Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/greyraven/64981/fukushima-unit-1-the-corium-has-disappeared[b]Accordingly, 140 metric tons of corium are no longer in the reactor vessel. The temperatures measured by IRID in the PCV as per August 25. 2015, which generally range throughout the entire Unit 1 complex at around 30 degrees Celsius, appear to confirm this. All that remains is corium “residue” seen on the walls along which it flowed downwards, as described (see images) in the links above.
It should be understood, that when addressing the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, what we are looking at is not just one catastrophic nuclear event but at four separate events, each harboring their own, distinct risks and dangers. Each of the remaining three units at the site will have to be separately dealt with; one confirmed complete core meltdown with a fully compromised primary containment, two (partial or complete) core meltdowns.
As things stand, there are now well neigh 100+ metric tons of highly radioactive nuclear corium located somewhere beneath Unit 1 at the Fukushima Daiichi site.
[/B]
What I don't understand is how you can't see the difference between
"Fukushima is a horrible disaster" and "Fukishima is the cause declining fishing population, the ozone layer and blood diamonds".
Originally posted by Omega Vision
So just a reminder, this is about how overfishing is destroying fish populations. Not about radiation. If you want to talk about radiation, TI, why not make a thread for that?
I think he was referring to a new japanese radiation fishing techinique is all in regards to over fishing 😉
Originally posted by Omega VisionQuestion from the ignorance.
So just a reminder, this is about how overfishing is destroying fish populations. Not about radiation. If you want to talk about radiation, TI, why not make a thread for that?
Considering how vast and relatively unexplored the ocean remains, is overfishing really a plausible phenomenon? What species are the most affected without taking into account chain effect?
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Question from the ignorance.Considering how vast and relatively unexplored the ocean remains, is overfishing really a plausible phenomenon?
Realizing that everything has a cycle of birth, life, death and that when we reach into that food chain and pull out resources then yes its very plausible to overfish, especially when we do it better then nature itself.
Generally when speaking of overfishing the first thought is commercial catches not all fish.
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Question from the ignorance.Considering how vast and relatively unexplored the ocean remains, is overfishing really a plausible phenomenon? What species are the most affected without taking into account chain effect?
Japanese over "Fishing" of shark species just to for the fins to make soup is having a pretty good effect. Like other species going out of control with out this necessary predator keeping them in check. Like how jelly fish pops are spooging out of control.
NUKE THE JAPANESE BEFORE ThEY KILL US ALL!
😱
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Question from the ignorance.Considering how vast and relatively unexplored the ocean remains, is overfishing really a plausible phenomenon? What species are the most affected without taking into account chain effect?
Large and expanding areas of the ocean have virtually no life. Some 25% of them are almost barren and those areas are growing roughly 15% every 10 years due to lack of sufficient oxygen and nutrients in the water. A further 50% isn't really productive enough for fishing
Originally posted by jaden101
Large and expanding areas of the ocean have virtually no life. Some 25% of them are almost barren and those areas are growing roughly 15% every 10 years due to lack of sufficient oxygen and nutrients in the water. A further 50% isn't really productive enough for fishing
A considerable amount of the ocean is just "desert." Just wanted to add that point, Jaden said it better though.