I read your whole post, but I did not click on the links, but that’s unusual because usually I get totally bored by about halfway through some posts… very interesting. I’m wondering your opinion on eating fish from the Pacific Ocean especially the northern Pacific Ocean.

It is related to the decay product of the nearly five billion tons of uranium present in the ocean since the evolution of oxygen in the planetary atmosphere, specifically ²¹⁰Po, an isotope of polonium that is present in the decay series of ²³⁸U.

I discussed the very stupid media drive brouhaha about fish in the north pacific here:

Deluded Scientists Think They Can Reassure the Public on the Fukushima Tuna.

The Fukushima tuna fish was one of the best indicators of my often stated (partially) joking assertion that one cannot get a degree in journalism if one has passed a college level science course with a grade of C or better.

The concern over radioactivity in fish, particularly the very, very, very stupid carrying on about tritium releases, is absurd and silly to the extreme. However the upside is that fear of radioactivity in fish may be environmentally advantageous inasmuch as it may help restore depleted fish stocks. The concentration of tritium in seawater has been falling dramatically since the abandonment of atmospheric nuclear testing by the US and the former Soviet Union in 1963. People have been eating fish in the entire period between 1963 and the present day, with the environmental result, again, of the depletion of certain fish stocks.

I will read that as well...IMO I wish everyone would just back off on the Killing of Fish so the idea of the disaster helping replenish stocks is cool. I am an avid fan on YouTube of blue water sailors but I have come to hate it when they kill beautiful Tuna and especially Mahi Mahi. I eat fish but mostly wild caught fresh water species like Perch and Walleye. Your posts have changed my thinking...thank you sir.

that they have stored up and released back into the sea... Can you explain to me why they wouldn't or couldn't just let the water evaporate, then dispose of the much smaller solid material that is left? I'm sure there is some explanation why that option isn't feasible, but I've always wondered why not. Would evaporation release contaminants back into the air in a way that couldn't be controlled?

...the rate would have probably been much slower.

It is also possible that the public perception, as silly as it is, would have been worse, since the concentration of tritium in the atmosphere would have been somewhat higher. Rapid diffusion in seawater quickly leads to dilution to even more trivial concentrations.

It has not proved possible to detect tritium in seawater outside the Fukushima reactor since the concentration is very near background.

The water being released at Fukushima is passed through ion exchange resins to remove any other radioactive components, soluble fission products like cesium radioisotopes that may be in the water, again for public perception purposes, as the ocean is way more radioactive naturally than anything Fukushima can do, largely because a naturally occurring isotope of potassium ⁴⁰K is present in vast quantities. It is also in all living things, as potassium is an essential element to life.

I've always been amazed the volume of water being collected and stored. I had heard that they were running out of room to store it, and thought "hey, just open the cap and let it dry out."

but time has proven you correct in your statements. I remember the 3 martini lunch days when the first reactors were being built, and I have no faith in those individuals.

Thank you for educating me about nuclear power.

The one of very first textbooks on nuclear engineering (1959) was coauthored by a Nobel Laureate, Eugene Wigner, working and writing with the then Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Alvin Weinberg.

Physical Theory of Neutron Chain Reactors.

The man who led the way to the commercialization of nuclear reactors in the United States was also a Nobel Laureate (and a Democrat) who worked as head of the AEC in addition to his work as an educators and most importantly, his prodigious and unparalleled scientific output:

Glenn Seaborg

These reactors were built by engineers and scientists who worked with slide rules or with ancient computers less powerful than those in a wristwatch today.

The reactors these people built still serve humanity, more than half a century later.

These were not people hanging out in bars drinking martinis. They were not unserious people. They were among the finest minds ever to have lived. The demonization of their work has led to a vast tragedy for generations past, and will continue to lead to great tragedy for generations to come.

In my view, the ongoing destruction of the planetary atmosphere is a direct consequence of that demonization.

my true love is in rehab after a fall that broke his neck and fractured his leg.

I did not meant to disparage the scientists. I do remember contractors were not as dedicated to excellence. The Challenger blew up because of a $1.00 o-ring. Also, there were many mishaps along the way because of shoddy contractor work.

But let's turn to your comment.

I would like to submit a challenge, which is to show that nuclear power plants built in the 1970's in the US have killed as many people as space craft have, or for that matter, aircraft failures, or automotive engineering failures.

The United States has led the entire world in nuclear power production for more than four decades, with reactors built on engineering and materials and construction largely carried out in the 1970s.

These plants were built by American contractors using Union Labor.

The North Anna Nuclear Power Plants were just approved to operate for another two decades, extending their lives to 80 years.

NRC approves 20-year extension for North Anna 1 and 2

Every single glitch, minor or otherwise, at a nuclear power plant generates nearly hysterical coverage from our "but her emails" media, but for all the carrying on, the death toll is essentially nonexistent. However all of this "reporting" is ripe with "if" and "could" statements.

When a house blows up because of a dangerous natural gas leak - even in events that kill people - it hardly gets as much coverage as a minor fault at a nuclear powerplant is sure to get almost every time.

Nuclear power plants do not need to be risk free to be vastly superior to everything else. They do not need to be harmless to be less harmful than their alternatives. Specifically, it is not true that a death from radiation exposure from a leak at a nuclear power plant is more important than the 7 million deaths that take place each year from the normal operations of combustion based facilities. That is an immoral calculus in my view.

My view of nuclear power changed from that of a rote opponent - and frankly an unthinking and ignorant opponent - to that of an adherent, when the Chernobyl reactor exploded, answering, for all time, what the worst case is. It took some time and some critical thinking about that event, but within three years, by 1990 I had become a supporter of nuclear energy and remain one today.

I note that the country where Chernobyl is located, the one being attacked by fossil fuel powered weapons of mass destruction using funding provided by antinuclear Germans who sent oodles of money to Putin for gas, oil and coal, Ukraine, is planning to embrace nuclear power when the invaders are defeated:

Energoatom moves ahead with plans for new four-unit AP1000 plant

Given that the status quo has left the planet in flames, the worst case, Chernobyl, for nuclear power is of far less import than the best case for the status quo, the status quo being fossil fuels and lipstick on the fossil fuel pig, things like so called "renewable energy" and even worse, absurd energy storage schemes, also lipstick on the fossil fuel pig, batteries, hydrogen, CAES, blah, blah, blah. The status quo case is a planet in flames, vast ecosystems dying, extreme weather destroying towns, cities, and with them human lives. How do the bogeymen at Chernobyl, Fukushima, TMI compare?

Nuclear power plants save lives: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

The Union workers who built our plants in the 1970s did a hell of a good job; they left a tremendous gift for future generations, including the one of which I am a member. We owe it to the future to do the same.

I appreciate your advocacy for nuclear power and your efforts to educate us all.