point.  Interestingly, there's been a big push for more aquaculture in the state in the past few years.  Maybe that will increase awareness again that this mess is still down there, but I'm not even sure it's possible to clean up with current best technology.  Even if it is possible, feasibility is a much larger hurdle.

Anyhow, glad to see this pop up here in SA.  

Edited because I'm truly picky about not making mistakes.  Should it matter on SA?  No.  My self-standards flog me though.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is news?

Everything was dumped in the ocean BITD.

Minimata was 1956.

One of the irreparably irradiated ships from the initial nuke testing is on the bottom off of SF Bay. The others are elsewhere in the Pacific.

New York City barged it's garbage out into the Atlantic for decades until it started coming back onto the Long Island beaches

Howe sound, a fjord which I live beside, is 26 miles long and 1000 ft. deep. It was virtually dead back in the 70's from pulp mill effluent (Dioxin) as well as copper mine runoff

Ocean dumping is not nearly as bad now but it's still bad.

Look at Japan's proposal to dump the Fukushima waste.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just leave this right here and of course you all know the ocean currents from Japan mean it will eventually affect those on the west coast of Canada and the US.

Fukushima: Japan announces it will dump contaminated water into sea

Environmental groups and neighbours condemn plan to release more than 1m tonnes of contaminated water in two years’ time

 

The storage tanks for treated water are seen at the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okuma town The storage tanks for treated water are seen at the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okuma town, Japan. Photograph: Sakura Murakami/Reuters

 
Justin McCurry in Tokyo and agencies
Tue 13 Apr 2021 07.28 BST

 

  •  
  •  
  •  
 
3,199
 

Japan has announced it will release more than 1m tonnes of contaminated water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea, a decision that has angered neighbouring countries, including China, and local fishers.

Official confirmation of the move, which came more than a decade after the nuclear disaster, will deal a further blow to the fishing industry in Fukushima, which has opposed the measure for years.

 

The prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, told a meeting of ministers on Tuesday that the government had decided that releasing the water into the Pacific Ocean was the “most realistic” option, and “unavoidable in order to achieve Fukushima’s recovery”.

The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco], and government officials say tritium, a radioactive material that is not harmful in small amounts, cannot be removed from the water, but other radionuclides can be reduced to levels allowed for release.

“The Japanese government has compiled basic policies to release the processed water into the ocean, after ensuring the safety levels of the water … and while the government takes measures to prevent reputational damage,” Suga told reporters.

Work to release the diluted water will begin in about two years, the government said, with the entire process expected to take decades.

“On the premise of strict compliance with regulatory standards that have been established, we select oceanic release,” it said in a statement.

China denounced the plan as “extremely irresponsible”, and accused Japan of reaching the decision “without regard for domestic and foreign doubts and opposition”.

“This approach is extremely irresponsible and will seriously damage international public health and safety and the vital interests of the people of neighbouring countries,” the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement on its website.

 

South Korea summoned Japan’s ambassador, Koichi Aiboshi, the broadcaster YTN reported, while a high-level government official said Seoul “firmly opposes” the move, a view also expressed by Taiwan’s Atomic Energy Council.

The US was supportive, describing Japan’s decision-making process as “transparent”.

“We thank Japan for its transparent efforts in its decision to dispose of the treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi site,” the secretary of state, Antony Blinken, tweeted.

The announcement drew swift condemnation from environmental groups.

Greenpeace Japan said it “strongly condemned” the water’s release, which “completely disregards the human rights and interests of the people in Fukushima, wider Japan and the Asia-Pacific region”.

“The Japanese government has once again failed the people of Fukushima,” said Kazue Suzuki, the group’s climate and energy campaigner.

“The government has taken the wholly unjustified decision to deliberately contaminate the Pacific Ocean with radioactive waste. It has discounted the radiation risks and turned its back on the clear evidence that sufficient storage capacity is available on the nuclear site as well as in surrounding districts.

 

Activists take part in a protest against the Japan government’s plan to release treated water from the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea Activists protest against the Japan government’s plan to release treated water from the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea. Photograph: Philip Fong/AFP/Getty Images

“The cabinet’s decision failed to protect the environment and neglected the large-scale opposition and concerns of the local Fukushima residents, as well as the neighbouring citizens around Japan.”

About 1.25m tonnes of water has accumulated at the site of the nuclear plant, which was crippled after going into meltdown following a tsunami in 2011.

It includes water used to cool the plant, as well as rain and groundwater that seeps in daily. The water needs to be filtered again to remove harmful isotopes and will be diluted to meet international standards before any release, the government said.

The radioactive water, which increases in quantity by about 140 tonnes a day, is now being stored in more than 1,000 tanks, and space at the site is expected to run out around next autumn. Tepco has argued that it will struggle to make progress on decommissioning the plant if it has to keep building more storage tanks at the site.

The International Atomic Energy Agency supports the decision, since radioactive elements, except tritium, will be removed from the water or reduced to safe levels before it is discharged. The IAEA has also pointed out that nuclear plants around the world use a similar process to dispose of wastewater.

Experts say tritium is only harmful to humans in large doses and with dilution the treated water poses no scientifically detectable risk.

“There is consensus among scientists that the impact on health is minuscule,” Michiaki Kai, an expert on radiation risk assessment at Japan’s Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, told Agence France-Presse before the decision was announced.

But local fishing communities say the water’s release will undo years of hard work to rebuild consumer confidence in their seafood.

“They told us that they wouldn’t release the water into the sea without the support of fishermen,” Kanji Tachiya, who heads a local fisheries cooperative in Fukushima, told public broadcaster NHK ahead of the announcement. “We can’t back this move to break that promise and release the water into the sea unilaterally.”

The decision comes about three months ahead of the postponed Olympic Games in Tokyo, with some events planned as close as 60km (35 miles) from the plant.

Japanese officials have objected to media descriptions of the water as “contaminated” or “radioactive”, insisting that it be described as “treated”.

Shaun Burnie, senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace East Asia, said that claim was “clearly false”.

“If it was not contaminated or radioactive they would not need approval (to release the water) from Japan’s nuclear regulator,” he said. “The water in the tanks is indeed treated, but it is also contaminated with radioactivity. The Japanese government has been deliberately seeking to deceive over this issue, at home and abroad.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

I'll just leave this right here and of course you all know the ocean currents from Japan mean it will eventually affect those on the west coast of Canada and the US.

Fukushima: Japan announces it will dump contaminated water into sea

Environmental groups and neighbours condemn plan to release more than 1m tonnes of contaminated water in two years’ time

 

The storage tanks for treated water are seen at the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okuma town The storage tanks for treated water are seen at the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Okuma town, Japan. Photograph: Sakura Murakami/Reuters

 
 
Justin McCurry in Tokyo and agencies
Tue 13 Apr 2021 07.28 BST

 

  •  
  •  
  •  
 
3,199
 

Japan has announced it will release more than 1m tonnes of contaminated water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea, a decision that has angered neighbouring countries, including China, and local fishers.

Official confirmation of the move, which came more than a decade after the nuclear disaster, will deal a further blow to the fishing industry in Fukushima, which has opposed the measure for years.

 

The prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, told a meeting of ministers on Tuesday that the government had decided that releasing the water into the Pacific Ocean was the “most realistic” option, and “unavoidable in order to achieve Fukushima’s recovery”.

The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco], and government officials say tritium, a radioactive material that is not harmful in small amounts, cannot be removed from the water, but other radionuclides can be reduced to levels allowed for release.

“The Japanese government has compiled basic policies to release the processed water into the ocean, after ensuring the safety levels of the water … and while the government takes measures to prevent reputational damage,” Suga told reporters.

Work to release the diluted water will begin in about two years, the government said, with the entire process expected to take decades.

“On the premise of strict compliance with regulatory standards that have been established, we select oceanic release,” it said in a statement.

China denounced the plan as “extremely irresponsible”, and accused Japan of reaching the decision “without regard for domestic and foreign doubts and opposition”.

“This approach is extremely irresponsible and will seriously damage international public health and safety and the vital interests of the people of neighbouring countries,” the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement on its website.

 

South Korea summoned Japan’s ambassador, Koichi Aiboshi, the broadcaster YTN reported, while a high-level government official said Seoul “firmly opposes” the move, a view also expressed by Taiwan’s Atomic Energy Council.

The US was supportive, describing Japan’s decision-making process as “transparent”.

“We thank Japan for its transparent efforts in its decision to dispose of the treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi site,” the secretary of state, Antony Blinken, tweeted.

The announcement drew swift condemnation from environmental groups.

Greenpeace Japan said it “strongly condemned” the water’s release, which “completely disregards the human rights and interests of the people in Fukushima, wider Japan and the Asia-Pacific region”.

“The Japanese government has once again failed the people of Fukushima,” said Kazue Suzuki, the group’s climate and energy campaigner.

“The government has taken the wholly unjustified decision to deliberately contaminate the Pacific Ocean with radioactive waste. It has discounted the radiation risks and turned its back on the clear evidence that sufficient storage capacity is available on the nuclear site as well as in surrounding districts.

 

Activists take part in a protest against the Japan government’s plan to release treated water from the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea Activists protest against the Japan government’s plan to release treated water from the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea. Photograph: Philip Fong/AFP/Getty Images

“The cabinet’s decision failed to protect the environment and neglected the large-scale opposition and concerns of the local Fukushima residents, as well as the neighbouring citizens around Japan.”

About 1.25m tonnes of water has accumulated at the site of the nuclear plant, which was crippled after going into meltdown following a tsunami in 2011.

It includes water used to cool the plant, as well as rain and groundwater that seeps in daily. The water needs to be filtered again to remove harmful isotopes and will be diluted to meet international standards before any release, the government said.

The radioactive water, which increases in quantity by about 140 tonnes a day, is now being stored in more than 1,000 tanks, and space at the site is expected to run out around next autumn. Tepco has argued that it will struggle to make progress on decommissioning the plant if it has to keep building more storage tanks at the site.

The International Atomic Energy Agency supports the decision, since radioactive elements, except tritium, will be removed from the water or reduced to safe levels before it is discharged. The IAEA has also pointed out that nuclear plants around the world use a similar process to dispose of wastewater.

Experts say tritium is only harmful to humans in large doses and with dilution the treated water poses no scientifically detectable risk.

“There is consensus among scientists that the impact on health is minuscule,” Michiaki Kai, an expert on radiation risk assessment at Japan’s Oita University of Nursing and Health Sciences, told Agence France-Presse before the decision was announced.

But local fishing communities say the water’s release will undo years of hard work to rebuild consumer confidence in their seafood.

“They told us that they wouldn’t release the water into the sea without the support of fishermen,” Kanji Tachiya, who heads a local fisheries cooperative in Fukushima, told public broadcaster NHK ahead of the announcement. “We can’t back this move to break that promise and release the water into the sea unilaterally.”

The decision comes about three months ahead of the postponed Olympic Games in Tokyo, with some events planned as close as 60km (35 miles) from the plant.

Japanese officials have objected to media descriptions of the water as “contaminated” or “radioactive”, insisting that it be described as “treated”.

Shaun Burnie, senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace East Asia, said that claim was “clearly false”.

“If it was not contaminated or radioactive they would not need approval (to release the water) from Japan’s nuclear regulator,” he said. “The water in the tanks is indeed treated, but it is also contaminated with radioactivity. The Japanese government has been deliberately seeking to deceive over this issue, at home and abroad.”

But tritium is useful.

Used on watches and other things.

Why throw it away?  Sell it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's just awsome to know all that crap is in the water, especially having grown up surfing almost daily in the South Bay during the '60s and '70s. I knew a family that lived in PV in which the father's company dumped toxic waste into storm drains that emptied right near where his sons surfed. At least that company got caught in the act and people went to jail. Frigging amazing what people do. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

The earth will bury us all in the end

Yup. The earth isn't dying, she'll be just fine. It's the human species that's just a flash in the pan on this rock, and once the earth has rid herself of our presence she'll just continue evolving. We're so vain to think we mean squat in the grand scheme of things.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Above Lucas poem is not only my favorite, says it all, and is one of many, humans have ignored, for the reasons all y'all have implied or given...could humankind be dumber...? Too many of us forget, all we have to do is make the other dodger look good. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumping in the ocean is outrageous.............but consider this, DDT was used for 30-40 years on our food supply! 

Same today with glyphosate......it just hasn't been banned yet. 

I'm in the AG industry......you don't want to know what is being dumped on our food never mind the ocean(which is also part of our food supply)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Squalamax said:

Dumping in the ocean is outrageous.............but consider this, DDT was used for 30-40 years on our food supply! 

Same today with glyphosate......it just hasn't been banned yet. 

I'm in the AG industry......you don't want to know what is being dumped on our food never mind the ocean(which is also part of our food supply)

Actually I do want to know. Which are the nastiest and what foods are they paired with?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Spoonie said:

 I see the problem, they failed to tow it beyond the environment... 

That’s because the front fell off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Irrational 14 said:

Actually I do want to know. Which are the nastiest and what foods are they paired with?

Beets, the devil's potato

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, VWAP said:

Beets, the devil's potato

"A story that begins with a beet will end with the devil" 

               Tom Robbins Jitterbug Perfume

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2021 at 8:31 AM, silent bob said:

apes-last-scene.jpg?resize=490,357&type=

I thought diss was  a thread about the local handicrap board?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, VWAP said:

I thought diss was  a thread about the local handicrap board?

In a way, it is!  This area is my home waters.  It is also the Home of PHRF.  Frank Dair created PHRF in San Pedro.  It would probably make him sad to see what a political cesspool it has become.  He would also probably be sad to see the pollution that's happened in his old waters.  

 

060b59_edc69e0c8f464f59a0f551834829a878~

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VWAP said:

I thought diss was  a thread about the local handicrap board?

But, I do consider SMB (AKA Bagel Bay) to be bordered by Pt. Dume and Pt. Vicente.  How San Peedro gets tossed into Santa Monica Bay, I'll never understand!  It's like Santa Cruz being part of San Francisco Bay.  It's NOT!  Oy Vey!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it will be possible to ever put an accurate dollar value on the damages as a result of DDT dumping and use. I'll bet that when set against the total profits companies made from selling DDT, the externalities of the negative human and environmental health impacts will wildly exceed any profit anyone ever gained. And, decades later, it now becomes the government's (and taxpayers') problem to clean it all up at a cost of tens of billions.

 

Socializing the costs of polluting industries isn't exactly "free market" behavior when you think about it, but lots of capitalists seem to be happy with that part of the status quo. I'm a young guy and am really not excited to pay taxes for the next 60-70 years to clean up the increasingly disastrous messes created by knowingly polluting industry and environmental destruction.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 7:42 PM, fastyacht said:

But tritium is useful.

Used on watches and other things.

Why throw it away?  Sell it!

Because there's only 2.1 grams of tritium in the 1.25 million tons of stored water.  Tritium could be separated theoretically, but there is no practical separation technology on an industrial scale.  If separation were possible, the tritium would only be worth $60,000USD.  Accordingly, a controlled environmental release is said to be the best way to treat low-tritium-concentration water.  In fact, water containing tritium  has been normally released from nuclear plants for many decades under controlled, monitored conditions the US NRC mandates to protect public health and safety.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 11:40 PM, DtM said:

[  .  .  .  ]  If the nuclear waste is so safe then drink it Japan.

The planned Fukushima wastewater release meets drinking water standards;  the tritium is now diluted to less than 1,500 becquerels per liter, one-40th of the concentration permitted under Japanese safety standards and one-seventh of the WHO's guideline for drinking water.  The American limit is calculated to yield a dose of 4.0 millirems (or 40 microsieverts in SI units) per year. This is about 1.3% of the natural background radiation (roughly 3,000 μSv).   In fact, a Japanese official did drink the contaminated water only 9 months after the meltdown (Press Conference vid), and its radioactivity has decreased by a factor of ten through dilution and natural decay since then.

Since tritium is a low energy beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally (its beta particles are unable to penetrate the skin), but it can be a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin, at high doses.  That's not the situation here. Tritium has a short biological half-life in the human body of 7 to 14 days, which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of tritium from the environment.  Its decay product is not radioactive.

So in theory they could pump it into the local domestic water supply but will dump it into the ocean because of alarmist public perceptions and cost factors.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 7:33 PM, Navig8tor said:

I'll just leave this right here and of course you all know the ocean currents from Japan mean it will eventually affect those on the west coast of Canada and the US.  [  .  .  .  ]

Total bullshit.  The planned release of two grams of tritium off the coast of Japan will be undetectable at American coasts, and although will be detectable at the outlet pipes in Japan  will be below safe drinking water standards.  Fukushima radiation was detected in the US soon after the meltdown in the first month but it was all atmospheric and insignificant compared to the  amount of Caesium-137 released,  at Fukushima around 1/50th of the fall out of nuclear weapons tests and 1/5th that released at Chernobyl.  Agreed US coastal pelagic fish radionuclide levels detectibly rose a five years after the meltdown, but insignificant compared to the fish population next to the meltdown which were dangerously inedible to to atmospheric fallout into the ocean.

Educate yourself about the effects of the Fukushima disaster at Radiation From Fukushima before posting bullshit as you did above.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

16 minutes ago, axolotl said:

Total bullshit.  The planned release of two grams of tritium off the coast of Japan will be undetectable at American coasts, and although will be detectable at the outlet pipes in Japan  will be below safe drinking water standards.  Fukushima radiation was detected in the US soon after the meltdown in the first month but it was all atmospheric and insignificant compared to the  amount of Caesium-137 released,  at Fukushima around 1/50th of the fall out of nuclear weapons tests and 1/5th that released at Chernobyl.  Agreed US coastal pelagic fish radionuclide levels detectibly rose a five years after the meltdown, but insignificant compared to the fish population next to the meltdown which were dangerously inedible to to atmospheric fallout into the ocean.

Educate yourself about the effects of the Fukushima disaster at Radiation From Fukushima before posting bullshit as you did above.

2 gms of tritium? The article is talking about 1.25 million tonnes of contaminated water.

Furthermore there appears to be debate about the level of contamination remaining as mentioned in the articles last paragraph;

Japanese officials have objected to media descriptions of the water as “contaminated” or “radioactive”, insisting that it be described as “treated”.

Shaun Burnie, senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace East Asia, said that claim was “clearly false”.

“If it was not contaminated or radioactive they would not need approval (to release the water) from Japan’s nuclear regulator,” he said. “The water in the tanks is indeed treated, but it is also contaminated with radioactivity. The Japanese government has been deliberately seeking to deceive over this issue, at home and abroad.”

 

I am no expert on dilution of fluids etc and you may be right to call bullshit, equally I call bullshit on a Japaneses government that simply wants to get rid of the problem by flushing it into the sea while it appears they are being less than honest about exactly what's being flushed into an ocean. An ocean that is shared by many.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Navig8tor said:

 

 

2 gms of tritium? The article is talking about 1.25 million tonnes of contaminated water.

[  .  .  . ]

I am no expert on dilution of fluids etc and you may be right to call bullshit, equally I call bullshit on a Japaneses government that simply wants to get rid of the problem by flushing it into the sea while it appears they are being less than honest about exactly what's being flushed into an ocean. An ocean that is shared by many.

Um, that's 2 grams of tritium in 1.25 million tons of water.  Do the math.  It's less "contamination" than is permitted in domestic water supplies.

Calling bullshit on the Japanese because they're engaged in a coverup for expedience is also bullshit.  Many international nuclear regulatory agencies are closely monitoring Japan's plan to discharge the water into the ocean and agree it's going to be harmless.  I assure you Japan is being completely honest and transparent.  Note that removing other more serious radionuclides from the effluent is going to cost Japan many billions and may take twenty years of effort.  They're 'fessing up and doing the right thing at great expense.

I'd suggest you relax about future Fukushima emissions and concentrate on plastic pollution, overfishing, etc., if you're really interested in human caused ocean degradation.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sleeping next to someone in bed increases your rem count by much more than an entire year of drinking that water.

Humans have multiple naturally occurring radionuclides in them:

 Hydrogen 2, Hydrogen 3, Potassium 40, Carbon 14, very trace amounts of uranium 234, radon, radioactive lead, strontium 90...what else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Commercial Boater said:

I wonder if it will be possible to ever put an accurate dollar value on the damages as a result of DDT dumping and use. I'll bet that when set against the total profits companies made from selling DDT, the externalities of the negative human and environmental health impacts will wildly exceed any profit anyone ever gained. And, decades later, it now becomes the government's (and taxpayers') problem to clean it all up at a cost of tens of billions.

 

Socializing the costs of polluting industries isn't exactly "free market" behavior when you think about it, but lots of capitalists seem to be happy with that part of the status quo. I'm a young guy and am really not excited to pay taxes for the next 60-70 years to clean up the increasingly disastrous messes created by knowingly polluting industry and environmental destruction.

At this point, the pollution is personal though. Even by the late 80s, the Delaware River was overwhelmingly "non-point source" pollution. In other words, counting up all the registered permitted effluent got you ponly less than 20% of the pollutants. Suburban yards and personal vehicles made up the bulk of it.

And discarded patagonia polyester (or in my case, lost in a capsize on Long Island Sound). Added my part to the microplastic miasma.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I shudder to think how much water from the SF Bay I have involuntarily ingested.

Ick...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Windward said:

I shudder to think how much water from the SF Bay I have involuntarily ingested.

Ick...

At least all that Delaware River water I ingested is mostly Malthion and Motor Oil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, fastyacht said:

At least all that Delaware River water I ingested is mostly Malthion and Motor Oil.

Well, oil seems more healthy than some of these man made chemical nightmares...  so that is, er... good?  I guess?

Nope.  Probably not.

As for Malthion, at least you can ward off the Vampires, right?

 

At room temperature, malathion is a yellow to deep brown liquid with an odor of garlic. It is a solid below37 °F. It is often dissolved in a hydrocarbon solvent before use. Malathion itself is not volatile. It is slightly soluble in water, soluble in alcohols and aromatic solvents, and of limited solubility in petroleum oils. The premium grade can maintain its biological activity unchanged for approximately 2 years if stored unopened in a cool, shaded, and well aired place at 68–86 °F.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2021 at 4:19 PM, Irrational 14 said:

Actually I do want to know. Which are the nastiest and what foods are they paired with?

Well fortunately up until a few years ago non organic strawberries were treated with methyl bromide. I think California phased it out in 2017. I still won't eat non organic strawberries as they are still heavily treated with insecticides and herbicides. Google the dirty dozen foods. Its a pretty accurate list of the worst offenders. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 8:21 PM, axolotl said:

The planned Fukushima wastewater release meets drinking water standards;  the tritium is now diluted to less than 1,500 becquerels per liter, one-40th of the concentration permitted under Japanese safety standards and one-seventh of the WHO's guideline for drinking water.  The American limit is calculated to yield a dose of 4.0 millirems (or 40 microsieverts in SI units) per year. This is about 1.3% of the natural background radiation (roughly 3,000 μSv).   In fact, a Japanese official did drink the contaminated water only 9 months after the meltdown (Press Conference vid), and its radioactivity has decreased by a factor of ten through dilution and natural decay since then.

Since tritium is a low energy beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally (its beta particles are unable to penetrate the skin), but it can be a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food or water, or absorbed through the skin, at high doses.  That's not the situation here. Tritium has a short biological half-life in the human body of 7 to 14 days, which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of tritium from the environment.  Its decay product is not radioactive.

So in theory they could pump it into the local domestic water supply but will dump it into the ocean because of alarmist public perceptions and cost factors.

Don't you dare using facts to prove things! You fascist!

 

sarcasm font:OFF

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Squalamax said:

Well fortunately up until a few years ago non organic strawberries were treated with methyl bromide. I think California phased it out in 2017. I still won't eat non organic strawberries as they are still heavily treated with insecticides and herbicides. Google the dirty dozen foods. Its a pretty accurate list of the worst offenders. 

 

What about all that Paraquat that they sprayed on your Weed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:  Assembly Joint Resolution 2 (if it passes through the state legislature) would request that Congress and the US EPA take "all measures necessary" to prevent further damage by DDT waste dumped in Santa Catalina Channel.

Unfortunately, this is about the most that the State will be able to do because of the location.  Just thought that folks here might be interested about whats going on here.  As of this post, I am listening to the Assembly Committee Hearing on the resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update #2:  Los Angeles Times Article: Stunning DDT dump site off L.A. coast much bigger than scientists expected.

I'm half-shocked, and half completely unsurprised.  The maps in the article also show the boundary of state waters that I referenced earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2021 at 11:31 AM, AgentLocke said:

Update:  Assembly Joint Resolution 2 (if it passes through the state legislature) would request that Congress and the US EPA take "all measures necessary" to prevent further damage by DDT waste dumped in Santa Catalina Channel.

Unfortunately, this is about the most that the State will be able to do because of the location.  Just thought that folks here might be interested about whats going on here.  As of this post, I am listening to the Assembly Committee Hearing on the resolution.

What’s inside the yellow lines is State Waters.  The area between these lines is Federal Waters.  Seeing as how Governor Nuisance wasted upwards of $20 Billion on fraudulent Unemployment Benefits to Felons and the Russian Mafia (And to a few Nigerian Scammers), and $150 Billion on a non-existent Choo Choo Train, we don’t  much to spare!  So, like the Pension problem, Governor Hairgel is going to beg the Scarecrow (The one without a brain) and that dark skinned gal with rough knees for help!

61AC61AA-DBE2-4B77-8FC6-3131F34A1386.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

look, we are not going to kill the planet, it will be here long after we have killed ourselves... 

Quote

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Marine scientists say they have found what they believe to be as many as 25,000 barrels that possibly contain DDT dumped off the Southern California coast near Catalina Island, where a massive underwater toxic waste site dating back to World War II has long been suspected.

The 27,345 “barrel-like” images were captured by researchers at the University of California San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography. They mapped more than 36,000 acres of seafloor between Santa Catalina Island and the Los Angeles coast in a region previously found to contain high levels of the toxic chemical in sediments and in the ecosystem.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...