What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)

https://medium.com/stanford-magazine/stanford-research-on-effects-of-radioactivity-from-bikini-atoll-nuclear-tests-on-coral-and-crab-dna-48459144020c

by voxadam • 1 year ago

182 97 1 year ago

medium.com

abound• 1 year ago

The note about using C-14 (introduced from nuclear blasts) to date the age of living cells is fascinating.

ToucanLoucan• 1 year ago

I read this several times as C-4 not C-14 and was very curious how one would date the age of living cells with plastic explosives. I think I need more coffee.

prerok3• 1 year ago

Sorry, say what? C-14 comes from exposure to radiation also from the sun. Dating by it would make no sense in recent history because it would be too hard. Am I missing something?

prerok3• 1 year ago

Answering my own question, after rereading TFA. It's more because the C-14 was doubled and not because C-14 did not exist before.

eigenket• 1 year ago

This graph [1] available on Wikipedia answers this question. The level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere (in the southern hemisphere) roughly doubled between 1955 and 1963 ish. This coincides with the era of above ground nuclear testing. Since then it has been decaying back to the baseline.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#/media/File%3ARadioc...

blendergeek• 1 year ago

https://archive.is/oGLO7

declan_roberts• 1 year ago

I wonder why "extinction rebellion" types don't love nuclear power more.

When it works right we have unlimited clean energy.

And when it goes wrong you have a 50,000 year nature preserve.

ForTheKidz• 1 year ago

Because we talk about the harms of radiation far more than we discuss the harms of pollution and CO2, despite the latter having orders of magnitude more health impacts. We'd have to have hundreds or maybe thousands of chernobyls a year to compete.

wkat4242• 1 year ago

If you look only at deaths yes. But radioactive contamination can lead to a lot more damage to health and nature than just deaths. As an example, Fukushima caused 1 death but its pollution was detected all the way across the Atlantic. Yet usually only deaths are factored in.

And the biggest issue is that one incident can cause so much of it. Add to the fact that we tend to rely on the lowest bidder who will then inevitably cut corners to make as much of a profit for their shareholders, and accidents will happen. Also, there's proliferation risk. No, nuclear material from power plants isn't useable for nuclear bombs but it is for dirty bombs.

If we do it, it should be state managed like the military. We don't let commercial parties play around with nuclear bombs. Why should they be trusted with power plants that contain a hell of a lot more nuclear material?

Edit: oh and uranium mining is also pretty polluting business.

I'm not saying that coal is better. But renewable certainly is. That should be the #1 goal, and the base load met by power storage. Only by nukes if there's no other way.

Anyway that's my opinion as an environmental type.

WorkerBee28474• 1 year ago

Because their stated purpose and their real intents are not aligned.

hijinks• 1 year ago

people have seemed to forget that there were some people in LA that use to walk outside in gas masks due to all the air pollution.

serviceberry2• 1 year ago

Because a lot of environmental movements aren't rooted in utilitarianism, but in deeper beliefs that the endless pursuit of growth is inherently evil. The basic idea is that tigers and wolves have as much right to the planet as we do, and we've already taken too much. Hence the degrowth movement, etc.

This is why many environmental activists see cheap, abundant energy as problematic. It would mean less air pollution or less climate change, but it would allow humans to "consume" more of the ecosystem.

To be clear, this isn't my worldview. But as with most other movements advocating for social change, the underlying ideology is usually more complex than it appears.

zenolijo• 1 year ago

I only personally know one person who had been an active member in Extinction Rebellion and I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. It seems like they all agree that the amount of growth we have today is unsustainable, but what sustainable growth exactly is and in turn how much growth needs to be compromised is not agreed upon. So I don't believe that endless pursuit of growth is against most of their members opinion, they just have a much stricter view on what sustainable growth is (and that some degrowth might be needed to achieve sustainable growth in the long term).

tehjoker• 1 year ago

I think this is probably a misrepresentation of degrowth. Perhaps there are some that take an extreme view like that, but it is more that we are very very obviously beyond the limits of sustainable living and something will have to give, now, or worse in the future as we deplete even more resources.

Some of these differences won't be "degrowth" but changes, like shifting to high speed rail and buses over personal cars. Reducing meat in our diets. Giving nature some breathing room. In other words, a different way of living that might take some adjustment but would also be perfectly fine.

Furthermore, we need to consider developing societies. If we continue to consume finite natural resources unsustainably, we cut into the share that could be used to better the lives of the poorest societies on Earth.

I'm not involved in XR though. However, I think it's important to present a highly materialist viewpoint. It's not only about morality, but about ensuring as many people as possible can live decent lives in a renewed balance with nature.

concordDance3• 1 year ago

Hence the degrowth movement, etc.

The oddest thing about this to me is that they don't seem to think through what exactly this implies.

If one truly believes in the need to reduce human population then by far the highest margin things are not things like preserving a few hundred year old forest in England, but mass introduction of contraceptives to the DRC. It'll be places like Nigeria and Congo that dominate in terms of number of humans next century, not dying Europe (whose resource usage will decline even faster as fertility free falls), and those countries are not going to remain low resource consumption for too long.

PaulDavisThe1st• 1 year ago

a 50,000 year nature preserve

that begins with none of the existing lifeforms that were there beforehand.

defrost3• 1 year ago

The comment spoke about nuclear power accidents; neither Three mile island, Fukishima, nor Chernobyl wiped out all (or even a significant number) of existing lifeforms.

Bikini Atoll was blasted with 23 (or 24, there's an edge case) separate nuclear explosions in the air, at sea level, and underwater, one a thousand times more powerful than either of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons.

Not comparable to a nuclear power station accident.

tdeck• 1 year ago

What is this baaed on, vibes? I don't see an official position on nuclear power from XR. All I can find is discussions like this where people discuss a diversity of views about nuclear power.

https://old.reddit.com/r/ExtinctionRebellion/comments/bhah12...

Extinction rebellion is focused on forcing politicians to take climate change seriously and make urgent policy changes. If politicians want to meet them with "we are taking this seriously, we're making a massive investment into nuclear power" they're free to do so.

Animats• 1 year ago

What, did Medium just copy over Stanford's alumni magazine? Here's the original story.[1]

[1] https://stanfordmag.org/contents/what-bikini-atoll-looks-lik...

tanaros• 1 year ago

Medium is a publishing/hosting platform for authors. This Medium account is (or purports to be) the official account of the Stanford alumni magazine.

crusty• 1 year ago

It appears that it was published on medium and subsequently added to the standfordmag site, hence the 2 links to it they're and the notice that new articles are published there. It probably just remains because they have no control over medium, so they can't turn the page into a permanent redirect, and they don't want to just take it down and break links.

RIMR• 1 year ago

1. This is the official Medium publication for the Stanford Alumni Magazine.

2. The Medium version of this story was published 1 month before the stanfordmag.org version, so this is the "original" story.

musicale• 1 year ago

Arguably the print edition of Stanford's alumni magazine is the "original" version. The web version of that issue is currently hosted at:

https://stanfordmag.org/issues/december-2017

It makes sense to link to the current web version of the issue rather than the medium.com version.

usefulcat• 1 year ago

Right under the title there's a note that says "We've moved! Read this article and new stories from STANFORD on Stanfordmag.org."

runjake• 1 year ago

You must have missed it. All this is mentioned at the very top of the linked page. The article was published in this Medium and then they moved to stanfordmag.org.

We’ve moved! Read this article and new stories from STANFORD on Stanfordmag.org.

jmyeet• 1 year ago

I only learned last year that you can dive the atomic fleet [1][2]. What is the atomic fleet? As part of the nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll, they dragged a bunch of WW2 ships (from both the US and Japan) and detonated bombs above them to test how effective such weapons were at sinking ships.

As part of this, you can often get to set foot on Bikini Atoll, something normally not possible AFAIK where you can only stay a few hours to stay below radiation thresholds.

A whole bunch of people used to live there but were essentially bullied into leaving and now essentially live as refugess, still unable to return [3].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5bKzTbHu4A

[2] https://www.scubadoctor.com.au/article-diving-the-nuclear-fl...

[3] https://thebikiniproject.org/the-bikini-people/

margalabargala2• 1 year ago

something normally not possible AFAIK where you can only stay a few hours to stay below radiation thresholds.

As one learns by reading the linked article, radiation levels on the island are either equal to or below the levels that aircraft passengers are exposed to at 35k feet. Just don't eat the coconuts or crabs.

hulitu3• 1 year ago

As one learns by reading the linked article, radiation levels on the island are either equal to or below the levels that aircraft passengers are exposed to at 35k feet.

Time ?

JumpCrisscross• 1 year ago

“The method has been used for everything from measuring the age of ringless trees in the Amazon to examining whether humans generate new olfactory bulb neurons into adulthood”

…do we?

defrost3• 1 year ago

Qualified 'Yes'.

We do but the extent is limited compared to other mammals, brain mass normalised.

There's a historical overview here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK55966/

I'd have to dig around for comparative mammal brain regen rates.

somishere2• 1 year ago

My wife is currently in the Marshall Islands commemorating an anniversary related to the nuclear testing. The trauma and fallout, cultural and nuclear, persists to this day - over 7 decades (and how many generations?) since the Bravo test.

I've heard and read a lot about the atrocities visited upon the Marshallese in the name of research in the last six months. Including around the potential "intentionality" of the human testing [1]. It is harrowing. And a hard pill to swallow in any context. The Nolan film did the islands little justice.

As an aside: while indirect, the journey to the Marshalls isn't as onorous as the article suggests - yes there's an island hopper, but United also fly direct from Honolulu. Though getting to Bikini is likely another adventure in itself.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_4.1

cryptoegorophy• 1 year ago

When it comes to the most powerful weapon in the world special at that time There is little to none consideration for nature and people. Would you rather own the most powerful weapon and be the most powerful state or consider life’s of other people?

celticninja• 1 year ago

As it turned out there was still a consideration of other people. For example if Nazi Germany got the bomb first then many more people would have been miserable.

The greater good

SapporoChris• 1 year ago

"Would you rather own the most powerful weapon and be the most powerful state or consider life’s of other people?" Have you considered developing weapons and power seeking while considering the lives of other people?

antonvs• 1 year ago

Just the fact that you ask that question as though it makes sense is an indictment.

The implication is that nothing matters more than being “most powerful”. What a sad, sad way to view life.

chickenbig• 1 year ago

Including around the potential "intentionality" of the human testing

The wikipedia link mentions allegations, but not what (I feel) counts as evidence. Note that I'm not denying that the US Government engaged in radiation test programmes (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stevens), nor that these were covered up and are ethically questionable. But can such a rumour be falsified?

wewewedxfgdf• 1 year ago

Imagine you lived literally in paradise on the most beautiful Pacific atoll - an utterly gorgeous place of peace and serenity and happiness.

Literally heaven, surrounded by the most beautiful ocean, reefs and fish.

Imagine then they turn up, round you up, take you off your island and send you somewhere else to live forever, taking your home from you.

Then they nuke that island repeatedly so it can never be lived on again and is now one the of the most polluted and radioactive and toxic places on earth.

Pristine perfect beauty converted to unliveable toxic hell for humans and animals.

megablast• 1 year ago

Imagine then they turn up, round you up, take you off your island and send you somewhere else to live forever, taking your home from you.

This is the story of mankind, even today people want forcibly remove people.

ineedaj0b• 1 year ago

there's plenty of paradise like islands in the pacific. you could move all the canadians to siberia's tundra and they'd probably do well.

devil's advocate: GODZILLA and all the excitement and joy the franchise gave people would not be as much a thing without the US trying to blow bikini atoll off aerial maps.

Cheer2171• 1 year ago

You are a wicked and despicable human being.

BurningFrog2• 1 year ago

an utterly gorgeous place of peace and serenity and happiness.

Pretty sure the people there had just as much conflict, poverty, and misery as the rest of us.

TheSpiceIsLife2• 1 year ago

And were always one cyclone (hurricane) away from extinction.

droopyEyelids• 1 year ago

Phrasing it that way makes me think of how the Scots were driven off their land to work in factories.

petesergeant• 1 year ago

The Scots were driven off their land by other Scots, though. In addition, comparing subsistence agriculture in a land where you can freeze to death with the absolute abundance of food provided by a tropical island seems a stretch. Having spent considerable time in both the Scottish Highlands -- where my wider family is centered -- and having lived on a tropical island for a few years, it takes a particularly romantic eye to try and make this comparison.

9dev2• 1 year ago

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

arp242• 1 year ago

I'm not excusing or justifying any actions here, but thinking from a 1946 perspective: the second world war had just ended and we all know about the horrible losses that happened there, both military and civilian. This new hugely destructive weapon has just been developed. The Soviet Union is also developing the weapon, with an unhinged paranoid madman as its absolute leader. Everyone can see the outline of an arms race developing (with the second world war very fresh in memory).

In that context, relocating 167 people to another island within the same country/cultural region barely registers.

Again, I'm not justifying anything, but if I had been around at the time, I'm not sure I would have cared either.

gregoriol• 1 year ago

One's paradise is another one's nightmare

The place looks nice but there is not much there to make human life easy or nice: not much soil for agriculture or herds, not much shade, no fresh water, no resources to build anything, ...

BurningFrog2• 1 year ago

The thriving wildlife sounds a lot like Chernobyl.

When humans disappear, nature thrives. The higher mutation and cancer rates don't really matter in aggregate.

oskarkk• 1 year ago

I think that harmful effects of radiation in places like that matter mostly in the context of life expectancy and the well-being of individual organisms (that may be unlucky to e.g. ingest some particularly radiating matter and quickly die), but not the general growth of the population. Higher cancer rates may not matter much if the organisms that get cancer can reproduce before they die. Compared to other types of pollution and other human-related dangers to wildlife, some level of radiation isn't that harmful to nature.

kristofferR• 1 year ago

The Dogs of Chernobyl (great video report):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmVGwOP_zi8

mkl• 1 year ago

The grid of palm trees: https://www.google.com/maps/place/11%C2%B036'00.0%22N+165%C2...

There are more on the island Enyu south of that, with the old runway.

ivankelly• 1 year ago

For a headline “what x looks like today”, I expected more pictures

hulitu3• 1 year ago

For a headline “what x looks like today”, I expected more pictures

They have great writers. /s

slantaclaus• 1 year ago

Surprisingly few pictures given the title of the article..

What Bikini Atoll Looks Like Today (2017)

Related Stories