AOL: “Just How Dangerous Is Radioactive Kelp?” — Scientists say nuclear waste in kelp beds off California coast is from Fukushima (VIDEO)

Published: February 4th, 2014 at 9:21 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
78 comments


Science Recorder, Feb. 4, 2014: The trace amounts of cesium they discovered are linked to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster [...] [In] kelp forests off the coast of San Diego, California, scientists detected traces of radiation [...]

AOL, Feb. 4, 2014: Just How Dangerous Is Radioactive Kelp? [...] canopies of kelp off the coast of California [...] [had] traces of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant [...] Scientists said trace amounts of cesium radiation has been identified in the kelp beds linking the nuclear waste to devastating earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.

ABC interview with Dr. Matthew Edwards, San Diego State University professor and giant kelp researcher, Feb. 3, 2014: The meaning of these things is whether or not they’re actually harmful, whether they actually pose a risk.

See also: TV: Scientists have found nuclear waste off San Diego coast -- Fukushima's problems now being felt in our local ecosystem -- Professor most worried about finding 'pools' of cesium -- "Time will tell how this plays out" (VIDEO)

Watch the ABC San Diego broadcast here

Published: February 4th, 2014 at 9:21 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
78 comments

Related Posts

  1. TV: Scientists have found nuclear waste off San Diego coast — Fukushima’s problems now being felt in our local ecosystem — Professor most worried about finding ‘pools’ of cesium — “Time will tell how this plays out” (VIDEO) February 4, 2014
  2. NBC: Head of radiation testing program on West Coast says Fukushima plume could threaten ecosystems — The effect on marine life? “We don’t know, whatever is in the kelp will get in bodies of those animals also” (VIDEO) March 7, 2014
  3. TV: Radiation in kelp could create a health concern for S. California seafood lovers — “The question we all want answered, how dangerous is this to you and me?” (VIDEO) April 10, 2012
  4. Professor: “Reports of radiation in kelp just north of California” — Signs of Fukushima contamination expected to start “really arriving strongly” this year January 21, 2014
  5. 40,000,000 Bq of iodine-131 in a single bed of kelp off Southern California — Amount most likely larger March 30, 2012

78 comments to AOL: “Just How Dangerous Is Radioactive Kelp?” — Scientists say nuclear waste in kelp beds off California coast is from Fukushima (VIDEO)

  • bluetick

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yZhh2leRJA#t=2838

    check this out..

    100000 cows dead in S dakota.

    wow this was a eye opener….

    Also lookup snow that does not melt on YT… they are making fake snow somehow… put a torch to it and it does not melt…


    Report comment

  • hey bluetick, that's off-topic convo, ya? chemtrails etc, go here
    http://enenews.com/forum-topic-discussion-thread-nuclear-issues-jan-5-2013-present

    Back to the Cali kelp. Not much science going on at ABC, as they are claiming no radioactivity and if so, nothing to alarm the public.

    I'm more of an alarmist and think the public should know everything. These two boots on the ground citizen crusaders are worth a share to anyone concerned about Pacific Ocean seafood. So many other great links from Ene posters to follow.

    (also with anonymous actions we all can take to alert those near and far in our neighborhoods and social media of the dire situation at Fukushima. . .

    http://enenews.com/forum-best-practices-combating-effects-radiation/comment-page-12#comment-439105

    Don't eat the fish … or kelp … or ……..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ppUYtN3c88


    Report comment

    • Socrates

      In every nuclear incident and during testing and with DU, the government has lied. They even lied to cover up Chernobyl.

      This industry is worth trillions of dollars and faces trillions of dollars of liability for damages. They own the media.

      They have trillions of reasons to lie and cover this up.

      Just in the past week, awareness is increasing. Suddenly, people are agreeing.

      They will just build more third generation nuke plants that still can melt during lunch hour, according to Michio Kaku, the theoretical physicist. He refused to work on the H bom_b with Edward Teller. He refused to work on Star Wars. I believe what he says.


      Report comment

    • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

      thanks chemfood, for keep'n it real (on-topic)…


      Report comment

  • In the ABC News video Dr. Matthew Edwards proves he is a shill for the Nuclear Industry by stating the following.

    "If we can detect levels of radioactive material, [pause] that they're going to be very low, they are not going to be a public health risk."
    (@ 1:28 in on the video)

    They have not tested yet, how can he make such an idiotic statement.

    Oh… and IF they do detect something it will be low. Maybe he's a psychic too. [sarc] ;)

    IMO – Body language and facial expressions say that he's not a very good liar.


    Report comment

  • Capt. Nemo Capt. Nemo

    The whole temper now is to hide the facts as much as possible. When you see the word scientist it now means an erudite liar. If this thing gets out of hand, why . . .why Iran will no longer be the fabled threat with the mere possibility of having a nuke. And what about ObamaCareless? So many pressing issues will have to be put away for a better day that may never come. By now it is pretty obvious that the USA has a genuine threat. Let's see how President Change-You-Can-Believe-In handles it.


    Report comment

  • UKRAINIAN CONCRETE atomicistheword

    Be aware people kelp/seaweed is used as a fertiliser, nothing like bio-uptake from the sea to the garden.

    The fact that insurance companies are rushing to exclude external atomic radiation disaster/negligence from their policies in USA/Canada is proof that they are privileged to information excluded to the public. They know!

    People should be aware of their exposure to such events, The Price Anderson Act 1957 has a limited financial amount, that then passes to the federal government when this is reached. The ACT covers incidents in America ONLY. Look at the date of the legislation. Ironically it coincides with the first atomic radiation accidents, which were true accidents, without prior knowledge of the danger of atomic radiation power. Afterwards it is known that this form of power generation is a danger to human existence. No excuses, no more purchased sin removal.

    NO DOSE IS A SAFE DOSE OF MAN MADE ATOMIC RADIATION.


    Report comment

    • Socrates

      I read that GE is shifting assets offshore. I cannot remember where I read that. Homeowners policies have had nuclear exclusions for quite some time.

      Medicare has a statute that entitles them to seek reimbursement for medical costs. The USS Reagan sailors and navy dependents may succeed. 1,200 people sued in Japan. There will be depositions and document productions. Evidence will be preserved.

      If there are trillions of dollars in damages, lawyers will find a way to hold someone accountable. The right to a jury is in the constitution. Otherwise, the taxpayers will have to pay for all the costs of millions of new cancer cases, learning and behavioral disorders, genetic defects, miscarriages, stillbirths, premature births, low birth weights, sterility, autism, impaired immunity, heart disease, deaths – all to boil water?

      The Affordable Care Act coverage even for young men will bankrupt insurance companies and the entire government. Fisheries will go bankrupt, farmers will not sell their food, water will be contaminated, the breadbasket of America will be gone that's why Ukraine is looking good.

      I suppose the American people will seek to attach blame, especially when they follow the money…. When your kid dies or suffers, a d you know who is to blame, you might want to sue those responsible.


      Report comment

      • newsblackoutUSA newsblackoutUSA

        Socrates…with all the financial markets plunging…maybe the big boys are already gathering up their toys and getting out of dodge. It won't be the first time they have left humanity holding the bag. This insanity has been going on for 70 years. 2000+ nuclear bombs exploded…nuclear PP leaking, nuke waste leaking….

        Why think they will ever take responsibility? If history is an example of what to expect in the future we are in for a very dark time.


        Report comment

      • UKRAINIAN CONCRETE atomicistheword

        Socrates, that exclusion is related to the PAA 1957, they have realised and are quickly changing their policies to cover EXTERNAL claims. They are expecting claims. Since it cannot be classified as an act of war, nor an act of God, they are moving very quickly with forewarned advice. The Japanese government declared this event an act of man.

        GE already have an alliance with Hitachi and a close relationship with Toshiba in Japan.

        1976: Falsification of safety records makes good reading. GE, TEPCO…..

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

        This article from Greenpeace explains about GE Canada and Fukushima…

        http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/Energy/end-the-nuclear-threat/Resources/Background-documents/QA-GE-Hitachis-role-in-the-Fukushima-disaster-in-Japan/


        Report comment

      • We Not They Finally

        Socrates, you're a lawyer, so you have ideas about who can be sued and what happens if it is a MASSIVE lawsuit. But the Exxon Valdez suit (for example) apparently took about 20 years to resolve and by then, many of the claimants were already dead.

        In the Gulf, many lawsuits have been tossed due to corrupt judges. And no one will ever compensate those millions of people for what they have lost on an ongoing basis.

        The thing about the law with HUGE suits is oftentimes delay, delay, delay. And now there is no TIME.

        And yes, the taxpayers WILL be paying for increased cancer and other diseases. And tracking it back to Fukushima will be contested, delayed, overruled, and the like. Precisely BECAUSE it is trillions of dollars at issue. And the Japanese won't be paying out trillions of dollars either.

        Let's just hang on for a rough ride. There is no legal bonanza around the corner for this. Not hardly.


        Report comment

        • We Not They Finally

          On the other hand, what might be genuinely helpful is for lawyers to waive the outrageous "I get to keep one third of the settlement" for huge lawsuits. That's just obscene.


          Report comment

          • flatsville

            And the plaintiffs can "fund/finance" the case and pay the attorneys regardless if they win or lose? Do you even understand how "contingency" works?


            Report comment

            • zogerke zogerke

              The point, I think that wntf was making, is less money should be charged by lawyers..not bankrupting plaintiffs as the alternative. Funny thought, that lawyers should make less money and charge a lower fee for service . Imagine that.

              And some lawyers always do pro bono work, using big wins elsewhere to cover social justice cases. The lawyers who represented the 435 antinuke protesters a the shoreham nuke plant case, originally, all worked pro bono.


              Report comment

              • flatsville

                Some cases can be worked pro-bono with minimum costs to an attorney or firm or covered by donations.

                A major tort suit not so much. On contingency, the attorney/firm has serious skin in the game…sometimes millions. They are motivated to win to recoup costs.

                Funny that people think attorneys should always work at a discount.

                I would not want a discount atty. working my major tort.


                Report comment

                • flatsville

                  I would want them to have skin, hair, teeth and first-born in the game.


                  Report comment

                • zogerke zogerke

                  Flatsville, with great respect…when i have been out of work andbroke, doctors, lawyers and other health practitioners worked with me, and my family, for near free. They did not do a poor job or represent me with less skill because they were not making a profit. They were good people who helped in the best way they could…pro bono or near. The sliding scale did not indicate poor quality. Imo opinion at is the purpose and meaning of sliding scale or pro bono


                  Report comment

                  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                    Yes, of course the sports athlete always played terrible, especially when he made no money when in high school and college, and of course he did not play very well at all…

                    It was not until someone paid him a couple million a game, when he reached the pros, that he started to play well…?

                    Only a lawyer and/or other educated people would think such things.. :(


                    Report comment

                    • flatsville

                      Ridiculous comparison. The college athlete wasn't/ isn't shelling out hundreds of thousands or even millions to fund his play. He was likely on scholarship.

                      Any client who expects a discount on contingency while I bear all the costs and risks gets a "Good Luck" with that handshake as I show them the door.

                      No atty. has to take your case…and virtually no one will when you tell them the contingency is "obscene."

                      But, Good Luck with that.


                      Report comment

                  • flatsville

                    You do realize that contingency means the plaintiff pays nothing up front? The attorney/firm bears all costs and risks if the case fails to produce a monetary judgement?

                    If successful the atty/firm then has $$$ to fund pro-bono cases.

                    So, you want to reduce the amount of money they recieve on contingency after bearing all the costs and risks so they have less money to fund pro-bono?

                    Because this is exactly what WTF is suggesting.

                    Curious…


                    Report comment

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      Lawyers are usually gamblers…


                      Report comment

                    • Daisy207

                      Lawyers are bottom feeders.


                      Report comment

                    • Alaskan Ice Alaskan Ice

                      If you can't pay your attorney his fees up front for your putative case, you're on the bottom of society. . .

                      Flatsville is right: you should be glad there is someone in the justice system who will take your case, work for free, and then take 1/3 of the recovery, if there even is any.

                      The elites want "Tort Reform" and restrictions on contingency fees so that talented lawyers won't do that type of contingency work. Then you get to pit your buffoon attorney working for peanuts against the white-shoe, ivy-league team of lawyers that the corporations are hiring for $600 per hour.

                      Good luck with that.


                      Report comment

                    • flatsville

                      When your unjustly and unfairly injured, call…a cop?…a corporation?

                      Good luck with that.


                      Report comment

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      Alaskan, so lawyers are not gamblers?


                      Report comment

                    • Alaskan Ice Alaskan Ice

                      Obe,

                      Most lawyers are the most timid, effete, bloated-bloodless-grandiose and grandiloquent language using, risk-averse, hobbits of human beings.

                      The more bold among them are litigators.

                      The more bold among those will work contingency fees. Call those contingency fee lawyers gamblers, but don't call them the majority of lawyers.


                      Report comment

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      Here you go and this is a very cheap, painless solution, for everybody and a way to end this Nuclear Nightmare right now!
                      http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20140205&id=17325634

                      Petition each/all companies to remove cesium-137 etc. from their food products.

                      Pretty simple really, since cesium-137 etc. are all very carcinogenic. :

                      Flats, where, which company will you start with?


                      Report comment

                    • flatsville

                      Alaskan Ice, Agreed on the real agenda of so-called Tort Reform. It is designed to protect wealthy, negligent corps. from having to pay what ever a little guy can ring out of them via a tort suit. WTF may get want she wants, a revision of those "obscene" contingecies. Corps would love that. The BS spouted here plays right into their hands.


                      Report comment

                    • flatsville

                      Obewan, you are welcome to petition each food company to remove cesium etc. from their products.

                      >>>Petition each/all companies to remove cesium-137 etc. from their food products.<<<

                      Which on will I start with? None of them.

                      I am more interested in removing the cause of cesium 137 from the planet. Some of us can keep our eye on the ball. Some of us can't.

                      Are you implying Subway sandwiches have cesium based on the article?

                      Try to focus. Try to not be distracted by the most recent news article that has nothing to do with radioactive contaminants.


                      Report comment

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      Flats the angle, is the angle of commerce, threaten/damage commerce and you threaten many billions of dollars. :)

                      Let say you take a can of Tuna from Sea and you test it and the product is contaminated with manmade radiation, you then have recourse and some very bad press/petition for that same company to deal with. :)

                      Pretty sure you could walk right down the line in any store selling Japanese products and do the exact same thing etc.

                      If Subway responds to one ingredient what do you think they will do if their bread has radiation in it from contaminated wheat, lets say.

                      The list is endless and all that is needed is a good/high quality food tester and bam companies will be scrambling and then massive economic pressure should move towards the Nuke industry… :)

                      It's one thing not to be able to see an invisible poison. but knowing your eating that poison based on testing verification might turn some stomachs the other way, and companies would have to respond publicly/in public officially to their customers concerns.. :)

                      Go get em! :)


                      Report comment

            • zogerke zogerke

              within the system that exists, i understand the function of the contingency arrangement. wntf was suggesting layers get less than a third of money won and the plaintiffs get more, when the wins arehuge because the damages to plaintiffs were huge… so that those who suffer get their due in a good way. not that lawyers get stiffed. i think paying back/ reimbursing lawyers for what they shelled out up front, for the case, is to be expected. as is paying them for their time. and no, the answer isn't tort reform as currently proposed (and i do not have an alternative suggestion.) In the system that exists, legal challenges drive much change and have use and value, and lawyers are needed to drive through the morass, the swamp of legalities and BS. But plaintiffs get stiffed, shafted, continuously. Again, privileges of the well heeled, at work in the system. but the legal system can move and change when driven by brave plaintiffs who hire the lawyers as drivers.


              Report comment

              • flatsville

                25%? 20%? 15%?…and that much % less to fling at the pro bono cases.

                I spent 3 hrs. Sunday and 2 hrs. last night on the same case that will never produce a dime. I could have just as easily gone to a movie or gone home and read a book.

                Good luck with your modified tort reform.

                Next, we can discuss cutting everyone's wages, salary or pension.


                Report comment

                • zogerke zogerke

                  My wages, pension, and salary have already been cut. tremendously. All as a result of the activisma nd truth telling i have dome. Joint he club. No one willingly wants to suffer. The big picture is…we need to not be divided by fighting for slivers of pie.


                  Report comment

                • zogerke zogerke

                  If you are doing pro bono work, it is important to not alienate you as you have function and are in service to something bigger than yourself, for a greater good. To turn useful lawyers and plaintiffs against each other is to divide and conquer. Yet the argument has merit about equitable money division when cases are won. The middle and working classes have all lost salaries, wages, and pensions. Just look at the standard of living now. And manymanymanymany of us work for free on projects that have importance to us. It goes with the territory
                  to be expected. It is called trying to make change.


                  Report comment

                  • flatsville

                    Plaintiffs want more money. So does everyone else involed.

                    Good luck with negotiating the contingency down…rise and walk to door…shake hands…open door…shove potential client through doorway as fast as possible…shut door…chuckle…go back to doing work that pays to do work that doesn't…chuckle a bit more.


                    Report comment

                    • zogerke zogerke

                      Yes, and: by evening the playing field to greed, you deny the realities of privilege. Especially int he case of plaintiffs who suffer greatly and will die early deaths, or have deformed children, as a result of the damages. It is not an even playing field. The fukushima pollution is not a hot cup of mcdonalds coffee scalding a woman's lap, with a court case that wins her huge damages, and the lawyer too. This is the'bringer of death'. This is destitution and cancer. The playing field, the greed you insinuate, is not the same in plaintiffs and lawyer. The lawyer wants profit. The plaintiffs want life.


                      Report comment

                    • zogerke zogerke

                      And the children and grandchildren of lawyers , too, WILL be hurt by the pollution overwhelming this world.


                      Report comment

                    • flatsville

                      >>>you deny the realities of privilege…<<

                      My vast "privlege" affords me a modest middle-class lifestyle. same with many associates in this specific biz.

                      >>>Especially int he case of plaintiffs who suffer greatly and will die early deaths, or have deformed children, as a result of the damages…<<<

                      Give the self-righteous indignation a rest. Some of these very people you refer to are the people I have repped or do rep…or their families because the are already dead.


                      Report comment

                    • zogerke zogerke

                      No self righteousness. Truth naming, and flatsville i bless your work while, even while i name things i see tobetrue. Your work is int he movement for healing the planet and your pro bono work is a blessing. All tis can be true at the sametime. As


                      Report comment

  • combomelt combomelt

    "The meaning of these things is whether or not they’re actually harmful, whether they actually pose a risk."

    really?
    relly dude from san diego STATE?
    really "WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE ACTUALLY HARMFUL?"

    This is Prof. David Matthews signing off.
    Honestly, Prof.(hmph), you need to go down to Rubios and EAT A coupla plates of FISH TACOS.

    i've reread his "statement" now so many times and it is absolutely nonsensical.

    Truly insane belief system ya got there Dave-o, professor of giant kelp research, dude..
    The world is truly insanely lost


    Report comment

    • newsblackoutUSA newsblackoutUSA

      The meaning of his statements is that he is a paid government science prostitute, add into that the fragile tourist economy of San Diego.

      If Jaws was swimming in Mission Bay, there would be a marine biologist from SDSU on the report stating the great white is essentially harmless (unless you are in it's mouth). That is San Diego for you…one of the most corrupt cities I ever lived in….


      Report comment

    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

      Another one sees the problem clearly :) "The world is truly insanely lost"


      Report comment

  • They never talk straight when it comes to radiation exposure……


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    THIS DISASTER CAN'T AND WON'T BE COVERED UP . . .

    Mass animal die-offs got everyone's attention .. it was the turning point.


    Report comment

  • Ontological Ontological

    Big that is how I am attempting to get through to people, with a Human side, they are mad as hell about the massive die offs.
    I haven't been the same since I had to give up my kelp. The one thing that could help detox the most, is tainted itself.


    Report comment

  • razzz razzz

    Looks like we are all going to be swimming in bananas soon. I wonder if there enough enough bananas on earth at one time that can equate to all the radiation exposure people have to live with from just nuke plants?


    Report comment

    • We Not They Finally

      It's moronic what's been done with bananas. Your body will excrete excess potassium-40. It won't do that with cesium. The potassium in bananas actually fortifies the body against cesium contamination because cesium mimic potassium.


      Report comment

    • bo bo

      Razzz I was digging up basic information on bequerels and CPMs to educate myself and pulled this up from a link in Wikipedia. There is a whole page on Wikipedia dedicated to bananas and radioactivity. The history of how the bananas / radiation talk originates from a pamphlet the EPA published back in 1995. This looks like an internal memo that discusses the game plan.

      http://health.phys.iit.edu/extended_archive/9503/msg00074.html


      Report comment

      • bo bo

        Correction – a pamphlet RADNET created, not EPA


        Report comment

      • bo bo

        Excerpt of internal memo:

        I have found this "Banana Equivalent Dose" very useful in attempting to explain infinitesmal doses (and corresponding infinitesmal risks) to members of the public. (Interestingly, the anti-nukes just HATE this, and severely critisize us for using such a deceptive concept.) Would love to go into more detail, but have to get back to our DEADLY Human Radiation Experiments (i.e., eating bananas.)

        The same table in the CRC Handbook lists 3400 pCi/kg for white potatoes and 4450 pCi/kg for sweet potatoes – so you could carry through the same sort of calculation for Reference Potatoes. Interestingly, raw lima beans come in at 4640 pCi/kg, "dry, sweet" coconut comes in at 6400 pCi/kg, and raw spinach (yum!) comes in at 6500 pCi/kg. Considering the fact that the DOE has officially stated that "there is no safe dose of radiation" my advice to you all is to stop eating immediately.

        Oh yes! Almost forgot. Regarding K-40, go into your local grocery store, buy some salt-substitute (there are two common brands, and the one in the white and orange labeled container works best) spread some out on a table and check it out with a GM survey instrument. There it is folks, deadly radioactivity in your grocery store!

        Yours for healthful diets . . . Captain Internal Dosimetry aka Gary Mansfield, LLNL, (mansfield2@llnl.gov)

        Disclaimer: Neither Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the University of California, nor the Department of Energy…


        Report comment

      • bo bo

        …recommends eating bananas. (End excerpt)

        You can click on link within this document to see the e mail responses.


        Report comment

    • Daisy207

      The real question is how many bananas are needed to get to critical mass and why aren't they using bananas to make electricity? How many bananas does it take to reach critical mass explode and make Plutonium, Cesium, Uranium, Iodine (radioactive) etc. Did all the seals and walrus in Alaska die from a big dump of bananas?


      Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    Just how dangerous is eating radioactive ANYTHING? Are these people morons? But kelp, spirulina, chlorella, all from the sea, used to be the BEST things for detox. Some of the foods we need the most are being destroyed.


    Report comment

  • One gram of cesium 137 has the same amou t of radiation as twenty or thirty truck loads of bananas. The modern consumer needs at home equipment including a lead box to test isotope energy fields to identify isotopes in personal food. I can't trust my Canadian government to safeguard my food supply from radiation. Can you trust yours?


    Report comment

  • Ontological Ontological

    Were all on our own. We need to use knowledge to reduce possible exposure, and intake. Bioaccumulation should be a common word to a 3 year old by now. (those born in 2011) And do they even know what that is most of em, not likely. Shouldn't matter to a kid, but in this world it should be priority.

    Clamshellernh quoted Crosby, "Teach your children well".
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVaqZajq-I


    Report comment

  • Nick

    As the world slowly wakes up to this horror, it's a shame that alkaloids found in certain plants weren't universally legal years ago.

    Who knows, maybe enough folks would've seen the light and put the light out on anything nuclear years ago?

    Now we will be TOLD that ingesting same alkaloids causes cancer. Go figure.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.