Can someone from the USA disprove this video?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

As someone who lives in NC I am well aware of coastal islands rising and sinking and migrating. If an island is a isolated coral island, does not have a large surrounding source of sand etc, and it is not in an area that is uplifting then it is in trouble. Along the NC coast the barrier islands can just keep migrating inward to shore as the sea level rises.
 
Sad, but extremely odd that not once in the video did they take any radio active readings to share with the video?
 
That's a bit of a tricky subject. Despite sea level increases, land mass of pacific islands is increasing rather than decreasing. Here's a paper about it: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1
Here's an article about the paper that's easier to read and doesn't cost anything to access: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html
For some reason, I'm reminded of the old joke about the statistician who, with his feet in a bucket of ice water and his head in the oven, claimed that his average temperature was quite comfortable.
 
Sad, but extremely odd that not once in the video did they take any radio active readings to share with the video?
Few would understand them I think, I don’t recall specifics but when I was trained as a radiation worker in the Navy the risks were really down played, this was in the era when this “clean up” was going on.

The solid chunks of plutonium bearing material are of great concern, 18” of deteriorating concrete is not likely enough shield.
 
just imagine the feds coming in to po dunk usa and saying get out and don't come back, how would you feel
They did in Centralia, PA, 26 years ago after a coal mine caught fire 46 years ago. Some people still refuse to leave.
 
Few would understand them I think, I don’t recall specifics but when I was trained as a radiation worker in the Navy the risks were really down played, this was in the era when this “clean up” was going on.

The solid chunks of plutonium bearing material are of great concern, 18” of deteriorating concrete is not likely enough shield.
?? Plutonium is an alpha particle emitter. A sheet of notebook paper will stop an alpha particle. . .

I'm not trying to minimize the danger of having Pu around, it is incredibly toxic to ingest and the whole "lets blow up an island in the Pacific" is not this nation's finest hour. But, let's deal in facts, not hysteria
 
?? Plutonium is an alpha particle emitter. A sheet of notebook paper will stop an alpha particle. . .

I'm not trying to minimize the danger of having Pu around, it is incredibly toxic to ingest and the whole "lets blow up an island in the Pacific" is not this nation's finest hour. But, let's deal in facts, not hysteria
I guess there is little danger
During the decay of plutonium, three types of radiation are released—alpha, beta, and gamma. Alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are all forms of ionizing radiation. Either acute or longer-term exposure carries a danger of serious health outcomes including radiation sickness, genetic damage, cancer, and death. The danger increases with the amount of exposure.[31] Alpha radiation can travel only a short distance and cannot travel through the outer, dead layer of human skin. Beta radiation can penetrate human skin, but cannot go all the way through the body. Gamma radiation can go all the way through the body.[124] Even though alpha radiation cannot penetrate the skin, ingested or inhaled plutonium does irradiate internal organs.[31] Alpha particles generated by inhaled plutonium have been found to cause lung cancer in a cohort of European nuclear workers.[125] The skeleton, where plutonium accumulates, and the liver, where it collects and becomes concentrated, are at risk.[30] Plutonium is not absorbed into the body efficiently when ingested; only 0.04% of plutonium oxide is absorbed after ingestion.[31] Plutonium absorbed by the body is excreted very slowly, with a biological half-life of 200 years.[126] Plutonium passes only slowly through cell membranes and intestinal boundaries, so absorption by ingestion and incorporation into bone structure proceeds very slowly.[127][128]

Plutonium is more dangerous when inhaled than when ingested. The risk of lung cancer increases once the total radiation dose equivalentof inhaled plutonium exceeds 400 mSv.[129] The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the lifetime cancer risk from inhaling 5,000 plutonium particles, each about 3 µm wide, to be 1% over the background U.S. average.[130] Ingestion or inhalation of large amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and possibly death. However no human being is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium, and many people have measurable amounts of plutonium in their bodies.[111]

The "hot particle" theory in which a particle of plutonium dust irradiates a localized spot of lung tissue is not supported by mainstream research—such particles are more mobile than originally thought and toxicity is not measurably increased due to particulate form.[127]When inhaled, plutonium can pass into the bloodstream. Once in the bloodstream, plutonium moves throughout the body and into the bones, liver, or other body organs. Plutonium that reaches body organs generally stays in the body for decades and continues to expose the surrounding tissue to radiation and thus may cause cancer.[131]
 
  • The radiologic inventory buried beneath Runit Dome is dwarfed by the current inventory of fallout radionuclides in atoll lagoon sediments. Consequently, catastrophic failure of the concrete dome façade covering the debris mound and instantaneous release of all its contents into the lagoon will not necessarily lead to any significant change in the radiation dose delivered to the local resident population. However, current findings confirm there is a rapid tidal response in the height of groundwater beneath the containment structure. Therefore, under a more plausible release scenario, the potential does exist for contaminated groundwater from Runit Dome to flow into the nearby, subsurface marine environment. Similarly, uncertainties do remain about the total inventory and isotopic mix of fallout radionuclides contained in, and on the nature, integrity and potential to mobilize radionuclides from, the aged waste pile.
  • Any contaminated groundwater from beneath Runit Dome that reaches outflow points in the lagoon or on the ocean reef will be very rapidly diluted. Under this scenario, there will likely be little or no measureable or discernible increase in the radiation burden delivered to marine biota or the local human population on Enewetak. As such, historical studies have generally been dismissive about possible hazards associated with Runit Dome by use of a simple inventory argument and the rapid turnover time of sea water inside the lagoon. Such arguments have failed to alleviate the concerns of the people of Enewetak and its leadership.
  • The groundwater monitoring program conducted under P.L. 112–149 is intended to support the development of a conceptual model of groundwater flow and mass-transport of radionuclides from Runit Dome under different release scenarios. The initial phase of the project will focus on developing baseline measurement data on the time-evolution of water quality in the near-field, subsurface environment around Runit Dome. This high-resolution, contemporary measurement data will also be used to study the impact of forcing events such as tidal surges and storms on groundwater flow and mass-transport of radionuclides. These data and information are keys to providing understanding and interpretation of any long-term trends in groundwater quality inside and around Runit Dome. In this way, the groundwater monitoring program will support the development of a full and comprehensive assessment of the potential health and ecological impacts of any leakage of radioactive waste from Runit Dome, without relying on simple inventory arguments based upon the remobilization of radionuclides contained in lagoon sediments. In a very simplistic way, the groundwater monitoring program implemented under P.L. 112–149 could be viewed and presented publically as an ‘early warning’ system to assess significant changes in water quality before any radioactive material necessarily leaves the site boundary. As such, the groundwater monitoring program in and around Runit Dome will support U.S. agency efforts to address the concerns of the Enewetak community in a more direct and definitive manner, and help build public confidence in the maintenance of a safe and sustainable resettlement program.
From 2013 Report: A Visual Description of the Concrete Exterior of the Cactus Crater Containment Structure
 
The Runit dome was a half-assed effort to clean up the island to make it inhabitable. It was too expensive to haul the debris away in 55 gallon drums as had been done in other places. And the area was too contaminated for any kind of clean-up to make it suitable for regular habitation.
 

Back
Top Bottom