Chernobyl Questions

1.) Why is Chernobyl habitable for nature and places like Sweden and norway, they had to clean up reindeer carcasses because they had eaten contaminated soil?

2.) If there was a hundred times more radiation than Hiroshima and Nagasaki (more than 100 roentgens an hour which is more than a person should get yearly for the power plant) so why did only 187 people die vs. the thousands at the bombings (initially)?

3.) "One corner of a field might be highly dangerous, while just a few yards away levels seemed low." Why was the blast so uneven?

4.) "Up to 4,000 of these children had doses as high as 2,000 roentgen equivalents." How many roentgens does it take to kill a person?

5.) "As a consequence of inhaling aerosols containing iodine 131 immediately after the accident, 13,000 children in the re- gion experienced radiation doses to the thyroid of more than 200 roentgen equivalents." If the aerosols are bad to inhale, will anything happen if it touches someone?

6.) "Still, previous experi- ence with the long-term effects of radiation—much of it derived from studies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki—suggests that the toll [diseases and such] will continue to rise." Did the effects at HIroshima and Nagasaki ever decrease? Weren't people looking similar to Pompeii after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why are effects less than Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though radiation was high?

7.) "This mental trauma has given rise to a psychological syndrome comparable to that suffered by veterans of wars in Viet- nam and Afghanistan." So is it like shell-shock? ARE PEOPLE GETTING SICK FROM THE MEDIA??? (Like Dr. Whelan suggested?)

8.) "In order to prevent soluble compounds from further con- taminating water sources, the wastes must be removed to properly designed and equipped storage facilities—facilities that do not yet exist." How did Hiroshima and Nagasaki clean-up their radiation?

9.) "Rain and snow can get inside. If the sarcophagus were to collapse—which could happen if there were an earthquake—the rubble would very likely release large amounts of ra- dioactive dust." Can people not learn from their mistakes? B.P., you were WARNED that your pump needed repair!

10.) "We have embarked on a new, post-Chornobyl era, and we have yet to comprehend all the consequences." What will prove to be the most deadly and long-lasting effect?

Love Canal Panel Questions

1.) Is there any CURRENT evidence that the health problems are linked to the chemicals.

2.) If there is an uncommon amount of health problems/mutations/defects, then why can it not be DIRECTLY linked to the toxins?

3.) If this has happened in other places (on a smaller scale), then can we monitor that situation better to see how long it takes hose chemicals to disperse if, in fact, they do.

4.) Can the effects of these toxins be similar to that of DDT?

5.) Flies can be mutated by just living in cigarette smoke (i.e. wings and different color eyes) so shouldn't the effects of these toxins be far more apparent and severe?

8/30 Catalyst

1.) What caused the toxic waste to begin being pushed to the surface?
The winter and the wet season caused the water to run beneath the canal and push the toxins up. Also when people tried to move teh chemicals, it proved to make it worse.
2.) What are some of the health hazards associated with the chemicals dumped there?
There were a lot cancers and other problems such as liver disease, mutations, central nervous system problem, birth deffects, heart attacks, and epilepsy.
3.) Besides humans how are other parts of the ecosystem affected by this?
When the chemicals rose and created this gooey, black pools it was like tar pits and grasses and and plants couldn't grow there and what flora did grow, animals couldn't eat it, that is if they even lived there. Also, if humans can be mutated, couldn't animals that lived there be mutated, too, and what if they ruined the whole food chains and if another animal eats that contaminated one, then effects similar to DDT occur. It is also easy for animals to become mutated (ex. flies that are subject to smoke can have their genetic make-up changed and mutations can occur, i.e.: wings and different color eyes).

Hazards of Oil Dispersants

Facts:
Susan Shaw
*1/3 of all marine life is in danger of going extinct in 30 years
*Not dispersing oil=mangroves are hit; corals and sea grass are not
*Dispersing oil=mangroves are not harmed; coral and sea grass is
*Coral is being hit hardest
*Corexit and oil=0% fertilization with coral vs. just oil=98% fertilization
*1/4 of marine life (most of them rare) live in the coral reefs
*Corexit and oil is more toxic than either alone
*Corexit+oil=19,000x's increase in toxicity
*33 Wildlife refugees are at risk
*Gills and respiratory systems are most sensitive to toxicity
*Air-breathing mammals inhale toxic fumes which leads to pneumonia
*Foodweb will collapse
____________________________________________________________________________

Facts:
Article
*USF found oil at the bottom of an underwater cavern
*USF believes chemical dispersants caused the oil to sink
*USF thinks sunken oil will have an effect on bottom-dwelling plankton (base of foodchain)
*USF wonders in the sunken oil can rise again?
*UGA discover oil plumes in early May
*UGA estimates that there is still 90% of the oil in the water
*UGA oceanographers and toxicologists believe that 80% of the oil is still there in some form
*The federal government hasn't taken into account the effects of methane at Macondo and oil
*Plumes aren't underwater rivers of oil-they are likely invisible and represent parts per billion of oil
*Dispersed oil doesn't mean the oil is gone," says John Hovecar.
____________________________________________________________________________

Solving a Problem=Bigger Problem?
I think solving one problem can equal a bigger problem in different ways. One way in which solving a problem can create a bigger one, is by not necessarily creating a larger one, but, rather, by discovering a more bigger problem. As in, if you hadn't figured out Problem #1, you would've never even seen Problem #2; you had gain some information which was a key piece of info to the second complication. The second way one problem can mean a larger problem is, you screwed up trying to fix problem 1.
Your solution was one that would've been better if you hadn't even thought of it. Ex.) The BP oil spill: Corexit and the oil was more toxic than either alone and caused 0% fertilization in coral whereas just oil would've had 98%. Finally, another way that clearing one obstacle leads you to another, higher obstacle is by solving something that should've never been solved which just leads to the domino effect where one solution leads to another problem and another and another. Maybe humans should've died out long ago but we had created tools and advanced ourselves to situate ourselves to better our lives and started to withdraw ourselves from nature's laws and rule and it may end up killing everything around us . . . or we'll kill ourselves. We kept trying to solve many problems (and failing often) and if we DID solve one problem, then it lead to another. Even medicine, it leads to a larger population and if we looked at ourselves as we did other animals, we would be an over-population and be a huge hazard. But we don't (unless something HUGE happens and slaps us in the face-normally we cause it) but that doesn't mean our actions still don't have an effect; just because we refuse to see it, doesn't mean it's not there. And could this be the result of all our trials-and-errors we've done over the past years in order to, not only survive, but flourish?
____________________________________________________________________________

Oil vs. Chemical Dispersants
This depends, are we looking at it from the mangroves' or the corals'/sea grass' point of view? If it's from the mangroves', then the oil is far deadlier; if it's from the corals'/sea grass', then the chemical dispersants are. And if it's from human's perspective (the physical, not the mental), then Corexit because it has arsenic which is known to have high cancer-causing effects. But, really, the deadliest thing are the chemical dispersants and oil together. This dynamic duo is more toxic than either alone.

Chemical Dispersant

Does chemical dispersants mutate the flora and fauna?

Can we solve this "solution" by using similar method as that of DDT?

Can chemical dispersants spread across the world (by currents, air, creatures, etc.) to become an international problem?