Newspapers: Fukushima problems causing concern in U.S. as radionuclides cross Pacific — EPA: ‘No comment’ on projections of radioactive plume hitting West Coast — California residents beg officials to act

Published: October 21st, 2013 at 10:53 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
72 comments


San Diego Union Tribune, Oct. 21, 2013: [...] there are few indications that engineers have gained the upper hand over the wreckage from the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima. The problems are a cause for concern even in San Diego, an ocean away. Though too diluted to affect human health, radionuclides riding Pacific Ocean currents are forecast to reach Southern California by 2016. [...] “Nobody knows how to contain this thing because it’s a first-time” incident, said Kiyoshi Kurokawa, the lead author of a scathing parliamentary investigation that detailed how nuclear industry influence disarmed Japanese regulators. [...]

Santa Maria Sun, Oct. 2, 2013: News broke late this summer that nuclear fallout from the meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan would hit Californian shores sometime next year. But is there any risk to public health and safety? A recent international study has concluded that there isn’t, as have federal and local health officials. But that response hasn’t satisfied many residents [...] Some of those people have warned of consequences at public meetings and begged local officials to do something [...]

SOURCE: adrift.org

Response by Victor Rossi, co-author of an international study forecasting the spread of Fukushima’s cesium-137 in seawater (Emphasis Added): “In brief, considering the information presently available about the total amount of radioactive materials released into the ocean right after the accident, we found that the turbulent Kurushio current, the Kurushio extension, and the numerous eddies in the Pacific Ocean would have diluted substantially the plume. So there are no major worries to be had.” That being said, Rossi added that there remain “small uncertainties” and that researchers should continue monitoring the ocean [...] The center has established a website [...] at adrift.org.

Response from federal officials: A spokesman for [NOAA] referred all questions regarding [Rossi's] study to the [EPA]. EPA spokesperson Ernesta Jones told the Sun that the federal agency continues to work closely with NOAA, the [DoE], as well as the [FDA] to follow the Fukushima oceanic leak. [...] “To this day, the [RadNet] system continues to confirm that there are no harmful levels of radiation in the air reaching the U.S. from Japan,” Jones wrote in an e-mail. In a response to a set of follow-up questions, agency spokesperson Julia Valentine said the EPA is aware of [Rossi's study], but didn’t have any further comment. She did say, however, that the agency’s RadNet system doesn’t specifically record radiation levels in seawater [...]

Response by local officials in San Luis Obispo, California: Local officials similarly aren’t concerned about a radioactive plume, though they admittedly rely heavily on the feds for information to support that opinion. Ron Alsop, SLO County’s Emergency Services director told the Sun that, anecdotally, water is known to dilute radiation, and the first line of treatment for someone thought to be exposed to radiation is a shower. [...] Rich Lichtenfels of the SLO County Health Agency told the Sun the agency performs baseline radiological surveys [...] to compare [...] to beaches once the dispersed plume is thought to reach U.S. waters. [...]

See also: Study: High concentrations of Fukushima radioactive material will reach west coast of North America -- "Entire coast" to be affected from Alaska to Mexico -- "Can negatively affect human life for decades... should raise concern" (MODEL)

Published: October 21st, 2013 at 10:53 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
72 comments

Related Posts

  1. Gundersen: Radioactive plume to impact West Coast in a year — Not going away after it hits… likely to only get stronger — Fukushima will keep releasing contamination for years to come — Must demand officials test fish and make data public (AUDIO) August 27, 2013
  2. UPI: Fukushima plume to reach U.S. West Coast in months; Measurable increase in radioactive material — Study: Prolonged exposure for California lasting 10 years; Hits Hawaii early 2014… may already be surrounded (PHOTO) August 28, 2013
  3. Study: Those lacking wisdom expected Fukushima plume to disperse before hitting West Coast — In reality “sharp features” were detected even after several days travel (PHOTO) December 2, 2013
  4. Fukushima Plume Arrives at West Coast — Expert: “If this was of greater health concern, we’d be very worried”; One model predicts levels over 1,000% higher than another, “this is not really acceptable” (GRAPHIC) February 25, 2014
  5. County officials in California approve action on Fukushima: “An international crisis of epic proportions” — Monitoring and testing requested for West Coast January 30, 2014

72 comments to Newspapers: Fukushima problems causing concern in U.S. as radionuclides cross Pacific — EPA: ‘No comment’ on projections of radioactive plume hitting West Coast — California residents beg officials to act

  • mairs mairs

    What, no mention of the airborne fallout that started arriving soon after the original meltdowns?


    Report comment

  • bo bo

    You know things are getting bad when the EPA says 'no comment' instead of 'currently there is no risk to the U.S.'


    Report comment

    • The same thought passed through my mind when I read, "No comment." I would like to ask the EPA why they stopped mitering after 3/11?


      Report comment

      • SnorkY2K

        Because even a slight warning about radiation levels on west coast could financially crush fishing, agriculture, real estate, and financial industries. The EPA cannot release numbers until people have to chance to sell their holdings to unsuspecting purchasers and transfer their wealth to areas not at risk. For those holding real estate, a radiation warning could impact or ruin property values and many people on the west coast have huge mortgages that an already overwhelmed market could devastate world banking system even there value tanks further. The banking industries have huge influence on the operation of agencies and media as well. Until more real estate is sold and the extremely wealthy get their investments shielded, there will be no improvement. Soon, the supreme court will begin allowing unlimited cash donations to remove any politician wishing to disclose this information.


        Report comment

        • own_quality

          You hit the nail on the head!

          Much of the 1% lives on the West coast… right on the water. They are certainly scrambling to get out of California as I write. The Pacific is dying and so will anyone living close to the shore. Coastal fog will become laden with cancer causing nuclides. California, Oregon, and Washington produce will be boycotted forever. The US economy will be in ruins. Be very afraid for what is coming. The economic and social devastation will be magnitudes worse than the actual health impacts. Word is already getting out. Soon there will be total panic on the West Coast!


          Report comment

    • James R. Martin

      "You know things are getting bad when the EPA says 'no comment' instead of 'currently there is no risk to the U.S.'"

      Hmm. I only saw that claim about the EPA in the headline. Did I miss something in the text of the story on that? I admit to have skimmed some. But I missed that part. I don't think it's in the body of the story.

      It's weird when a story makes a claim of significance in a headline while not addressing the claim in the text. So, what evidence have we got that the EPA actually said "I'm not commenting on that" or "I refuse to comment"?

      If I call or write to somebody and I don't get an immediate reply, is it fair to say that the person or organization has refused to comment?

      Understand, I'm not skeptical of the claim of "no comment," but wonder what the basis is for the claim.


      Report comment

      • bo bo

        Says in the article

        'In a response to a set of follow-up questions, agency spokesperson Julia Valentine said the EPA is aware of the Australian report, but didn’t have any further comment. She did say, however, that the agency’s RadNet system doesn’t specifically record radiation levels in seawater, but, in addition to what’s in the air, it monitors precipitation, drinking water, and milk for excessive radiation levels.'


        Report comment

      • James R. Martin

        Following up on my last post….

        Okay, I found the mention of the EPA. "In a response to a set of follow-up questions, agency spokesperson Julia Valentine said the EPA is aware of [Rossi's study], but didn’t have any further comment."

        But how is such a response such a big deal when the Rossi study reported an etremely low level of risk due to massive dillution in the ocean crossing? Isn't it like saying, "Why bother commenting on that?"

        If an EPA spokesperson responded to a study which showed very high risk with "I have no comment," that'd be quite another sort of matter indeed!

        Please understand that I'm not taking a position one way or another on Rossi's report, its accuracy or usefulness. As far as I'm concerned, it could be very wrong. But I won't claim to know unless I have a factual basis for such knowledge.

        That said, I HAVE learned that at least some scientists say that some radioactive particles from Fukushima should properly be understood as bioaccumulating — which means that it reverses the dillution process, concentrating in the flesh of fish and other wildlife. This means it is significantly worrisome regards both human food and global ecology. But I've yet to see evidence that ocean waters could be directly dangerous other than via the bioaccumulation just mentioned.


        Report comment

        • bo bo

          I wish you good luck mr. Martin.


          Report comment

          • James R. Martin

            Thanks Bo.

            I've recently been alerted that Fukushima might be a vastly worse thing than I had thought it was — but I already thought it was a very, very bad thing.

            But certain folks were basically shouting that Fukushima might turn out to be the cause of an "extinction level event," or near to it.

            I decided to do my best to get a handle on it, despite whatever may turn out to be hype on the one end or unfortunate downplaying on the other. And that seems to mean learning the basic science, whether data or mechanisms, etc.

            I'm what I call a "serious amateur human ecologist" with a strong emphasis on the social, cultural, psychological, anthropolotical, historical… social science aspect of this vast field. So my physical sciences background is rather limited because of that emphasis. Sigh. (I'm moderately competent in the ecological design field, though.)


            Report comment

            • bo bo

              I apologize if I sounded mean, I thought you were a shill.
              I try to be respectful as possible, except every now and then there are obvious shills on this site. I didn't mean to shrug off your questions and concerns. Welcome, and one thing I might point out is although it may seem like paranoid bitter conspiracy stuff for outsiders or newbies, those in the know about Fukushima have very good reason to immediately react to anything EPA does (or rather – doesn't do). As an example, EPA raised safe levels of radiation permitted in drinking water by 27000 times after Fukushima. Thanks to the EPA U.S. has the world's most relaxed standards fir radiation permitted in the environment. One brilliant poster here noted: by the same method we can also fix DUI accidents in the U.S. by raising the safety limit of alcohol levels for drivers. FDA, NOAA, are also complicit in the cover up. This is just for starters… too long to go into detail in one post …as for your not yet being decided on if this is an ELE, that we are a bunch of fearmongers, I really hope you are right in your assessment. I really do.


              Report comment

              • James R. Martin

                "I apologize if I sounded mean, I thought you were a shill."

                I was very sensitive to the possibility of being misunderstood in this way when I initially posted. Thanks for being honest, and understanding! I'm very new to actually reading about this Fukushima stuff! I have only so much time for researching complex science stuff, and I've been spending most of that time trying to get a handle on climate science — which presents very similar challenges (google my name, in quotes, with the word "climate").

                I've found that Guy McPherson and his NTE hypothesis to mark the very far end of a spectrum of plausibility, with the IPCC and it's almost certainly absurd "carbon budget" smack in the middle of this spectrum of plausibility — so I think we only have perhaps a slim chance of evading an extinction event regards climate. Anything outside that range is likely to be the product of idiots and shills.

                "…as for your not yet being decided on if this is an ELE, that we are a bunch of fearmongers, I really hope you are right in your assessment. I really do."

                I'm far too new to the inquiry to have decided anything, bo. I want to tread carefully and in a strongly evidence based, reasonable/rational way, just as I'm attempting to do with the climate issue. This stuff is extremely difficult, both emotionally/spiritually/psychologically and intellectually. But I'm with you in hoping that it doesn't turn out to be an ELE. We hardly need any more of those…


                Report comment

            • bo bo

              Just out of curiousity, who pointed out to you that fukushima might be worse than you had thought? And are you in the west coast? Back here in the East nobody ever brings it up unless I do.

              I don't have a science background either, and I contribute what I can from my personal experiences and knowledge.. and claim no supreroior knowledge. I really meant no disrespect, honestly thought you were a shill!


              Report comment

    • Maybe Monsanto "owns" EPA now too as they do FDA and USDA not to mention 1/2 of EDC politicians.

      In the meantime I live blocks from Pacific in Carmel-by-the-Sea…always a health nut…and have been saying we're right in the jet steam, we're getting doused by it AND by the chemtrails sprayed non stop for the 1st time in life lungs hurt all the time and feel like have radiation sickness.

      No news in US hardly because GE designed it AND owns NBC & affiliates.

      I managed major construction and went to design school. Who puts radiation storage tanks on the fourth floor of a building by the sea and below mountains when BOTH liquifaction AND underground rivers/streams would be ADDED risks to an earthquake/tsunami zone???

      Really, except for the millions of innocents who will be damaged in this…Moi included….it's a damn film script that writes itself.

      It's 'The Russians Are Coming" and "Dr Strangelove" all rolled into one.


      Report comment

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    West coast U.S. and Canada might not be inhabitable. Time will tell.


    Report comment

  • MichaelV MichaelV

    Check THIS OUT..!!!

    The global nuclear cabal members are all reading from the same script…
    …there is allegorical evidence of IAEA complicity in minimizing the events of Fukushima.

    If any substantial/hard evidence were produced involving collusion among these bastards I do hope charges are filed.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/11/italian-anarchists-kneecap-nuclear-executive

    The letter takes aim at Adinolfi, calling him a "sorcerer of the atomic industry" and criticising him for claiming in an interview that none of the deaths during the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in 2011 were due to nuclear incidents.

    "Adinolfi knows well that it is only a matter of time before a European Fukushima kills on our continent," the letter stated.


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    That guardian article led to this.
    Look at the causes at the bottom…

    Japan’s fertility rate logs 16-year high, hitting 1.41

    The natural population decline — the gap between the number of deaths and births — stood at 219,153.

    Only four prefectures — Kanagawa, Aichi, Shiga and Okinawa — saw more births than deaths.

    Cancer remained the biggest cause of death for the 32nd year, claiming 360,790 lives, followed by 198,622 deaths caused by cardiac disease, 123,818 due to pneumonia and 121,505 due to vascular brain disease.

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/06/national/japans-fertility-rate-logs-16-year-high-hitting-1-41/#.UledIxY_Xzy

    A nuclear country has cancer as it's population limiter.
    A contaminated future looks to increase this trend for Japan…


    Report comment

  • HoTaters HoTaters

    Let's see. The DOE is working with EPA, the FDA, NOAA, and RadNet. Why is that not reassuring?

    Could it be because these are the chief collaborators in downplaying the seriousness of this disaster (along with state, local, and federal "health" officials).

    The sources all fail to mention the releases of radiation have been ongoing and the effects are CUMULATIVE.

    Let's see. Water dilutes radiation. Doh! You're kidding me. It can still be harmful even though it's diluted? Seriously? Doh!


    Report comment

  • smack smack

    Government so eager finding enemies around the globe
    To war and collect information on everything and everybody
    in the name of our safety is sickening beyond repair


    Report comment

  • razzz razzz

    Isn't there more radioactive water bleeding into the Pacific now than there was during the actual meltdowns? I picture a continuous plume traveling across the Pacific.

    EPA already raised the background levels in the air from Daiichi's fallout. Guess the oceans are to vast to worry about, huh? Currents in air and water sometimes act the same so there are going to be hot spots in the ocean.


    Report comment

  • amberlight amberlight

    "… there are few indications that engineers have gained the upper hand over the wreckage from the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima"

    Can someone tell me what "few indications" there have been? Throughout this entire ordeal Ineptco has been completely swamped by the enormity of this increasingly out-of-control, head-on train wreck, head cheerleader Abe's phony optimism notwithstanding.

    Oh, and the fallout will reach southern Cal by 2016? What do they call the measurable radiation already documented on the west coast? Fairy dust? But not to worry, because it will be "too diluted to affect human health"… provided you stay far away from the coastline and out of the rain and never eat seafood again!


    Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    From EPA's RadNet —>

    >> CESIUM-137 "Result" in 2013 RAIN in –>

    Honolulu, HI; Richmond, CA; Phoenix, AZ; Boston, MA; Concord, NH; Harford, CT; Albany—Yaphank, NY; Harrisburg, PA; Lynchburg, VA; Atlanta, GA; Charlotte—Wilmington, NC; Jacksonville, FL; Nashville—OakRidge—Knoxville, TN; Lansing, MI; St. Paul—Welch, MN; Austin, TX; Little Rock, AR; Kansas City, KS; Denver, CO; Salt Lake City, UT; Idaho Falls, ID; Olympia, WA; Portland, OR

    >> TRITIUM "Result" in 2013 DRINKING WATER in –>

    Concord, NH; Hartford, CT; Providence, RI; New York City–Niagara Falls–Syracuse, NY; Trenton–Waretown, NJ; Ashland, VA; Baltimore—Conowingo, MD; Dover, DE; Harrisburg—Pittsburgh, PA; Lynchburg, VA; Barnwell—Baxley—Columbia—Jenkinsville—Seneca, SC; Savannah, GA; Jackson—Port Gibson, MS; Chattanooga—Knoxville—Oak Ridge, TN; Dothan—Muscle Shoals—Montgomery—Scottsboro, AL; Tampa, FL; Cincinnati—Columbus—E.Liverpool—Painesville—Toledo, OH; Madison, WI; St. Paul—Welch, MN; W. Chicago—Morris, IL; Austin, TX; Little Rock, AR; New Orleans, LA; Oklahoma City, OK; Cedar Rapids, IA; Jefferson City, MO; Lincoln, NE; Topeka, KS; Bismark, ND; Denver, CO; Helena, MT; Honolulu, HI; Boise—Idaho Falls, ID; Fairbanks, AK; Richland, WA

    http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_query


    Report comment

    • Mack Mack

      (continued)

      >> CESIUM-137 "Result" in 2013 PASTUERIZED MILK in –>

      Des Moines, IA; Kansas City, MO; Wichita, KS; Boston, MA; Hartford, CT; Montpelier,VT; Buffalo—Syracuse, NY; Trenton, NJ; Baltimore, MD; Charleston, WV; Pittsburgh, PA; Wilmington, DE; Chattanooga—Memphis, TN: Lousiville, KY; Plant City, FL; Cleveland, OH; Albuquerque, NM; Dalla—San Antonio TX: Fayetteville, AR; DesMoines, IA; Kansas City, MO; Wichita, KS; Hilo, HI; Las Vegas—Reno, NV; Los Angeles—Oakland—San Francisco, CA; Portland, OR: Spokane—Tacoma, WA

      http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_query


      Report comment

      • Mack Mack

        EPA's RadNet also has AIR FILTER results for all over the country for "GROSS BETA"

        "What is GROSS BETA radioactivity?"

        "It is simply a measurement of all beta activity present, regardless of specific radionuclide source. Gross measurements are used as a method to screen samples for relative levels of radioactivity."

        "Which radionuclides are beta emitters?"

        tritium
        cobalt-60
        strontium-90
        technetium-99
        iodine-129 and -131 "

        "Does the way a person is exposed to beta particles matter?"

        "Yes. Direct exposure to beta particles is a hazard, because emissions from strong sources can redden or even burn the skin. However, emissions from inhaled or ingested beta particle emitters are the greatest concern. Beta particles released directly to living tissue can cause damage at the molecular level, which can disrupt cell function. Because they are much smaller and have less charge than alpha particles, beta particles generally travel further into tissues. As a result, the cellular damage is more dispersed."

        "Chronic effects result from fairly low-level exposures over a along period of time. They develop relatively slowly (5 to 30 years for example). The main chronic health effect from radiation is cancer. When taken internally beta emitters can cause tissue damage and increase the risk of cancer. The risk of cancer increases with increasing dose."


        Report comment

        • Mack Mack

          "Some beta-emitters, such as carbon-14, distribute widely throughout the body. Others accumulate in specific organs and cause chronic exposures:

          Iodine-131 concentrates heavily in the thyroid gland. It increases the risk of thyroid cancer and other disorders.

          Strontium-90 accumulates in bone and teeth. "

          http://www.gsseser.com/FactSheet/beta.htm

          You can find the "GROSS BETA" results in your area easily.

          Go here: http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query_v2.simple_query

          (1) Scroll down to the word "LOCATION" and put in your Location

          (2) For "MEDIA" select "AIR-FILTER"

          (3) "NUCLIDES/RADIATION" select "Gross Beta"

          (4) "DATE RANGE" select the dates you want

          (5) Scroll down to find "Units" and select SI (Bq)

          (6) Hit the search button and results will appear


          Report comment

  • razzz razzz

    From the San Diego UT article: "Analysts say renewable-energy requirements and investments were long the victim of negative lobbying by Japan’s nine regional utilities. Several of those utilities — vertically integrated monopolies invested in electricity generation, transmission and distribution — would likely go bankrupt were Japan to shut down its nuclear plants abruptly, Takeishi said."

    Also, Japan's electric grid runs half at 50hz and the other half at 60hz, not a common standard throughout the island nation. Strange and blamed on the big money electric companies that fight a standardization due to their monopolies. They even make it difficult for green energy to hook into the grids.


    Report comment

  • We Not They Finally

    The whole thing about the EPA making "no comment" on possible radioactive plumes is beyond the pall. People can say "no comment" about personal matters. When it's the public safety and they are the agency in charge, "no comment" should be a fireable offense. But then again, look who was put in charge of the EPA: Gina McCarthy, formerly of the Office of Radiation Monitoring. You know, the ones who turned the radiation monitors OFF. She should have been fired and instead got a big promotion. Then the EPA started endorsing lethal doses of radiation as "safe."

    The public needs to know that these kind of actions by public officials are both IMMORAL and CRIMINAL.


    Report comment

  • Sol Man

    The escalating radiation reading are a concern to everyone, but how to respond to this is the question. Certain industries have opened Pandora's Box.


    Report comment

  • Gayla Gayla

    For about 300 links to Fukushima-related information, see http://www.fukushimafaq.info


    Report comment

  • Why should residents have to beg?

    The obvious circumstantial and hard evidence of long term low dose radioactive contamination has and IS having an affect.

    So to say it 'not' harmful by passing the buck around to other agencies and not really testing anything thoroughly and ignoring clear signs that ecosystems are being affected is the crime of the millennia.

    They, nobody knows what the long term combined affects of this insidious catastrophe is actually going to do. The results of an equation with unlimited unknowns can only be imagined. Yet, nobody wants to imagine this. It's too horrible for most to even consider.

    It seems at every turn the experts claim that the levels will be 'too diluted' to be harmful to humans.

    One can argue that 'dilution' is misleading description when it comes to radiation.

    IMO – Radiation continues to SPREAD through various transport vectors until the decay rate reaches a point that the isotope is no longer hazardous to life. In the case of cesium 137 that would be 300+ years.

    BEIR VII
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=R1

    No mention of buckyballs?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfJ3uSmCiOY

    "radiation readings in L.A. and Santa Monica during a 42-day period between Dec 2011 – Jan 2012, strongly suggest that radiation is increasing in the region including along the coast in Ventura County and readings the Environmental Protection Agency took appeared to indicate the unnatural presence…


    Report comment

  • Now, why is it that years keep being added to the 'official' word on when the radioactive water reaches the North American west coast? Tsunami rubble is washing up. Started last year, picked up this year, more is coming next year. If rubble is here, so is the contaminated water.


    Report comment

    • larry-andrew-nils

      anything that floats gets pushed by the predominantly easterly winds and arrives on the west coast before the water it started in.


      Report comment

      • nedlifromvermont

        check: that would be westerly winds, that come from the west … and if things are blown by the wind, then the water is also blown by the wind, which is how waves form … so transport of radioactive plumes will be at similar rates to objects floating therein …

        to answer Good Ol' JoyB directly: this info management activity is probably highly correlated to what SnokY2K and own_quality were on about at the top of this thread … which would be: White and Radioactive-grey Lies to preserve a possibility of another normal tourist season, or prop the real estate market until orderly liquidation has begun and the insiders are safely out of this market (although where to go to presents a thornier problem …)

        but you already knew that …

        peace to all the 'newsers!


        Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Time is still needed/deflection still required!

    Yes, it is here and all the civil government's corral boards need a few more years to be firmed up/ strengthened/prepared, as panic sets in for all those sick and dying people being exterminated without their consent..things might/could get out of control. :(

    Profits streams are being manipulated and controlled right now through investment structure/platforms/civic laws…preparations are being made.

    The only thing we humans will see/notice in the future is going to be mirrored like what we now see happening in the oceans…a dead/dying/diseased ocean will at some point move directly on shore affecting all land mammals in volume too. :(


    Report comment

  • harengus_acidophilus

    Lies, lies, lies …

    "Though too diluted to affect human health,(…)"
    There is NO treshold!

    "To this day, the [RadNet] system continues to confirm that there are no harmful levels of radiation in the air reaching the U.S. from Japan"
    I see, "not from Japan", what about Hanford?
    And, again: NO treshold!

    "RadNet system doesn’t specifically record radiation levels in seawater [...]"
    See no evil, hear no evil …

    "Local officials similarly aren’t concerned about a radioactive plume"
    But, local officials aren't scientists, and if they aren't concernd, maybye they're just plain stupid.

    "the first line of treatment for someone thought to be exposed to radiation is a shower."
    Ridiculous!

    Welcome to hell!

    h.


    Report comment

  • timemachine2020 timemachine2020

    The Pacific is Dying because of Fukushima. This sailor just crossed the Pacific and said that the Ocean was dead already.

    http://news.yahoo.com/the-ocean-is-broken-133327474.html


    Report comment

  • rodgersericv

    Most people don't realize that an aftershock can cause more damage to Fukushima than the original 3-11-11 quake. The 9.2 quake was centered in the Pacific pretty far to the east of Fukushima. Such a large quake will have many aftershocks for a much longer time than most major earthquakes. It has not been 3 years yet. Quakes in the 8.0 should be expected. Most likely the position of these quakes will be shifted from the location of the 3-11 quake. An 8.0 shifted to the west would cause more damage to Fukushima than the original 9.2.


    Report comment

  • pinksailmatt pinksailmatt

    RadNet graphs for the west coast here:

    http://www.bayareacannabis.org/?page_id=152

    Radiation is indeed intense these last few days.


    Report comment

  • 16Penny 16Penny

    I came across this while I was searching for shiny things on the web:

    " Two events in the early 1990s — a die-off of seals in the Barents Sea and White Sea from blood cancer, and the deaths of millions of starfish, shellfish, seals and porpoises in the White Sea — have been variously attributed by Russian scientists to pollution or nuclear contamination."

    http://e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless/2391/

    Sound familiar?


    Report comment

    • 16Penny 16Penny

      Same article:

      “Cesium behaves like potassium, so would end up in all marine life,” said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Maryland. “It certainly will have an effect.”


      Report comment

  • Phil Shiffley Phil Shiffley

    I'm on Peter Daley's e-mail list. He runs a lab out of Australia. He just issued this report:

    This report was just added to The Food Lab and Radiation Food Lab report lists. This is a significant detection of Fukushima Cesium in US Pacific Coast waters, and therefore the North Pacific Ocean food chain.

    USA

    19th October 2013 – US Pacific Coast Seaweed Shows Fukushima Cesium Contamination!

    Extracts:

    These values converted to the more common bq/kg are:
    Cesium 134: 8.14 Bq/Kg
    Cesium 137: 8.88 Bq/Kg
    Cobalt 60: 3.7 Bq/Kg

    They also tested nori sheets from a market in Chiba prefecture Japan.

    “One of two Japanese nori samples from a Chiba Prefecture market contained 1.1 pCi/g of Cs134 and 1.7 pCi/g of Cs137. (That’s 41 and 63 Bq/kg, respectively.) The other was nondetect for these isotopes.”

    Cesium 134: 41 bq/kg
    Cesium 137: 63 bq/kg
    Cobalt 60: none detected

    http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11613


    Report comment

  • pkjn

    Fukushima’s Radiation Gusher
    OCTOBER 23, 2013 CounterPunch
    300 tons of contaminated water is still spewing into the Pacific every day.
    The radiation dumped by Fukushima into the environment has exceeded that of the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe, so we may stop calling it the second worst nuclear power disaster in history.
    Tokyo Electric estimates about 900 peta-becquerels have spewed from Fukushima, and The Other Report on Chernobyl estimates that Chernobyl dispersed 110 peta-becquerels.
    Vegetables and other foodstuffs showing more than 50 Bq/kg of cesium indicate airborne contamination with other radionuclides.
    Japanese public television reported July 11 that sea bass were found with 1,037 Bq/kg.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/23/fukushimas-radiation-gusher/


    Report comment

  • James R. Martin

    http://enenews.com/category/testing/rainwater

    Uh-oh!

    Okay, alright… Why is this not in the mainstream media news? Why isn't this being talked about in the streets? What's going on here?


    Report comment

  • James R. Martin

    Yes, bo, I started looking into that. It's a little more complicated than it seems at first glance. I'd probably need to put in at least a half of a day toward really understanding the whole thing in context. But it does look scary, for sure.

    If you can point me to the very best intro on that topic, which is also up to date and well fact checked…. That'd be much appreciated!

    What has this sort of info done for you, in terms of social / political engagement, how you are living, etc? If at any time you'd like to talk in a non-public format, I'm at jrivermartin -at- gmail dot com.


    Report comment

  • James R. Martin

    Does anyone here have a solid, thoroughgoing handle on the detailed physics, chemistry, geophysics … the mechanisms of how rainwater comes to have radionuclides in it? Can someone explain this to me concisely-ish in novice language?

    I don't have any trouble understanding how an explosion could dump this stuff into the atmosphere, resulting in contaminated, polluted rain. Is this how the North American West coast received such rain?

    That ocean "plume" headed our way … can radiation be carried up into clouds from that plume? It doesn't seem like normal evaporation should result in such a mode of dispersal, right?


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.