BREAKING: Fukushima nuclear waste detected along Southern California coast — Highest levels seen anywhere in North America since testing program began — 8.4 Bq/m3 of radioactive cesium measured near beach between Los Angeles and San Diego (VIDEO & MAP)

Published: August 25th, 2015 at 6:07 pm ET


Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s Center For Marine And Environmental Radiation:

  • Location: 32°57’0.00″N; 117°17’60.00″W [1.8  miles off the coast of Del Mar, California]
  • Sample Date: Apr 04, 2015 11:36
  • Depth: 3m
  • Cs134: 1.5 ± 0.1Bq/m3
  • Cs137: 6.9 ± 0.2Bq/m3


The sample was taken just over a mile off the coast of Del Mar, CA – located about 15 miles north of San Diego and 100 miles south of Los Angeles. The only other location Woods Hole has reported detecting nuclear waste from Fukushima Daiichi along the shoreline of North America is in Ucluelet, Canada about 1,200 miles to the north of Del Mar.

7.2 becquerels per cubic meter of Cesium-134 and Cesium-137 was measured in a Ucluelet sample taken in February 2015. The Del Mar sample had 8.4 Bq/m3.

Results for other Fukushima Daiichi-derived radionuclides were not posted. According to media reports, “The plume also contains other radioactive material, including Strontium 90… radioactive isotopes of iodine, low levels of plutonium and tritium might be in the plume.”

According to Woods Hole scientist Ken Buesseler, “As the plume begins to arrive along the West Coast [it] will actually increase in concentration… no public agency in the US is monitoring the activities in the Pacific… Without careful, extensive, consistent monitoring, we’ll have no way of knowing how much radiation from Fukushima is reaching our shores, and how it could affect life in the ocean.”

Watch Buesseler’s recent presentation near Del Mar, CA here

Published: August 25th, 2015 at 6:07 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Fukushima nuclear waste detected off U.S. West Coast, from California to Canada — “There is definitely offshore Fukushima cesium now” — Test results will not be revealed to public for several weeks (VIDEO) October 17, 2014
  2. “BREAKING NEWS – Scientists detect Fukushima radiation on North American shores” — Coastal communities ‘concerned’ — Over 7 Bq/m3 of cesium from dock in Pacific Northwest — Professor: It indicates arrival of other radioactive substances — “Represents potential radiological health risk” (VIDEO) April 6, 2015
  3. Record levels of Fukushima radiation detected off West Coast — Massive plume stretches for more than 1,000 miles — Reuters: Contamination is spreading off U.S. shores — Radioactive cesium reaches 11 Bq/m3 at multiple locations (MAP) December 3, 2015
  4. New EPA data shows iodine-131 in Los Angeles tap water — Still no testing for radioactive cesium April 21, 2011
  5. 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

544 comments to BREAKING: Fukushima nuclear waste detected along Southern California coast — Highest levels seen anywhere in North America since testing program began — 8.4 Bq/m3 of radioactive cesium measured near beach between Los Angeles and San Diego (VIDEO & MAP)

  • unincredulous unincredulous

    Polymeric uranium….

    transparent aluminum…Mr. Scott!

    (interesting article here from Nasa about radioactive soil remediation)|Collection|NASA%2520STI||17|Collection|NACA%26Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallpartial%26Ntk%3DAll%26N%3D0%26No%3D10%26Ntt%3Dradionuclides

  • Prof. Neutron

    It is true that not all isotopes are equally damaging, biologically. Regarding "natural" versus "manmade" radioisotopes, let's consider potassium-40 and cesium-134 and cesium-137. Potassium-40 produces a 1.3 MeV beta 89% of the time. Betas are simply electrons, and biologically they are absorbed readily by tissue, causing genetic and other damage. Cesium-137 produces betas with 0.5 MeV energy. Less energy means less damage per radioactive decay. Cesium-134 produces an even lower-energy beta at 0.14 MeV, plus two gamma rays of higher energy, which tend to escape the body but can be absorbed, causing biological damage.

    The bottom line is that radioactive potassium, found naturally in seawater and in the human body is no safer than the radioactive cesium isotopes of cesium from Fukushima. Your body typically has about 5000 Bq of potassium 40.

    Please note:I am not a shill, I do not work in the nuclear power industry, and no one is paying me to write this. I am just trying to help the readers of ENENews put stories like this in proper perspective.

  • As Little As 10-30 Bq/kg of Radioactive Cesium Internal Radiation In Kids Causes Health Problems

  • Radioactive Potassium In Bananas Compared To Cesium, Plutonium, Uranium And Iodine via @AGreenRoad

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Well, i guess the nice thing is that natural Potassium-40 appears to be required for life and artificial manmade is not, thus the Hormesis Theory is false, since we have increased the background with manmade and cancer rates are skyrocketing worldwide and cancer is found anywhere that manmade radiation is found.

    it would appear the biological systems of bodies and plants can handle and keep in check natural radiation like K-40 but not the manmade artificial.. so the argument is a moot point.

    Once again is K-40 or sunshine responsible for these images in all these links..a simple yes or no would suffice. 🙂

    Possibly any additional radiation can not be handled properly by the biological system in the form of manmade.

    None of these images are from natural radiation and/or sunshine take your time and decide. 🙂,+cancers+and+mutations&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI7u232_PMxwIVFlyICh2FjQIA&biw=996&bih=548

  • Nuclear bomb created radioactive elements by transforming stable isotopes at GZ.

    The GZ soil was a source of the stable isotopes 151Eu and 153Eu for their (n,g) activation to 152Eu and 154Eu, respectively.

    But in the same study, they claim that potassium did NOT do the same thing.. it just stayed sitting there, immune to the effects of neutron radiation.. 100%.


    The laws of physics do not give one element IMMUNITY..

    EVERY ELEMENT is ACTIVATED at the atomic level, due to scavenging effect of neutron radiation.

  • Anyone want to keep claiming that nothing changes when neutrons hit whatever natural non radioactive elements, changing them into K40?

    Come on guys, this is the A Team, right?

    The only question is, how much K40 or other radioactive forms of potassium were created by the atomic age?

    • bo bo

      I thought Paveway had a post assessing total amount of manmade K40 on earth to be in the tens of Kg and primordial K40 amount to be millions (or billions or trillions?) of tonnes.
      ( *sorry – 'million' 'trillion' and 'billion' is quite a variance but the point was that the latter form of primordial K40 was much more in ratio)

      I do not know what his source was – although he almost always has a source for his statements.

      I also do not understand about this Neutron activated ( 'transmutated'?) K40
      It's beyond my comprehension.. ( I'm a straggler – not on the A team here ) but the question I do have for you here doc, is, when you bring up this neutron activated K40, are you saying that what USED to be primordial, is no longer even primordial anymore, so to assume 12000bq/cubic meters of K40 is ALL primordial is misleading & wrong ?

      • Hey, you guys and gals are teaching me.. and that is very much appreciated. This back and forth debate and dialogue is very enlightening..

        Fact; neutron radiation from all fission activates elements of all types, including potassium.

        Potassium is not immune to neutron radiation.

        How much and what types of radiation are created by fissioning nuclear bombs, nuclear plants and medical isotope reactors?

        No clue.. but best guess is that it is A LOT..

        Kind of like the amounts of cesium, iodine, xenon, tritium, etc, all of them produced via ACTIVATION by neutron radiation.

        HUGE amounts is best guess..

        • bo bo

          'Hey, you guys and gals are teaching me.. and that is very much appreciated. This back and forth debate and dialogue is very enlightening..'


          \(^ ^)/

        • bo bo

          Thanks doc!

          But so.. your answer to my question is –
          'All that primordial stuff, no matter the accurate manner in which it was calculated using geochronolgy or whatever, is most likely no longer natural K40 anymore anyways' ?

          • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

            There is still huge amounts of primordial K-40 around. It comes from basalt rocks and volcanoes including at the bottom of the ocean.

            • bo bo

              Thank you, PT.

              so just to organize – and again correct me if my interpretation is wrong –

              Paveway had a post assessing total amount of manmade K40 on earth to be in the tens of Kg and primordial K40 amount to be millions (or billions or trillions?) of tonnes. ( again sorry for that huge variance, but I noted his point – that there's A LOT more of the primordial stuff)

              Would you agree with the primordial K40 being the biggest source of radioactivity in the ocean ( compared to man made isotopes ) IF one excluded the neutron bombardment changing even the primordial K40 into mutant K40s ?

              Is this the source of big discrepancy of opinion among posters in how much primordial radioactivity is in ocean?
              Is this discussion essentially about whether or not one believes K40 mutates into so called 'mutant K40s' through neutron bombardment or not ?

              & I apologize for using the word 'believe' I'm not implying your theory is just in your mind & not true.
              The neutron stuff is beyond my comprehension so I'm not able to say anything.beyond you believe this way and Paveway believes that way.
              You both have links.
              That's all I know.

            • GOM GOM

              No there is not. Have you even looked at any other references on this matter? What about the Canfield Ocean state we are sliding into? What minerals exist in a polluted, irradiated, sulfide-ridden, semi-anoxic, methane-belching Pacific? She is dying. And so will industrial civilization with it.

              Please go look up Donald Canfield. HE is the guy who can answer questions on this rather bizarre fixation on K-40.

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                GOM, why is the fixation on K-40 bizarre exactly?

                This is by far the largest source of radioactivity in our body and in the ocean and everyone compares the man made stuff to it, usually in order to show how small the man made stuff is. If it can be shown that K-40 is less dangerous that they say it is, or that fallout is worse than they say it is, or both, than you win. If you cant show this, than you lose

                This comparison to background is made every time you turn around. Its the banana lie (but why is it a lie?) its the Woods Hole/NOAA "our radioactive ocean" theme. SO again, why is it bizarre to focus on the K-40, the universal reference isotope?

    • Angela_R

      Dr. Goodheart, you enquire: "Anyone want to keep claiming that nothing changes when neutrons hit whatever natural non radioactive elements, changing them into K40?"

      How about: 'Anyone want to keep claiming that nothing changes when neutrons hit the NUCLEUS of ANY atom or isotope?'

      They won't all change to (mutant) K-40.

      "The only question is, how much K40 or other radioactive forms of potassium were created by the atomic age?"

      They won't all change to (mutant) K-40 or in fact other radioactive forms of potassium, depends on the exchange of protons and neutrons, and the existence of electrons.

      That anyone could believe that any isotope or atom remains the same after its nucleus has been attacked, is beyond my comprehension.

      The cauldron of brews produced during the fissile process would depend on a number of factors including materials encountered, temperature and time.

      Possibility of determining outcome? Hey, these things are out of containment….

      • Angela_R

        Sorry for the duplicated line in my post above.

        Hadn't seen your 4.40pm and your more expansive line prior to writing my above post –
        " Fact; neutron radiation from all fission activates elements of all types, including potassium."

        The fission won't be only changing elements, in fact most elements have been through the separation process prior to their entry into a nuclear reactor, it is the nucleus of their isotopes or atoms that are bombarded in reactors.

        • So where does the tritium come from that is around every nuclear reactor?

          Correct if wrong, but isn't the source of the tritium basically activated water?

          Potassium is in that water which is changing to tritium, correct?

          Why would that same neutron radiation which is creating tritium also create activation products from the potassium coming in along with the water?

          Why do all reactors belch a never ending stream of nuclear garbage both via gases and liquids?

          They are all in contact with water, which is then activated by neutron radiation, along with everything IN the water, potassium or otherwise, correct?

          So when the nuclear industry points at tritium and calls it harmless or good for you, they neglect to mention what is also in that tritium contaminated water. What happens to all of the other 'activated' minerals that used to be non radioactive?

      • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

        From Lurking Death's link:

        “…Potassium and its radioactive isotope K40:
        “Potassium 40 (K40) Half life : 1.3 billion years. Natural abundance: 0.012% of all potassium is K40.
        Radioactivity in Curies: 0.0000071 curies (per gram). Type of radiation emitted: Beta (energy 0.52 MEV), gamma energy 0.16 MeV)….”

        Comparethe energy increase for enriched Potassium-40:
        “…The interesting peaks here are Cs-137 at 661.5 keV, Am-241 at 59.4 keV, and K-40 at 1400 keV….”
        1400 kiloelectron volts =
        1.4 megaelectron volts

        This K-40 after the bomb test is not attached to potassium and does not come from potassium but is transmuted from Chlorine 37.

        • Good point PT.. different kinds of radioactive potassium;

          Natural radioactive potassium; low voltage

          Man made radioactive potassium; HIGH VOLTAGE

          BINGO! You get the gold star.. you just uncovered what the nuclear industry has been hiding


          • Please correct if mistaken, and let's simplify this by adding zeroes to the above numbers so everyone can understand this, if it is indeed true.

            What is the difference in voltage, by adding zeroes between the two types of radioactive potassium?

            Let's keep it REALLY SIMPLE…

          • Or does Lurking Death deserve the gold ENEnews star? Or both of you?

          • bo bo

            So is this 'enriched K40' the 'transmutated K40 from neutron bombardment'?


            so are u saying that the nuke industry has been hiding *existence* of this manmade K40?


            are you saying that the nuke industry has been hiding or fudging the *amount* of manmade K40 ?

            • bo bo

              And when Paveway gave that number of total amount of the 'manmade K40' on earth, which 'manmade K40' was he referring to ?

              So there are 2 kinds of manmade K40s ?
              non transmutated manmade K40
              & transmutatef manmade K40 …?

              And so I repeat my question here – so is this disagreement essentially about whether or not K40 transmutates into so called 'mutantK40s'?

              Doc – I'll be confused as hell and will be left in the dust here why Death Lurking and PT just explained everything, unless those questions are answered, especially the last question.

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                There is primordial natural K-40 which is a trace isotope of natural radiation. This has radioactive decay as does all radioactive isotopes.

                There is K-40 which is anthropogenic which is in potassium nitrate used in fertilizer.

                Anthropogenic means man made, or created by man. There are more examples of anthropogenic K-40:

                There is K-40 which is the result of bombarding Chlorine 37 with Helium ions in a cyclotron.

                There is K-40 which is the result of nuclear reactors, nuclear bombs, and nuclear accidents.

                • bo bo

                  OK – Is the last type

                  'K-40 which is the result of nuclear reactors, nuclear bombs, and nuclear accidents.'

                  ↑ is that the type that creates what u call 'mutant K40s' ?

                  & again, is the disagreement over amount of primordial K40 in the ocean water (, as opposed to manmade ) essentially a disagreement about whether or not K40 transmutates into exotic manmade K40? Or is that an oversimplification ?

                  It seems to me, although I don't understand the literature, if people don't agree on this 'mutantK40' numbers and perceptions of radioactivity of the ocean will remain widely divided ?

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                K-40 has a natural radioactive decay:

                “…Naturally occurring radioactive 40K decays to stable 40Ar (10.72% of decays) by electron capture or positron emission (giving it the longest known positron-emitter nuclide half-life). Alternately, and most of the time (89.28%), it decays to stable 40Ca by beta decay. 40K has a half-life of 1.248×109 years. The long half life of this primordial radioisotope is caused by a highly spin-forbidden transition: 40K has a nuclear spin of 4, while both of its decay daughters are even-even isotopes with spins of 0….”

                • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                  K-40 as a transmutated, separate, artificial isotope, is the product of Chlorine-37 and helium 4 ions which occurs during nuclear fission.

                  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                    Other isotopes from nuclear fission are much more dangerous than Chlorine 37 transmutated into K-40, that the focus is on the other radionuclides such as Cesium-137, Strontium-90, Plutonium-239, Iodine-131, Americium, Curium, etc.

                    But argument to the hormesis value of Potassium-40, either natural or manmade, is erroneous. Because by definition any radiation has enough energy to damage one cell and cancer can develop from one damaged cell. Note that Plutonium 239 is lethal in a very tiny amount inhaled as is I-131. And curium is 100 times more lethal.

                    The value of potassium to human health is based on the fact that it is a electrolyte, not because it has a trace radioactive elements with a low voltage and a half life of 1.3 billion years. Some people consider natural K-40 to be a stable isotope.

                    All the radionuclides from Fukushima and from nuclear waste dumped into the ocean and from other nuclear industry sources is killing the Pacific Ocean.

              • SadieDog

                Is it possible nobody knows what natural radiation readings were before man made radiation? I say, probably.

                • bo bo

                  Hi SD !
                  Ok isn't it possible to subtract from human nuclear activity then backtrack half lives of natural elements that exist on earth today – wouldn't that give u a ballpark number ? Or is that oversimplifying ?

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  SadieDog, no its not possible. The primary source in body and ocean is K-40 and the global quantity has been decreasing at the rate determined by its half life. In the ocean it has been decreasing even faster because Of different types of rocks that were exposed to weathering. So at the genesis of life in the late precambrian there was more potassium and it was more radioactive too.

                • SadieDog

                  Kinda. Considering who was doing the measurements. If any were being done at all…Where are the pre- nuke measurements?

              • PavewayIII PavewayIII

                For the record, bo, I simply conceded that 'some' K-40 may have resulted from nuclear testing or ractors, and I guessed a kg or two. I have zero evidence that ANY has EVER been created by man in any way, shape or form, but didn't want to set myself up for the troll to prove that. Considering the only ways it *could* theoretically be created, the quantities (if any) are insignificant – like in the kg or so range.

                I adamantly disagree that there is more than one kind of K-40 atom, that man-made would differ in any way from primordial, and that there is anything remotely like 'enriched' or high-voltage K-40.

                All K-40 is radioactive and all K-40 decays in the known beta-gamma ratio that's been observed for decades. All K-40 in the sea and on land is exactly the same and in the same proportions to the non-radioactive K39 and K41 found everywhere. I can't prove any of this – it's been accepted science for as long as I have been alive.

                The K-40 in different parts of the ocean varies only because of overall salinity differences, not because natural K39-K40-K41 ratios change. Buesseler didn't announce some global K-40 figure, he was merely reporting what HIS samples measured. If he sampled the same spot a day later, the figure might be different. If he sampled in the Eastern Mediterranean, they would have been another 25% higher, like all Group I alkali metal ions.


                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  The discussion about comparing nuke fallout to background would move along much quicker if we could take PaveWayIII's position as truth. We can mull over the possibilities of mutant SuperK killer cereal later, but wouldnt it be nice to move on?

                  The original point is this; to understand health risk, is it valid to compare nuke fallout to background. I insisted its not, based on one very simple observation; life did fine with 12,000 or so bq per cubic meter in the ocean and the even larger 5000 bq in a body. Instead of discussing why this is, there were a thousand posts arguing about something else. As long as we believe that k-40 is as bad as the no threshold linear dose EXTRAPOLATED model shows, we will make no headway against the Woods Hole argument that man added only a tiny bit of radiation therefor its no danger. Is this so difficult to understand?

                  For all believers in the universal toxicity and linear dose model of radiation, the question remains; would you remove the 4000 to 5000 bq from the inside of your cells if you (magically) could? This question tests your belief…if the intent wasnt clear

                  • Code; it is not that black and white or simple.

                    As PT points out there are MANY sources of man made source of K40.

                    Code; are you willing to agree to the point, that there are MANY sources of K40 and man produces them?

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Dr G, both stock and PaveWayIII indicate there is an insignificant amount of man made k-40. So Im going to go with them rather than PT and the good Doctor. I believe my points stand until you can prove stock and Paveway are in error

                  • from a distance from a distance

                    @Code – "life" had to wait until the radiation levels on planet Earth DECREASED enough to support life.

                • bo bo

                  Thank you Paveway

                  'I adamantly disagree that there is more than one kind of K-40 atom, that man-made would differ in any way from primordial, and that there is anything remotely like 'enriched' or high-voltage K-40.'

                  So what is your opinion of the paper presented by 'Death Lurking' ?

                  • PavewayIII PavewayIII

                    Sorry – I don't recall seeing that, bo. Got a link?

                  • PavewayIII PavewayIII

                    The numbers on the Nuclear Exhaust site don't seem right. K-40 decays 90% with a 1.3MeV beta- and 10% with a 1.5MeV gamma. There's a miniscule chance of a B+ decay at 482KeV


                    The Hunter Scott site claims there was a 1.4MeV gamma peak for K-40, but it clearly looks closer to but below the expected value of 1.5MeV. I would attribute that to calibration error on the spectroscope and counter. It sounds like he calibrated it against other atomic glass samples, not against a standard.

                    There's no reason K-40, which would be expected in the potassium-feldspar portion of the sand, would deviate from the established and expected 1.5MeV gamma.

                    Is that the part you are asking about?

                    Regarding K-40 vs. Cs-137, you have

                    ICRP K-40 6.2 nSv/Bq
                    ICRP Cs-137 13 nSv/Bq
                    ECRR Cs-137 65 nSv/Bq

                    Banana dose: 15 Bq
                    While it was in your digestive tract, it would have the same committed effective dose as

                    ICRP 7.5 Bq Cs-137 or
                    ECRR 1.5 Bq Cs-137

                    After elimination, it would have a net 0 nSv of committed effective dose assuming you were not deficient in potassium. That means the committed effective dose of one banana is 0 nSv equivalent to NO Cs-137.

                    Becquerel for becquerel, K-40 is either half (ICRP) or one-tenth as biologically damaging as Cs-137. I don't think natural amounts of K-40 produce any unrepairable DNA damage or excessive oxidative stress, so I wouldn't ever compare the two. Any Cs-137 is excess…

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Thank you PaveWayIII. Your contribution is inestimable.

                      I didnt see the ECRR sievert multiplier for k-40. Are you assuming Busby et al are content with the ICRP extrapolated (but not tested) toxicity of k-40 or did thy in fact publish it?

                    • PavewayIII PavewayIII

                      Not sure, Code. I'm kind of reading their report as saying that they only published that last table in the appendix for radionuclides that had higher values, implying that the K-40 wasn't one of them. I'll fire off an email to Dr. Busby and ask – he seems like a friendly enough guy.

                      If you never hear from me again, then it probably means he has killed (an eaten) me.

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      PaveWayIII, a query to Busby would be great! I emphasize that no actual study has crossed my eyeballs demonstrating k-40 toxicity. If Busby does answer, rather than having your brains for dinner, it would especially gratifying to know if he basis his toxicity figure on extrapolation or test

                    • PavewayIII PavewayIII

                      All of the ECRRs weighing logic is painfully detailed in their paper. Too many big words for me.


                      None of it (at the time) was tested, per se. They did observe that the ICRP's model failed to explain the excess cancers and deaths after Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the ECRR's model DID explain the observed cancers and deaths. Even the ICRP acknowledged their model was flawed (but they didn't bother to change it).

                      So, not an actual test, but at least an endorsement of the additional logic the ECRR used to re-weigh risk factors. Their model fits reality. The ICRPs – not so much.


      • bo bo

        So again – am I correct in thinking that the links and comments being presented here by you – Angela, and also by Doc & PT are trying to express this thought ? ↓

        'All that primordial K40 in the ocean, no matter how accurate the manner in which it was calculated using geochronolgy or whatever, is most likely not even natural K40 anymore anyways, so an accurate measurement of primordial K40 is not possible'

        And Paveway disagrees – K40 does not mutate?

        Not shoving words in people's mouths, just trying to comprehend the points being made.
        Apologies for the inevitable bastardization of your ideas.
        & Thank you so much.

        • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

          K-40 does decay radioactively to an isotope of Argon and an isotope of Calcium.

          Radioactive decay happens from every radioactive isotope.

          Nuclear transmutation happens in a cyclotron, a nuclear weapon, and in a nuclear reactor using some fissile material. This is different from radioactive decay.

          Physics – Nuclear Fission reaction explained – Physics

          Transmutation and Nuclear Energy

          I think mutation only refers to a living being, not inanimate objects.

          • bo bo

            Not mutation but transmutation – corrected, thank you.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              There are 2 kinds of nuclear reactions. One is radioactive decay which is spontaneous and not manmade. All radioactive isotopes decay spontaneously.

              The other kind is transmutation which makes use of fissile material such as uranium 235 to set up a chain reaction in a reactor or bomb, or plutonium in a bomb or reactor, or uses ion beams in a cyclotron to bombard an element to set up a nuclear reaction that is artificial and manmade.

              “…The two general kinds of nuclear reactions are nuclear decay reactions and nuclear transmutation reactions. In a nuclear decay reaction,…”

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                “…Radioactive materials that decay spontaneously produce ionizing radiation, which has sufficient energy to strip away electrons from atoms (creating two charged ions) or to break some chemical bonds. Any living tissue in the human body can be damaged by ionizing radiation in a unique manner. The body attempts to repair the damage, but sometimes the damage is of a nature that cannot be repaired or it is too severe or widespread to be repaired. Also mistakes made in the natural repair process can lead to cancerous cells. The most common forms of ionizing radiation are alpha and beta particles, or gamma and X-rays….”

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            PT, how does you above post answer bo? You have provided more posts than anyone yet they dont contribute to the fundamental point which is this;

            either the radiation from potassium is less dangerous than assumed (half as dangerous as cesium 137), or nuke fallout is more dangerous than assumed, or we have no argument against the nuclear community and Buesseler/NOAA when they compare fallout to background

            Therefor Im requesting that you STOP posting on this particular subject for a while, in order to give space and importance to the point in question. What do you say? You have tried to prove that k-40 is dangerous, that all radiation at any dose is dangerous and you have failed. Therefor, why not step back, do more research in private, post it on your own web page, then come back when you have a better grasp of the issues. Thanks

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Code, we have the science of Dr. John Gofman, Dr. Ernst Sterglass, Dr. Chris Busby, Dr. Ian Fairlie, Dr. Helen Caldicott, and many other scientists and medical doctors to answer the nuclear community. Their science is still valid.

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                PT, I see that Fairlie goes with the IAEA/ICRP model. Busby et al dont agree with it. Thus, Im going with Busby and no longer care what Fairlie has to say, since he attributes Fukushima deaths to stress more than radiation

                • from a distance from a distance

                  I have to correct your misrepresentation:

                  (1) Fairlie does NOT attribute Fukushima deaths to stress more than radiation.

                  I did a complete analysis of his article.

                  (2) As I said in another comment, your agenda is obvious now. It is to promote hormesis, imo.

                  (3) Do you have a youtube channel with the name with these initials "R… Home… G" ?

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    @from a distance, if you have done a complete analysis of Fairlie, then you know more than I do. I simply went to his website and cruised for a minute. I recall he expected 5000 deaths eventually due to radiation and that this is consistent with the ICRP or IAEA projection. I recall he attributed the rest of the deaths to stress, suicides and whatever. Contrast that to Busby's 300,000 deaths coming for Japan. In my mind, it will be so much worse because of secondary effects. Indeed Fukushima could be the tipping point which creates an extinction level event and we may be already witnessing that. However its very difficult to make that argument because the experts keep comparing the fallout to the background radiation, concluding theres no danger.

                    Yes, I think some radiation from some sources is probably a requirement for health. Certainly true for solar radiation, but certainly not ruled out for the 400 million disintegration's you have every day inside your cells from k-40. Unless you have found the relevant tests?

                    I dont promote hormesis, nor deny the possibility of it, I promote understanding, in this case why k-40 is so benign. Specific Activity is the closest answer so far

                    • bo bo

                      'A Specific Activity' theorist.

                    • Jebus Jebus


                      How much potassium, in whatever units, is in the "average" human?

                      The k-40 is .0012% of that?


                      They took away the k-40 and the cell did not function.

                      For some reason, potassium without k-40 is not potassium.

                      What happened when they added more k-40 to the potassium?

                      What happened when they put cesium 134 into a cell, replacing the potassium.

                      What happened when they put cesium 137 into a cell, replacing the potassium.

                      What happened when they put plutonium 239 into a cell replacing iron.

                      What happened when they put strontium 90 into a cell, replacing calcium.

                      ect… ad infinitum…

                      Until every manmade radioactive chemical element is studied…

                      There is a reason there is a periodic table…

                    • from a distance from a distance

                      @Code – it seems like you're doing the exact same thing that pro-nukers do…

                      You're comparing natural sources of radiation like sunlight and potassium to MAN-MADE RADIONUCLIDES.

                      "Radionuclides" meaning created thru fission (and have only been on the Earth for 70+ years)

                      It is very elementary.

                      Even the pro-nuclear, imo, EPA says we have adapted to Potassium, but have not adapted to radionuclides like Cesium137.

                      It just seems like you're overthinking a very simple concept.

                      But, mind you, I'm not at all criticizing your right to do so and to drag others into it.

                      But it's a straw argument.

                      Thank you for admitting that you lean pro-hormesis.

                    • bo bo

                      @from a distance

                      You say to code:
                      'You're comparing natural sources of radiation like sunlight and potassium to MAN-MADE RADIONUCLIDES.'

                      And… so?

                      Yes – pronukers compare potassium to manmade radionuclides.

                      So code is doing the SAME pronuke comparison ON PURPOSE to prove that their comparison is BALONEY.

                      He is trying to prove that, because the biological response to each isotope varies SO GREATLY ( with cesium being highly toxic even in small amounts, and K40 being on the extreme end of spectrum – almost hinting necessary for life – nobody REALLY knows ) – the framework of this pronuke comparison itself is *perhaps* INVALID.

                      He's also not stating any of this as fact I don't think
                      The only thing he stated as FACT was this:

                      'If this issue is not tackled, we're headed up sh*t creek without a paddle.'

                      I'm gonna spit it out now…

                      U. Guys. Are. Such. Knuckleheads.
                      (Said with some affection if u can accept it)


                      I don't understand transmutated K40
                      But I think I get this

                      Please do give it a try
                      Worry about mutated K40 later

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      from a distance, you are very confident in your knowledge of radionuclides and their danger. You say on the one hand that all radiation is dangerous…even extremely so because just one track can cause cancer….yet you have now said that its a no brainer that the body has adapted to the 400 million such tracks daily from potassium. Do you know HOW it has adapted? Whats the mechanism to stop the deadly effect? You say its simple and that by investigating it, Im drawing everyone into a straw argument.

                      Ive repeatedly made the distinction between primordial radiation sources with their long half lives and man made with short, yet you take this as a sign Im using pro nuke arguments.

                      This line of reasoning that you have strikes me as unusually ignorant or perhaps deceptive. I take it you are happy with the standard dose model then, and you may be the first to agree to having all the native radioactivity removed from your cells?

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                PT, you name drop, but this means nothing. Busby does not believe in the linear no threshold derived model that is the standard and from which you get your k-40 danger figures from. I wish that you would concentrate on other issues so that we can give this one pivotal point its fair share of observation before being obscured by a thousand and one irrelevant and misleading tangents. Thank you for your consideration.

                • from a distance from a distance

                  Consider writing to anti-proton and ask him questions about potassium. Maybe he can help.


                • Code, to what do you attribute the seeming harmless of the many thousands Bq/m3 of K40 in the ocean on all living things?

                  Let's go there..

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    Dr Goodheart. I believe there are things known and unknown. One obvious and conspicuous thing is the "specific activity" of k-40 and all primordial isotopes which is very low. It takes a lot of atoms to produce one becquerel. It takes 1,400,000,000 atoms of C137 to give one becquerel and
                    57,000,000,000,000,000 atoms of K-40 to give one becquerel if my math is correct. That means in my mind that even if two bodies have an equal number of becquerels, the radiation microscopically close to the K-40 is millions of times less than from fallout. You can see this easier if you say one atom or K-40 gives one "bit" of radioactivity. Then one atom of Cesium gives 40 million "bits" of radioactivity and note weve already set the total body burden to equality. Next, an analogy

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      An analogy for specific activity. I gave the solar analogy but nobody seemed to like it. Heres my sand and glass analogy.

                      You know that glass and sand are made of the same stuff; silica. If you fuse sand into glass, the broken points could be considered "high specific cutting activity" For every atom of silica, you get a lot of cutting action! A mathematical model could extrapolate how many feet would get cut on the beach for how much broken glass. A stochastic analysis. Less broken glass, less danger. But when the glass finally returns to sand, the "specific cutting activity" is so low, than even though theres a large amount of it, there is no longer danger. In fact, walking on the beach is healthy. Note that microscopically, theres still some abradement. This exfoliates the skin and probably tickles your foot acupuncture points and whatever. Is this sand hormesis? Yes, especially when you consider all things, like the water, the air ions, the sun, the voltage gradient. Walking on the beach is (was) one of the healthiest things you can do. Yet, if you use the linear no threshold derived model, since there is SO MUCH SAND (!!!) statistically theres harm, when in fact there is no harm. Its an analogy, not perfect

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Then there are the unknowns. Unknowns are interesting because just because you dont know about them doesnt mean they arent there. And theres hardly any way to know, since one doesnt know about them. Electromagnetism was one such unknown for the majority of civilization.

                      There is some evidence that the water in your cells is ordered in a coherent state, a kind of unified liquid crystal. Free radical mediated state switching of Peroxiredoxins may facilitate this liquid crystal configuration via a photoelectric effect. The peroxiredoxins are bound to our water crystalline gels in the cytoplasm. When protons bind to the water it exposes the dipolar molecular network of water to the -CH3 groups of the peroxiredoxins to unfold them to allow them to do their quantum magic inside a cell. This points to quantum effects, and possible utility to k-40 induced radicals

                    • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

                      Is my potassium supplement K40, Code?

                      Never heard of cesium supplement.

                      Do you think the nuke crowd got hung up on "There is natural radiation in our universe/earth, therefore if we make man-made inventions with separate properties of decay and radiation, it must be Ok."? So when they started discovering horrific mutations and effects, longer or shorter half-lives and rates of decay, they just couldn't let go of their investment?

                      And now, they are trying to convince the scientific community that because potassium has beneficial and sustaining effects, that cesium et al do too? Despite strong evidence to the contrary?

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Hillbilly, it always seems like people are crazy. What keeps this whole house of cards from blowing apart in the wind? To answer, I would guess some, or even many of those strange pro nuclear people actually do believe in their failed dose model and their hideous hormesis theory.

                      Seeing how dumb and emotionally driven the public is gives us some idea of how dumb the scientists can be, who after all are the public.

                      thus the planet earth was ultimately lost

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      yes, hillbilly, your potassium supplement is radioactive.

                    • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog


                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      we knew you knew, but still trying to hammer the point. Thanks

                    • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

                      No, I didn't, Code. Had no clue. But I was kinda hoping 🙂 I meant to tell you it was a serious question so you didn't think me silly. Ha

                  • from a distance from a distance

                    FYI, "hormesis" as being touted by the pro-nuke crowd is based on studies of x-rays…

                    NOT "man-made" radionuclides…

                    radionuclides meaning created thru the fission process

                    and these radionuclides are NEW to Earth, maybe 70+ years old

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      a hormesiphobe. Most of our nutrients…maybe all, are dangerous at high levels. Or put the other way, they are only good at low levels, not high ones. How do you know k-40 isnt a biological requirement?

                      The essence of my post to the NRC regarding changing the rules to accept hormesis is that its highly unethical what to say ignorant to add known poisons to the environment in the hopes they will be healthy. The academic search for hormesis on an isotope specific basis is another issue entirely

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                Tell NRC to reject efforts by pro-nuke fanatics to weaken radiation standards

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                “…The Biphasic Curve: The cancer risk vs. radiation level in the low-dose regime (0 to 200 mSv) for LNT and the Template:Font colour promoted by Busby. Template:Font colour radiation is ~2.4 mSv/year (diagram adapted by Busby from Burlakova et al. (1998)).[9]…”

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  biphasic curve dose response model…finally something relevant

                  Why people here cling so tightly to the no threshold linear dose is beyond me. Thats the one currently in use by the IAEA

                  • from a distance from a distance

                    Because the "Linear No Threshold" model as proven by scientific studies show there is no amount of radiation which can be proven as safe.

                    Just because the IAEA adopted the LNT model (and downplays the results of it) doesn't mean it isn't a proven, relevant model.

                    • from a distance from a distance

                      Dr. Gofman proved by using ionizing radiation that ONE radiation track thru a cell can cause cancer.

                      Just one.

                    • bo bo

                      Is it possible that some scientists, for example someone like Gofman – to actually hold a position that is a combination of LNT theory and what code is proposing ('specific activity' theory )

                      Because – although I've never seen anybody carve it out and nail it down as well as code does.. I feel like the concept is not new and it seems – like for example, if Busby understands this…perhaps many other so called 'LNT' scientists ( heck, who knows, maybe even Fairlie) whose works get bastardized and simplified in soundbytes (← by people like bo ! Lol )

                      As usual crackpot theories though
                      Those who actually crack open academic books may have insight

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      from a distance, you better start explaining how you do so well with 400 million radioactive disintegrations every day from k-40 if its so poisonous. Anyway, you lose the argument with Woods Hole. Quite a shame

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      from a distance…also we note the LD50 for the blue wing butterfly is 2 becquerels of fallout. So given your cancer from one track, and larva death from two, how do you suppose you survive 5000 every second?

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      Whats the worry? – Dose or hot particle? Chris Busby
                      “There is a lot of argument about the effects from Fukushima on the Pacific and the US west coast. I have just been reading one site “true facts about ocean radiation and. . .blah blah “.
                      “I agree with the author about the total radiation concentration (activity) in sea water less than 30Bq/cubic metre. The calculation I made show that its unlikely that the total radioactivity levels in the [ocean] will be higher than those which we had in the Irish Sea or the Baltic Sea, but the problem is the particles, and these are not described by “radioactivity levels”.
                      “I attach a picture of an edible mussel (myrtilis edulis) from the Irish Sea. The tracks are from a hot particle, which would end up inside you if you ate it.”

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      PT, the issue of hot particles is a very good one. We have hot particles in the 2 micrometer range, and also bucky balls. Does Buesselers cesium test method allow measurement of the hot particles? Busby's chart provided by PaveWay shows 18 thousand times more danger from hot particles

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                “…The assumption that Sr-90 and childhood cancer are correlated is best supported for a supralinear dose-response, meaning the greatest per-dose risks are at the lowest doses. Findings document that the very young are especially susceptible to adverse effects of radiation exposure, even at relatively low doses….”

                • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

                  If I go into a room with x amount of K40 (a pile of it- IDK)

                  …results are what?

                  If I go into a room with same x amount of Fukushima

                  …results are what?

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    one detail HillBilly is that if you had a vile of pure k-40 it would be 8000 times more radioactive than a vile of whole potassium. If there is anything good about this stuff, its almost certainly going to be in the concentrations normal to the body. (0.0187 grams). Im pretty sure that a pile of pure k-40 would be harmful

                  • Radioactive Potassium Isotopes Are Created By Neutron Radiation From Nuclear Bombs, Nuclear Plants, Nuclear Accidents, Manmade K40 Created By Phosphate Fertilizer And Carbon Industry

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Doc, I think there are errors in this article. There isnt any manmade K40 in fertilizer. The neutron capture during bombs…not the same thing as making C14 exactly. Not my field but Im pretty sure you have it wrong. For your own credibility, why not ask a few experts?

                      man is adding fertilizer with potassium which contains K-40 from primordial source at fixed ratio. It doesnt increase plant radioactivity or anything

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                Pr. Chris Busby: ECRR-model for radioactivity risk protection
                “Recent research has shown a failure in the radiation risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which radiation risk agencies in all nations currently use to regulate public exposures. There is new theoretical and experimental evidence showing that the health effects of the element Uranium have been massively underestimated. Uranium is still contaminating the world following its use as a weapon and is the basis for the nuclear industry. In this video Prof. Chris Busby, ECRR Scientific Secretary, outlines the scientific background and the problems of changing regulatory practice.

                “If the generally lower levels of radioactivity in the sediments of the Irish sea have caused increases in cancer in coastal populations, we should expect a similar effect in the Baltic, where the levels of radioactivity are about ten times greater than the peak levels and perhaps 50 times the current levels on the coast of the Irish sea.

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  This post from PT is also very relevant to the nuke fallout vs background discussion. Pro nukers must find a way to frame the high levels of background as safe and the low to high levels of fallout as not safe. Otherwise there will be NO WIN against the NOAA/Woods Hole movie "our radioactive ocean" Busby et al present good evidence that fallout is worse than assumed. Nobody seems to give good evidence that background is less damaging than assumed…except mother nature herself. How people could miss it is beyond me

                  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                    Detracting from the words of Dr. Chris Busby is a pro-Nuke distraction. I hope people read Dr. Busby, and not your inaccurate assessment of him.

                    Pro Nukers say that low levels are harmless and actually healthful. This what the petition to the NRC state.

                    Code, when you misstate the pro-Nuke argument, " Pro nukers must find a way to frame the high levels of background as safe and the low to high levels of fallout as not safe. " you seem to think everyone on this site are simpletons.

                    When you say, "we have no argument…" , you mean not the "we" of the anti-Nuke community, but the "we" of the pro-Nuke hormesis advocates. Arguing for radiation hormesis is a pro-Nuke argument who want radiation exposure levels increased so they can build more and more radiation spewing nuclear power plants.

                    • bo bo

                      If I'm not mistaken, I think what code meant was that
                      Busby was also a 'Specific Activity Theorist'

                      Now code just has to write out an official entry in urban dictionary for that freshly coined term

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Its often stated that Busby is a non linear biphasic kind of guy. I believe Busby got the inspiration from the works of Burlakova. Her explanation of the biphasic response involved adaptive response, i.e. hormesis. Busby appears to reject the hormesis theory surrounding the biphasic response.

                      Its obvious that poisoning people in hopes it will do them some good is a revolting notion of the highest degree. However, that doesnt rule out biological utility. A case in point has been made and a very closely related one; It was found that free radicals are a major cause of aging. Later it was also found free radicals are a biological requirement.

                      Thats the thing about unknowns; you dont know you dont know until you know. However, nature herself gives a strong indication; The benchmark of a healthy organism always contained this rather large amount of radioactivity. Who would dare to remove this, on the hunch they have outsmarted mother nature?

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      a good and short read from Busby describing why the standard dose model is flawed. He goes into the biphase model and the double event idea (where DNA doesnt have time to repair)


                      Busby states the ICRP model is off by 100 times. Thats a lot. Think about that for a second though; Even if you reduced the negative consequence of Chernobyl by 100x, its STILL GOING DOWN HILL. Not so nature with her huge quantity of internal radiation. Thus the need for a test if one is going to be sure that 400 million tracks a day of k-40 is a poison just barely tolerated.

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    of course I meant that anti nuclear folks would win more often if they could frame k-40 as nearly or even completely benign in the big scheme of things. Isnt that a self evident truth? What if there was NO background radiation? The gazillions of becquerels of nuclear fallout would sound horrifying wouldnt it? As it is, the fallout seems tiny compared to background. Yet you people cling tightly to the ICRP model. Go figure. I dont think EVERY Enenewser is a simpleton when I benchmark myself as the "standard simpleton" But this also relegates a few to the inane category

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Code, here is Dr. Fairlie’s answer to the petition requesting an increase in limits to exposure to manmade radiation:

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Based on the above you should be able to calculate it.

  • dunkilo

    YEE HAW!!NETC again lit up like the 4th of july!:(

    • 😐

      The article is about…

      ➡ Low Flying Helicopter Over Pacifica (Bay area) This Week Sept 1, 2015

      “The advisory comes from the National Nuclear Security Administration. The helicopter is equipped with gamma radiation sensors.”

      "The survey is part of a study by the Department of Homeland Security Domestic NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE intended to help improve the ability to detect and measure radiation from the air, the agency said in a statement. The agency conducted a similar survey over the same areas in 2012, according to Berkeley city officials.”

  • Sam Sam

    I have decided to not go to Pt.Reyes for many
    many reasons. Been a confusing learning
    curve on all this today. Why should I spend
    my time hearing Dr.B expouse his hormesis
    bs. He has only posted results for cesium?
    pathetic. why give this person time from
    my life. He is paid to deceive. no one is
    going to convince him otherwise. He
    sees what he wants to believe. Driving on
    back roads late at night after listening
    to him is a driving hazard. We will have
    access to this talk soon. Sorry to dissappoint.

  • Leland Leland

    M.I.T. requirements for Nuclear physicist
    Those who become nuclear physicists have a strong background in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Nuclear physicists have advanced academic degrees, and have spent years studying their field and conducting independent research.
    Dr. Ken Buesseler
    Employment History

    Chemical Oceanographer NON- Nuclear physics
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

    Marine Chemist NON-Nuclear physics
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

    Director with no nuclear Physics degree
    Center for Marine
    Senior Scientist and Director
    Center for Marine

    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    360 Woods Hole Road MS#4
    Woods Hole , Massachusetts 02543
    United States

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      I think they got 4 million or so to study radioactivity from Fukushima. In his early years Buesseler was studying the muck in the black sea which contained a thousand times more radioactivity than the water. Whats your point about PhDs and Woods Hole? What exactly is your point and motivation? Do you think no nuclear physicists are associated with Woods Hole? They have a research arm devoted to it. Why are you going to old threads? Whats your deal Leland?

    • LOL they insist on a director who has "no nuclear physics degree"…

      so what, so TPTB can more easily influence the top brass? Sheesh,

      Its time for some brandied pears!

You must be logged in to post a comment.