Fox News: So many people are concerned about eating Fukushima radioactive waste — Bloomberg: Radiation will be washing up on West Coast; Includes cesium, one of the “most dangerous radionuclides” released (VIDEO)

Published: February 3rd, 2014 at 9:40 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
59 comments


Bloomberg, Feb. 3, 2014: Fukushima Wash-Up Fears in U.S. Belie Radiation Risks [...] Seaborne radiation from Japan’s wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant will wash up on the West Coast of the U.S. this year. That’s raising concerns among some Americans including the residents of the San Francisco Bay Area city of Fairfax, which passed a resolution on Dec. 6 calling for more testing of coastal seafood. [...] oceanographers and radiological scientists say such concerns are unwarranted given existing levels of radiation in the ocean. [...] about 300 metric tons of contaminated groundwater seep into the ocean each day, according to Japan’s government. [...] Cesium isotopes, which emit flesh-penetrating gamma rays, are among the most dangerous radionuclides emitted by the plant, said Colin Hill, [USC] associate professor of radiation oncology [...]

Rick Castello, project manager for a technology company, Feb. 3, 2014: [He] harbors concerns about the approaching radiation from Fukushima. “It’s not like I think official sources would be intentionally hiding information from the people [...] But sometimes we just don’t know.

Doreen Jean Dempski, author, Feb. 3, 2014: “I’m terrified [...] My boyfriend is a surfer and he spends hours a day in the water.”

Times-Colonist, Feb. 2, 2014: [...] there is one incontrovertible fact driving these fears. When four of the nuclear reactors at Fukushima were damaged [...] radioactive water spilled into the ocean, and continues to do so at a reduced rate. Deep-sea currents in the Pacific rotate in such a way that contaminants released into the ocean off Japan eventually arrive here.

Fox News, Jan. 17, 2014: So many people are concerned about this story — Is radioactive waste from Fukushima getting in the fish you eat here in this country? [See: Fukushima contamination is hitting California — “Humans are terrified” of eating it (VIDEO)]

Watch the Fox News clip here

Published: February 3rd, 2014 at 9:40 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
59 comments

Related Posts

  1. NPR Affiliate: Fukushima cesium detected in Alaska salmon sample — Radioactive plume has already reached West Coast — Concerned fishermen forced to pay for tests since officials not doing it — “People don’t trust gov’t… they don’t trust corporations” (AUDIO) January 16, 2014
  2. Professor: Fukushima material to be washing up for years on West Coast — “The fish are going to have some in them” — “People have the right to know what’s there” — “Probably not” enough to worry about January 15, 2014
  3. “Radionuclides from Fukushima due to hit West Coast any day now” — Senior Scientist: “Really bizarre” U.S. gov’t not testing for it — Concerned officials contacting him about threat November 24, 2013
  4. Newspaper: Increasing worry on West Coast over Fukushima radiation; “Really concerned” about affect on wildlife and most importantly our health; ‘Big black hole’ where data should be — Professor: “We do not know full extent… we’re just watching the West Coast unfold” — Official: Important we sample for plume — Fish oil being tested June 26, 2014
  5. Report: Fukushima nuclear waste will merge with radiation from U.S. reactors when washing up on West Coast — “Startling amounts” released from operating plants — Diablo Canyon officials admit to recently discharging more tritium than Fukushima (VIDEO) February 4, 2014

59 comments to Fox News: So many people are concerned about eating Fukushima radioactive waste — Bloomberg: Radiation will be washing up on West Coast; Includes cesium, one of the “most dangerous radionuclides” released (VIDEO)

  • Cisco Cisco

    "Ken Buesseler, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, who forecasts the Fukushima plume will arrive in the U.S. early this year. “People have a limited knowledge of radioactivity.”" And, Kenny boy is one of those "people" he refers to.


    Report comment

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    Diablo Canyon supposedly releases more tritium in normal daily active than Fukushima in disaster conditions?
    Really.

    Okey dokey..now on to the other isotopes ..being emitted from Fukushima.
    More tritium ..really?
    And it gets all mixed together off the coast.
    And the other isotopes are going to come and mix with the tritium coming from Diablo and mix all together?
    Wonder how the folks living next to Diablo canyon feel about that?

    "Less than 100 miles up the coast from Dempski’s home, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.’s Diablo Canyon plant in San Luis Obispo discharged 323 million liters of water into the Pacific in 2012, or about 870 tons a day, according to data from the company on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s website. That’s equivalent to 130 Olympic swimming pools and more than twice the daily amount leaking from Fukushima."

    'Kelp boy'..down playing things AGAIN.

    " “There’s a point to be made that we live in a radioactive world and the ocean just has radioactive isotopes in it,” said Ken Buesseler, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, who forecasts the Fukushima plume will arrive in the U.S. early this year. “People have a limited knowledge of radioactivity.”


    Report comment

  • Max Sievert Max Sievert

    Bloomberg
    Fukushima Wash-Up Fears in U.S. Belie Radiation Risks: By Jacob Adelman

    "The runoff from the Japanese plant will mingle with radiation released by other atomic stations, such as Diablo Canyon in California. Under normal operations, Diablo Canyon discharges more radiation into the sea, albeit of a less dangerous isotope, than the Fukushima station, which suffered the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl. "

    are you serious sure ?


    Report comment

  • the beebs

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131214/snow-crab-season-alaskas-bering-sea-gets-started-early

    Snow crab fishing started back in October, but the shellfish’s condition lacked commercial appeal


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    NUCLEAR WRECKED IT . . .

    Only the ill-informed will touch anything from the Pacific.


    Report comment

    • No Immediate Danger No Immediate Danger

      What about all the fishmeal fed to animals? That includes ground-up fishbones, you know. Do only ill-informed cattle eat fishmeal out of the Pacific?

      I'm afraid it's everywhere. I haven't eaten seafood since the 311, but I have a tough time honestly explaining why to people, not only because I know it's in other foods, but soon it'll be everywhere, in everything.


      Report comment

      • newsblackoutUSA newsblackoutUSA

        No Danger…I think it is already everywhere….in everyone and everything.
        :-(


        Report comment

      • Tim42

        Eat lower on the lower chain. Consume mostly plants instead of animals, avoid anything that uses seafood or fish-meal in it's life cycle. (Exception, Seafood products harvested from the Atlantic should be safe for a while. I.E. No farm raised fish.)

        Fish-meal is going to bio-concentrate radio-toxins many fold over ambient levels. If it is feed to cattle, they will become just as radio-toxic as the fish meal, maybe worse.. Cattle consume 15 food calories for each one(1) they produce.

        Switch to consuming mostly plants, the safest meats will probably be chicken or turkey.

        Avoid consuming fruit or plants grown in more contaminated areas. Japan, Hawaii, US West Coast.


        Report comment

    • The Great Tribulation atomicistheword

      We must all thank General Electric Hitachi for extinction fish from our diet. Thank you GEH for bringing good things to life. :-(

      Credit, where credit is due!


      Report comment

  • Ontological Ontological

    I haven't seen any glowing rain here 300 miles north east of Die ablo, must all be going in the river.
    Shudder, I have thought of a double uptake tritium attraction effect since day one, yikes! Vernon Vermont Yankee needs to watch out for that too, and many others.
    Safe bet cesium will do the same over other deposits from other accidents. Like electroplating the Earth.


    Report comment

  • bo bo

    Most americans are still unaware pistachios are extremely high in radiation…
    Stephen Colbert 'Wonderful Pistachios' superbowl tv ad
    His face is glowing green (visual pun wasn't intentional, I don't think)

    http://m.nbcnews.com/business/colberts-head-tiny-pistachio-wonderful-ad-2D12044388.


    Report comment

  • clamshellernh clamshellernh

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/197295-epa-seeks-to-modernize-nuclear-standards#ixzz2sK0wVtIf.

    EPA seeks to modernize nuclear standards
    By Tim Devaney
    Share on facebook
    5
    Share on twitter
    15
    Share on google_plusone_shareMore Sharing Services
    4
    Share on email
    The Environmental Protection Agency is looking to modernize Nixon-era radiation standards for nuclear power plants.

    The proposed standards, which haven't been updated since the 1970s, would establish new limits on how much radiation nuclear plants can emit during the course of normal production of electrical power without endangering public health.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    To put it in perspective, the rules have not been updated since before the high-profile nuclear meltdowns in Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania; Chernobyl, Ukraine; or Fukushima, Japan.

    "These standards were the earliest radiation rules developed by the EPA and are based on nuclear power technology and the understanding of radiation biology current at that time," the agency said in the Federal Register.

    "These standards have not been revised since their initial publication," it added.

    The rulemaking process for radioactive materials began in the later days of the Nixon administration and was completed under the Ford administration in 1977.

    For years, the EPA saw no need to update the regulations, because there were few changes in the industry, the agency explained.
    But the EPA said it should update the rules now,…


    Report comment

    • clamshellernh clamshellernh

      Sorry for the way this is displayed
      This is interesting and deserves discussion
      What do we think the outcome of this can be
      Is ther something we can do to affect it
      I have some solid ideas myself


      Report comment

    • humptydumpty

      Continued about new EPA radiation standards [in brackets] with my comments following:

      [But the EPA said it should update the rules now, "because growing concern about greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels has led to renewed interest in nuclear power," it said.]

      That means some standards of pollution levels will probably be raised to make it easier for NPP operators to meet them profitably. And given the EPA's failure to properly monitor the air…

      [The EPA said the new standards would develop rules for disposing of radioactive waste materials and decommissioning old nuclear plants, neither of which were included in the original rules.]

      The EPA might finally get tough on the nuke industry for not storing waste safely. "Disposing" is a misleading word though, since there is no known way to dispose of nuclear waste. "Decommissioning" rules will be a can of worms, however, given the fact that Fukushima Daiichi is hopeless in that regard.

      [The current rules also exclude any references to the transportation of any radioactive materials, the EPA noted.]

      [The new rules may also include provisions that would protect against ground water contamination; the current standard focuses on air pollution.]

      ["Ground water contamination has been identified at a number of nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel cycle facilities," the EPA noted.]

      NOW how about developing RULES for determining that all NPPs need to be shut down IMMEDIATELY because there's no…


      Report comment

      • humptydumpty

        …such thing as "safe" levels of radiation released — any release adds to the inherent danger. Plus, as we all know, there's no known way to safely "dispose" of the waste, let alone to guarantee against catastrophic failure!


        Report comment

        • humptydumpty

          The presumption that the EPA can somehow "regulate" the nuclear power industry is inherently false and reveals an artificial attempt to ease public concern. Maybe they could reign in some of the abuses against public health and safety in the U.S., but the larger issues inevitably will remain unmitigated.

          One of those glaring issues is the lack of an international body governing nuclear disasters, which should have influence to protect the WORLD's people from one nation's criminality. In the light of the Fukushima disaster, making new "rules" for the U.S. is akin to "shutting the barn door after the horse has gone." It is too late now! …the damage is done and will continue to threaten life forever.

          And it is OUR U.S. corporations and government and academic institutions that bear most of the blame for pursuing this technology in the first place.


          Report comment

          • humptydumpty

            The only reasonable response to the EPA's call for public comment on this "salve" of public outrage against the nuclear industry must be to deny any claim of "safety" and thus to discredit any attempt to "improve" standards.

            Further, the EPA is only giving cover to the nuclear industry and particularly the WEAPONS industry, which has successfully lobbied for a budget appropriation of $355 billion to upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

            President Obama is playing games again! Don't be fooled into thinking this EPA move represents anything positive.


            Report comment

          • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

            .. :) Yes, you are correct!


            Report comment

  • humptydumpty

    The dupe says, "It’s not like I think official sources would be intentionally hiding information from the people…"

    Yeah, right, it's not like we know of any information they have ever intentionally hid… oh, wait a minute!


    Report comment

  • clamshellernh clamshellernh

    And this one too this is today's news on the hill
    http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/197244-new-regs-for-tuesday-school-lunch-nutrition-nuclear-radiation

    New regs for Tuesday: School lunch nutrition, nuclear radiation, chemical substances
    By Tim Devaney
    Share on facebook
    0
    Share on twitter
    4
    Share on google_plusone_shareMore Sharing Services
    0
    Share on email
    Tuesday's edition of the Federal Register contains new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency for chemical substances and radiation from nuclear plants, as well as nutritional standards for school lunch workers.

    Here's what is happening:

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Chemical control: The Environmental Protection Agency plans to issue a new rule for manufacturers of chemical substances. Under the rule, which comes form the Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers that intend to make significant new chemical substances will be required to notify the EPA at least three months before they begin the process, which would give the agency time to shut it down before it occurs.
    Radiation: The Environmental Protection Agency is considering a new rule that would update decades-old radiation standards for nuclear power plants. The standards limit how much radiation nuclear plants can emit.

    Nutrition: The Food and Nutrition Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering a new rule that would establish nutritional standards for workers that manage school lunch and breakfast…


    Report comment

  • combomelt combomelt

    "In the development of the existing standards, the Agency found it necessary to 'balance the health risks associated with any level of exposure against the costs of achieving that level' (39 FR 16906, May 10, 1974). The standard-setting method conducted in the current standards has been “best characterized as cost-effective health risk minimization” (Final Environmental Statement, 1976, Vol. 1, p. 28).

    NICE, VERY NICE
    "cost-effective health risk minimization"


    Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    NO SAFE LEVEL . . .

    Smallest amount of nuclear radiation can kill. Tiny speck of Plutonium "will" kill you if lodged in your lung. The other types disrupt cell growth one by one. That's the danger of the constant flow of airborne nuclear radiation from Fukushima.

    It's horrid, to say the least.


    Report comment

  • Sol Man

    The program is accelerated aging and disease eventually leading to last rights on the road to perdition; the resources get sold-off.


    Report comment

  • James Tekton James Tekton

    "Is radioactive waste from Fukushima getting in the fish you eat here in this country?"

    Not just yes, but heck yes!

    What is sad, is kinda what Yoichi said tonight. The Salad bar is closed for good. He more or less acknowledged what we were discussing today. Our salads and foods are hotter(more radioactive) than our environment is now and what does that say when the food starts to approach the radiation alert level of 100 CPM?

    .


    Report comment

  • jec jec

    oceanographers and radiological "scientists say such concerns are unwarranted given existing levels of radiation in the ocean"–SO THEY HAVE CURRENT AND ONGOING DATA COLLECTION AND TESTING FOR RADIATION? Nope, but sounds good.


    Report comment

  • Nick

    The game is clear, fool the masses into thinking that levels are down, so no problema.

    Example:

    On such a such a date 25,000,000 units of cesium were found in a random fish sample.

    Three days later, another fish sample yielded 20,000,000 units of cesium: a 20% improvement.

    See? told ya not to worry!

    If we can get 20% improvement in anything, it 's a plus!

    Or try:

    Cesium only goes to heart muscle. Since TEPCO has no heart, no problema!


    Report comment

  • jimbob jimbob

    “There’s a point to be made that we live in a radioactive world and the ocean just has radioactive isotopes in it,” said Ken Buesseler, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, who forecasts the Fukushima plume will arrive in the U.S. early this year. “People have a limited knowledge of radioactivity.”

    Yes we live in a radioactive world and there has always been naturally occurring background radiation in the earth, the seas and the air.

    But these are all long lived isotopes such as the radon, the potassium found in bananas, etc. which we have evolved with over millions of years.

    Totally different from the highly energetic radionuclides generated by nuclear power plants whether in normal operation or full blown meltdowns such as Chernobyl and Fukushima as well as all the other ones covered up both in the US and USSR.

    There is no "normal background radiation" for Cesium, Strontium and the rest of these short term, energetic, radionuclides, what is being called normal now is solely the result of Nuclear atmospheric testing and leaks from NPP's.

    I wonder if cigarettes caused as much cancer & heart disease before the 50's or are they a scapegoat for radiation induced illnesses.

    Not that I think smoking is good for a person or harmless to ones health, not to mention finances, but it seems to me that it became exponentially more dangerous as fallout from nuke testing grew.


    Report comment

  • Capt. Nemo Capt. Nemo

    So far I have avoided being terrified, panic, anxiety and worry. Partly because I have in my life never found them particularly helpful. In those states one loses things like glasses, keys, etc., and they don't have a pleasant bodily feeling. Still I am sure they must have their positive and practical uses.

    I have occasionally contemplated what I would do if a nuclear bomb went off in Denver south of me. I would need to put cat, dog, etc. in my car and drive north . . . then what? I might need a cell phone. Some food. Water. Maybe take some books along and make a motel reservation in Wyoming . . . after a while I am weary and there are still things to do and get. I don't have a bug out bag. Or a place I have designed to retreat to. I have looked at the sites that recommend these things. Oh, I have no pistols or rifles . . . time to buy one while the mushroom cloud ascends? Better just drive. How is cat going to do in the car. The dog loves the adventure of driving. Etc.

    I think I can handle best the slow death and pain of radiation sickness given the choice. Can this be put to a vote?


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.