Radioactive fish near VY deemed common

It's nice to see Vt's key radiological health official, William Irwin, making cute little "red herring" jokes about a dangerous radioactive material showing up in our fish.
It's unconscionable that there has never been any baseline testing since the day the plant was built. Here we have an old nuke plant legally (but immorally) spewing tritium out of the stacks every day for 38 years. Now it's leaking radioactive material into the river, yet our own health official says that the radiation found in a fish might come from somewhere else. Right, but it might also be coming from a plant that according to the press has been leaking for years.
Rep. David Deen is correct. This plant is ruining Vermont's image as an environmentally safe state. But not to worry, because Entergy is making a ton of money while ruining our state's reputation. There's always an upside.

And just how old is that fish supposed to be??

Ineresting commentary about 'the fish' from GMD its under the 'I fixed it' pic of guy on bike wheel fixed w/rollerskate:

Remember the radioactive fish?(4.00 / 2)
The Washington Post talked to chief Health Officer Bill Irwin, who does his best to encourage out-of-state tourism.
The headline is one for the record books:

Radioactive fish near nuclear plant said ordinary
Not to worry. Bill's not worried:

Meanwhile, Irwin says his department has more important things to worry about, including roughly 2,000 water, soil and other samples taken from around Vermont Yankee since a leak of tritium and other radioactive substances was announced in January.
It's a short article, that raises more questions than it answers. Like, the DoH has 2,000 samples that haven't been tested? Why the disparity in how long it takes to get radioactive isotopes identified?

The big tritium+ leak was identified in January from a sample taken in November. The strontium laced fish was revealed in May, from a fish caught in February. But overnight, ENVY can tell us that at least 13 isotopes were revealed in this "new" leak that won't hurt a bit.

It has not been revealed how a 1/8 inch hole developed in a two inch pipe overnight.

by: ed @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 13:44:48 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...

----------
by: ed @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 13:46:07 PM CDT
[ Parent ]

----------

by: you @ soon

LA Times tops Washington Post!(4.00 / 2)
Headline from the LA Times:

Bad news: radioactive fish found near nuclear plant; Worse news: fish said to be ordinary
Hollywood! Plan your fishing trips to the Green Mtn State now!

by: ed @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 14:02:19 PM CDT
[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

Wow,the new nromal.(4.00 / 2)
What does a fish have to do around here to be extraordinary?

by: BP @ Sun May 30, 2010 at 15:19:00 PM CDT http://greenmountaindaily.com/diary/6324/verm...

Gee, I may not be the sharpest pencil in the pack but if I use their theory then EVERY yellow perch and "red herring" should have the same level.
Kinda makes you want to eat cereal....

-Who caught the fish?
-Who had the fish tested?
-Can we get a look at the test results?
-What is the age of the fish?
-How long does it take a fish to travel 4 miles upstream?
-If a fish consumed the particle and then died only to have another fish eat the carcus and then repeat the process over and over, could this explain how the particle traveld upstream over decades?
-Did the fish show any signs of cancer or other sickness?
-Is there some kind of isotope (or another)'signature' to narrow down the origin of the particle?
-Has anyone tested the local fishermen or septic tanks?
-Can we be absolutely sure that the anti nuclear activits didn't plant the fish?

N C I S wrote:

-Who caught the fish?
-Who had the fish tested?
-Can we get a look at the test results?
-What is the age of the fish?
-How long does it take a fish to travel 4 miles upstream?
-If a fish consumed the particle and then died only to have another fish eat the carcus and then repeat the process over and over, could this explain how the particle traveld upstream over decades?
-Did the fish show any signs of cancer or other sickness?
-Is there some kind of isotope (or another)'signature' to narrow down the origin of the particle?
-Has anyone tested the local fishermen or septic tanks?
-Can we be absolutely sure that the anti nuclear activits didn't plant the fish?

You sound desperate, man. Real desperate.

Well-documented radiation leaks at a nuclear plant; radiation showing up in fish in the same river; and you want to try to imply that there ISN'T a problem? And that VY should be relicensed for another 20 years?

That's really desperate.

Youre-kidding-Right wrote:

It's nice to see Vt's key radiological health official, William Irwin, making cute little "red herring" jokes about a dangerous radioactive material showing up in our fish.
It's unconscionable that there has never been any baseline testing since the day the plant was built. Here we have an old nuke plant legally (but immorally) spewing tritium out of the stacks every day for 38 years. Now it's leaking radioactive material into the river, yet our own health official says that the radiation found in a fish might come from somewhere else. Right, but it might also be coming from a plant that according to the press has been leaking for years.
Rep. David Deen is correct. This plant is ruining Vermont's image as an environmentally safe state. But not to worry, because Entergy is making a ton of money while ruining our state's reputation. There's always an upside.

Vermont Yankee is the only zero discharge plant in the country is it not? Originally built to discharge into the river,VY was modified before going online because Vermont prohibited the customary practice of discharging mildly radioactive water (tritium etc)) into the river. No radioactive water being discharged would explain the reason for not testing previously. Two years ago VY drilled test wells in response to findings at the nation's other nuke plants. After two years of testing, a tritium leak was detected & corrected. Now we have reason to test the river and wildlife as a discharge has taken place. The question is, do we assign the presence of all the radiation in the river to Vermont Yankee? The evidence (as stated in the article)says no.

-"Can we be absolutely sure that the anti nuclear activits didn't plant the fish"?

You had my attention until that comment. Lame.

Any woman who plans to become pregnant should also limit exposure to radiation and toxics, and all fish. The effects on a fetus might reasonably be assumed to include teh lifetime dose of it's mother's nucleotides. The half-life of Strontium-90 is approx 29 years.
John Till's statement about avoiding fish, "Absolutely not." calls into question his judgment and objectivity. At most, the available science would allow him to say "Probably not." A more precautionary view would require the opposite response: "Probably."
The concentration of radio isotopes and toxics in flesh at it moves up the food chain is especially powerful multiplier in water, since flotation reduces caloric use and increases the number of layers in the chain.
Read Sandra Steingraber's _Having Fatih_, and _Living Downstream_.

"Can we be absolutely sure that the anti nuclear activits didn't plant the fish"?

And where would activists get said tainted fish to plant in the river? I'm sure that strontium-90 is as prevalent as pot is on the street corners of Brattleboro, right?

northstardust wrote:

-"Can we be absolutely sure that the anti nuclear activits didn't plant the fish"?
You had my attention until that comment. Lame.

Why?

Why? I simply find it ludicrous that someone would catch a fish, dose it w/Sr 90, endanger themselves in the process, then hurl it in the river, so that it could be caught and examined...

VY does not need anyone to manufacture evidence, they do a fine job of it all by themselves...

Irwins response equally absurd. I'm tiring of the Chernobyl crock, as well as the 'nuclear testing from 50s' bs. TMI is never used as an example for a source I see. His comments range from somewhat reasonable and knowledgeable, to utterly whacked. What is he smoking. I want some.

As he makes news whining about the Sr90 sample which hasn't been sent to a testing lab for 7? 8? weeks-sources claim he has 2000 which have not been tested.

Let's have a lie check here people.
Do fish migrate? Yes!
Does the company responsible for the spill have to go out of their way to determine long term effects to the effected area. No! They only need to meet EPA guide lines and do what the EPA wants them to do as long as it reduces the contaminates to with in Federal Guide Lines for the substance in question. Sucks to be the little people who fish and enjoy the land. While the ignorant and not so ingorant enjoy the spoils and move to cleaner lands.
Hmm,
Think people its time the goverment holds true to protect it people and the lands.
NOT POLUTE THEM.
I'm just saying everyone needs to get it right.

northstardust wrote:

Why? I simply find it ludicrous that someone would catch a fish, dose it w/Sr 90, endanger themselves in the process, then hurl it in the river, so that it could be caught and examined...
VY does not need anyone to manufacture evidence, they do a fine job of it all by themselves...
Irwins response equally absurd. I'm tiring of the Chernobyl crock, as well as the 'nuclear testing from 50s' bs. TMI is never used as an example for a source I see. His comments range from somewhat reasonable and knowledgeable, to utterly whacked. What is he smoking. I want some.
As he makes news whining about the Sr90 sample which hasn't been sent to a testing lab for 7? 8? weeks-sources claim he has 2000 which have not been tested.

How would trace amounts, not consumed and planted in fish by eco terrorists endanger them? I believe that some people would do anything to close down a nuke plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation...
How about a conspiracy theory from a new angle folks?

"How would trace amounts, not consumed and planted in fish by eco terrorists endanger them?"

I didn't ask the question.

Nice job in taking what I said and twisting it to further your nutty agenda. No matter what the comment-result would have been the same.

Yup wrote:

"Can we be absolutely sure that the anti nuclear activits didn't plant the fish"?
And where would activists get said tainted fish to plant in the river? I'm sure that strontium-90 is as prevalent as pot is on the street corners of Brattleboro, right?

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs159.h...

@IVV: Very interesting. Your link unreadable.

I am unsure of the evidence and existance of some of these wierdos. During the Vitnam War, there were plants used to discredit the movement by performing criminal acts and acts of violence.

This is a threat to any viable org, they can become infiltrated by the opposition.

Most responsible activist groups I do not think would want or need the baggage and inherent problems a criminal element would bring, or to be linked w/something that reasonable people whose support is needed to recognize the issue the org is confronting.

Link worked for me just fine.

I Vote Vermont wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs159.h...

The article is ATSDR - Public Health Statement: Strontium I have no trouble reading the link I provided, just scroll down past the tech jargon and you will see the EPA info.