Syrian chemical weapons to be destroyed at sea because no country will take them - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43013188][img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/9248_10151797124773375_68692815_n.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Well he didn't check the lungs :v:

They aren't even dumping it into the sea. They're using seawater to dilute it to the point that it's useless, and then finding a country that will take it in that form

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;43013188]Fantastic. Your point about low-level organisms was excellent. By the time you realise that your [I]1/10 the radiation of a banana[/I] has destroyed an ecosystem that took billions of years to build up and was required for humans to exist at all, it's already far too late to do anything about it. [img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/9248_10151797124773375_68692815_n.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] If the equivalent absorbed dose of 0.1 bananas per radiating object (but I'll wager that the number of tuna on Earth doesn't outweigh the number of bananas by a factor of ten, and terrestrial areas don't have the added benefit of dilution like the ocean does so the problem would be significantly worse for us here on the ground) was something that could 'destroy an ecosystem that took billions of years to build up,' then we'd all already be MAJORLY fucked. And we're not. So... please don't talk about things if you really have no clue how they work. ESPECIALLY nuclear science. People are SHOCKINGLY misinformed about it, and it's really fucking annoying. Iodine-131 was the most concerning radioisotope that leaked from Fukushima due to the levels which were released, but it has a short half-life and within 80 days or so 99% of Iodine-131 decays into stable isotopes. Any other radioactive run off is much less of a concern because the other detected radioisotopes have a much longer half-life (i.e. less radioactive) and occurred in minute quantities - the risks they represents are more one of heavy metal poisoning than one of radiation, but again, heavy isotopes were only released in minuscule quantities from Fukushima so that concern is pretty much null anyway.

i'll take the chemical weapons... i can prolly find some use for them somewhere around the house...maybe they will take care of my roach and mouse problem. [editline]29th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sltungle;43013391]If the equivalent absorbed dose of 0.1 bananas per radiating object (but I'll wager that the number of tuna on Earth doesn't outweigh the number of bananas by a factor of ten, and terrestrial areas don't have the added benefit of dilution like the ocean does so the problem would be significantly worse for us here on the ground) was something that could 'destroy an ecosystem that took billions of years to build up,' then we'd all already be MAJORLY fucked. And we're not. So... please don't talk about things if you really have no clue how they work. ESPECIALLY nuclear science. People are SHOCKINGLY misinformed about it, and it's really fucking annoying. Iodine-131 was the most concerning radioisotope that leaked from Fukushima due to the levels which were released, but it has a short half-life and within 80 days or so 99% of Iodine-131 decays into stable isotopes. Any other radioactive run off is much less of a concern because the other detected radioisotopes have a much longer half-life (i.e. less radioactive) and occurred in minute quantities - the risks they represents are more one of heavy metal poisoning than one of radiation, but again, heavy isotopes were only released in minuscule quantities from Fukushima so that concern is pretty much null anyway.[/QUOTE] you are sorta using the same "science" of the chesterfield ad, dude. [editline]29th November 2013[/editline] after 10 months there is no harmful effects from smoking, therefore smoking can't be harmful to the health.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43013397]i'll take the chemical weapons... i can prolly find some use for them somewhere around the house...maybe they will take care of my roach and mouse problem. [editline]29th November 2013[/editline] you are sorta using the same "science" of the chesterfield ad, dude. [editline]29th November 2013[/editline] after 10 months there is no harmful effects from smoking, therefore smoking can't be harmful to the health.[/QUOTE] Or because, y'know, the effects of nuclear material on biological organisms is VERY well understood after close to a century's worth of research as well as huge sample sizes of individuals exposed to nuclear materials as a result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as well as the Chernobyl incident. We have studies which span more than one generation of humans (hell, we're probably getting third generation individuals to study now in Japan from the WWII bombings), and there's definitely gonna be studies out there which span a dozen generation of mice - I'll bet you that. We know the effects of radioactive materials on biological organisms very well, and we can extrapolate logically that if bananas aren't killing every human ever who's consumed them (or the children or grandchildren of people who have consumed them, etc) then tuna that are giving off a biological equivalent dose of radiation of 0.1 bananas aren't going to kill anyone (and considering how high tuna are in the hierarchy of ocean life they're where the accumulation will be happening, so it's all lower concentration below them). I'm not saying chemical weapons will be exactly the same case - depending what's in them and how much there is there could be some serious concerns, but do NOT underestimate dilution, and do not underestimate the size of the world's oceans and just how much they can dilute.

There was a lot more radiation in the oceans long before fukushima. They still use radiation from atomic bomb tests to track water movements. Its not really a big issue. I'd be more concerned about the mercury in my seafood than radiation. That's a bigger concern.

[QUOTE=sltungle;43013462]Or because, y'know, the effects of nuclear material on biological organisms is VERY well understood after close to a century's worth of research as well as huge sample sizes of individuals exposed to nuclear materials as a result of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as well as the Chernobyl incident. We have studies which span more than one generation of humans (hell, we're probably getting third generation individuals to study now in Japan from the WWII bombings), and there's definitely gonna be studies out there which span a dozen generation of mice - I'll bet you that. We know the effects of radioactive materials on biological organisms very well, and we can extrapolate logically that if bananas aren't killing every human ever who's consumed them (or the children or grandchildren of people who have consumed them, etc) then tuna that are giving off a biological equivalent dose of radiation of 0.1 bananas aren't going to kill anyone (and considering how high tuna are in the hierarchy of ocean life they're where the accumulation will be happening, so it's all lower concentration below them). I'm not saying chemical weapons will be exactly the same case - depending what's in them and how much there is there could be some serious concerns, but do NOT underestimate dilution, and do not underestimate the size of the world's oceans and just how much they can dilute.[/QUOTE] so you think that the radiation currently present in tunas is the most that it will be, and that it is the only way to measure the effect of the radioactive contamination on the ecosystem?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43013487]so you think that the radiation currently present in tunas is the most that it will be, and that it is the only way to measure the effect of the radioactive contamination on the ecosystem?[/QUOTE] Yeah, pretty much. Given how little nuclear materials were released from Fukushima and given how short lived the most dangerous radioisotopes (which made up the bulk of said nuclear materials) are... yes. It's not an issue. Again, heavy metal poisoning due to long lived heavier isotopes would be much more concerning, but once again these isotopes were released in such small quantities that the level of mercury we as a species pump into the oceans is much more concerning in that regard.

last i checked fukushima is still leaking out radioactive materials?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43013534]last i checked fukushima is still leaking out radioactive materials?[/QUOTE] That's more of a problem for the coastal ecosystem as it'll accumulate in the sediment. And the radiation in sea life will bioaccumulate aswell but its still a non-issue at current levels. Mercury much worse.

I'll take them off of Syria's hands if no one else wants them.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;43013615]I'll take them off of Syria's hands if no one else wants them.[/QUOTE] i already called dibs asshole.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43013619]i already called dibs asshole.[/QUOTE] Mr. Postal! Yawmwen and Cqb are starting a fight!

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43011361]Why doesn't Russia just take them, and dump them in the thousands of thousands of miles of artic waste? [editline]28th November 2013[/editline] Russia is literally the best garbage dump in the world for this kind of thing.[/QUOTE] you realise landfills are bad?

Call me crazy, but I don't want Russia to be in possession of these weapons at any time. The UN is doing the right thing in this case, assuming they are not just dumping a few tons of sarin into the ocean. I'm sure the UN has top people on the job of making it safe.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;43013899]Call me crazy, but I don't want Russia to be in possession of these weapons at any time. The UN is doing the right thing in this case, assuming they are not just dumping a few tons of sarin into the ocean. I'm sure the UN has top people on the job of making it safe.[/QUOTE] They're not dumping it at sea.