Brain_damaged
Well-known member
I wouldn't worry too much about Cesium 137 in californian wine, unless you also worry about mercury and other heavy metals from the ocean. All things considered the ocean is a big place and once diluted, the amount of radioactive material outside of Fukushima itself, and especially the amount that managed to make it across the ocean, catch a ride in water vapour, deposit in the wineyard and then travel into the grapes is pretty close to normal levels you'd find anywhere. I'd worry a lot more about pesticides and other stuff that's applied directly to the plant over many years. I know that's not as sexy a thing to worry about as cesium though
Playing "my nuclear disaster is bigger than your nuclear disaster" misses the point entirely. They're both examples of what not to do when working with civilization-ending materials.
But if you must: Chenobyl: ~85 peta bequerel of radioactive material released; Fukushima: ~25. You can read about what bequerel mean on your own.
wrong...
Fukushima 121.6 to 131.2 peta Becquerel
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/0...-the-worst-nuclear-power-disaster-in-history/
Sans diminuer Tchernobyl, c'est une vrai joke comparé à Fukushima...
Tchernobyl a été ''maitrisé'' en moins d'un mois, Fukushima n'est toujours pas maitrisé 8 ans plus tard...
bien que les deux soient des explosions de centrale nucléaire, ils ne se comparent vraiment pas au niveau de la gravité...
tchernobyl = 1 meltdown /// Fukushima = 3 meltdown
Tchernobyl = Erreur humaine /// Fukushima = Catastrophe Naturelle + Négligence solide et stupidité de conception
Sans compter qu'encore aujourd'hui, on ne sait pas tous sur fukushima...
Last edited: