Sometimes it takes a crisis to prod us into asking important questions.
Katrina--Should we be building infrastructure in tidal lowlands likely to be impacted by hurricanes?
The Gulf Oil Spill--Is deep water drilling for oil being done in a manner that lacks proper safeguards?
Japan Earthquake--Should nuclear power plants be located near seismic areas prone to earthquakes and tsunamis?
Being from Alaska, with fish being a large part of our diet here, and with my own background and expertise being biology, ecology, fisheries oriented, I woke up wondering what would be the impacts on Pacific Ocean fisheries should there ever be a major nuclear event and fallout getting into the air and water from Japan (or elsewhere, for that matter).
It's a question worth asking, as are others. Not to panic, but certainly we need to be asking the questions and looking deep into these issues to create policy in the future that is sound.
I found some references. Others have asked and attempted to answer this question. So here and below the fold are some excerps of what I have learned so far.
The first thing that came up is a 1957 compilation of reports: "The Effects of Atomic Radiation on Oceanography and Fisheries."
It's under Google Books and is a document of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.
http://books.google.com/...
Additional details below the fold.
There's no easy cut and paste with this National Academy of Sciences document so I am typing this in directly:
The most serious potential hazards to human beings from the introduction of radio active products into the marine environment are those that may arise through the uptake of radio isotopes by organisms used for human food...
The oceans and their resources cannot be separated into isolated compartments; what happens in one area of the sea ultimately affects all of it...
Nuclear explosions have been the principal source of fission products introduced into the sea to date.
Cesium 137 and strontium 89 and 90 remain in solution while ruthenium 106, cerium 144, zirconium 95, yttruim 90 and 90 and niobium 95 are largely in the solid phase...
The long-lived and dangerous isotope, strontium 90, has a relatively high transfer percentage and long equilibrium or "residence" time; the same would be expected for cesium 137, which is alkali and should behave somewhat like potassium or rubidium...
The most important fission product from all these considerations is strontium 90 and its daughter yttruim 90. This isotope has a large fission yield and a long physical half-life, is concentrated by organisms, and con be tolerated in human food only in very low amounts. Ce 144 is another isotope with a large fission yield , which is concentrated by organisms (Harley, 1956), and has a moderately slow decay rate. Due to its small uptake and low retention by humans, it can, however, be tolerated in human food in much greater concentrations than Sr 90...
...the quantity of radio active materials that can be introduced safely into coastal waters near shore is very limited, of the order of a few hundred curies per day...
Our present knowledge should be sufficient to dispel much of the overconfidence on the one hand and the fear on the other...
From the above context, it can be concluded that there was in the 1950's and still is a lot we don't know about the risks to oceans and fisheries from radioactive fallout and waste disposal.
Greenpeace cites Chernobyl in their concerns published August 31, 2010.
http://www.greenpeace.org/...
Nearly 25 years after the worst nuclear accident in history, new scientific findings suggest that the effects of the explosion at Chernobyl have been underestimated. Experts last month published a series of studies indicating that, contrary to previous findings, populations of animals decreased in the exclusion zone surrounding the site of the former nuclear power plant, and that the effects of radioactive contamination after the outbreak had been "overwhelming." More and more pigs with high levels of cesium are found at the scene. This information was disclosed months after doctors detected increased rates of cancer in Ukraine and Belarus, mutations and diseases of the blood, which they believe are related to Chernobyl...
And finally debates over a new nuclear power plant in Armenia were published in August 2010 by EurasiaNet.org.
http://www.eurasianet.org/...
...It's a crime to build a new nuclear power station in Metsamor," Hakob Sanasaryan, president of the Greens Union of Armenia, told EurasiaNet.org. "A nuclear power station cannot be constructed near water and agricultural systems, in seismic zones, in densely populated areas...
So the beat goes on. Personally, I want to minimize risks to oceans and fisheries. We should proceed with much caution when it comes to nuclear power. Not be fear-mongering, not to panic, but to ask necessary questions. It usually takes a crisis to remind us.
Updated by akmk at Sun Mar 13, 2011, 09:09:10 PM
Dr Christopher Busby, a former adviser to the government on radiation, has been describing the severity of the nuclear threat on the BBC.
He said: ""Particularly concerning is the [Fukushima] number three reactor which I understand is in trouble now, because... it runs on a different sort of fuel; it doesn't run on uranium, it runs on a mixed uranium plutonium fuel, and plutonium is an extremely serious hazard.
"If this stuff comes out then it's going to make what's happened so far, in terms of the tsunami damage, look a little bit like an entrée to the real course."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...
Updated by akmk at Sun Mar 13, 2011, 09:30:06 PM
Professor Richard Wakeford, a nuclear expert at Manchester University, said yesterday: ‘If the fuel is not covered by cooling water it could become so hot it begins to melt – if all the fuel is uncovered you could get a large-scale meltdown.’
Hopefully this will not happen, and thanks to both the design of the Japanese reactors and to the swift and organised response of the authorities, handing out iodine pills to prevent the ingestion of cancer-causing substances, there is little chance that Fukushima will enter the annals of notoriety alongside Chernobyl.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...
Let us hope all goes as well as possible. Definitely a scary, close call--at best.
Updated by akmk at Sun Mar 13, 2011, 09:39:41 PM
...About 160 people had been exposed to dangerous radiation levels close to the power stations, the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said, with at least three plant workers showing severe symptoms of radiation sickness...
Japanese public television broadcast nuclear emergency warnings, telling people who were still close to the plants to stay indoors, not to drink water, to cover exposed skin and to place wet towels over their mouths and noses to ward off contamination...
A complete meltdown - the collapse of a power plant's ability to keep temperatures under control - could release uranium and dangerous contaminants into the environment and pose major, widespread health risks...
Experts noted, however, that even a complete meltdown would probably be far less severe than the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl, where a reactor exploded and sent a cloud of radiation over much of Europe. That reactor, unlike the ones in Fukushima, was not housed in a sealed container.
http://www.smh.com.au/...
Updated by akmk at Sun Mar 13, 2011, 11:55:25 PM
From the Washington Post (excellent article addressing nuclear risks overall):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
It’s impossible to know how a plume of radioactivity traveling over the ocean might affect sea life, said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which strongly opposes nuclear power. He said there has been virtually no research done into the subject.