Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Caught Off California Coast

[Coyotl]

Just when the salmon are about to run the river in front of my house, this news!

Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Caught Off California Coast
http://samuel-warde.com/2013/08/radioactive-bluefin-tuna-caught-off-california-coast/

Every bluefin tuna tested in the waters off California has shown to be contaminated with radiation that originated in Fukushima. Every single one.

Over a year ago, in May of 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported on a Stanford University study. Daniel Madigan, a marine ecologist who led the study, was quoted as saying, “The tuna packaged it up (the radiation) and brought it across the world’s largest ocean. We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.”

Another member of the study group, Marine biologist Nicholas Fisher at Stony Brook University in New York State reported, “We found that absolutely every one of them had comparable concentrations of cesium 134 and cesium 137.”

That was over a year ago. The fish that were tested had relatively little exposure to the radioactive waste being dumped into the ocean following the nuclear melt-through that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in March of 2011. Since that time, the flow of radioactive contaminants dumping into the ocean has continued unabated. Fish arriving at this juncture have been swimming in contaminants for all of their lives.

[arcane1]

1. "Fish arriving at this juncture have been swimming in contaminants for all of their lives."

This horror is never going away, is it?

[magical thyme]

2. not in our lifetimes. not for many generations. if ever. nt

[Coyotl]

4. The time for a global response is now or sooner.

[Ocelot]

65. The best site for Fukushima info is enenews.com

Most people don't seem to know about it but it's updated constantly with information about Fukushima and other manmade disasters such as the Louisisana sinkhole.

The Japanese government (in a very American-style nonresponse) took the TEPCO corporation's word that they would fix the problem. What ensued was 2+ years of TEPCO lying, obfuscating and downplaying the issue... until lately. Now they've thrown up their hands, admitted that they were lying/covering up how much radiation they had leaked into the ocean, and admitting that the Pacific Ocean and the life it contains are screwed.

[PoliticAverse]

3. So according to that article, the level of cesium in fish is 3% above what it normally is ?

Radioactive cesium doesn’t sink to the sea floor, so fish swim through it and ingest it through their gills or by eating organisms that have already ingested it. It is a compound that does occur naturally in nature, however, the levels of cesium found in the tuna in 2012 had levels 3 percent higher than is usual.

[Coyotl]

8. "Every bluefin tuna tested in the waters off California has shown to be contaminated with radiation

The first sentence says it all!

[PoliticAverse]

9. But the article implies the tuna would normally contain cesium and now it has about 3% more

than it normally does.

[caseymoz]

23. You're being confused by the writer's scientific illiteracy.

She also calls Caesium a compound. No It's an element.

Caesium 134 is only synthetic, produced by nuclear fission. It's never found it nature. Caesium 137 is only found in trace amounts. Practically 100% of the Caesium in nature is Caesium 133 which is not radioactive. That's how they know the extra Caesium came from Fukushima, from the isotopes they're finding.

The fish have 3% more total Caesium, suggesting concentration of all isotopes-- natural and unnatural-- is that high in the ocean, also perhaps suggesting that 3% of the total Caesium in the ocean came from Fukushima.

Don't doubt it; this is a serious finding. Caesium 134 and 137 have a somewhat shorter half-life than some things, but they're also chemically active and forms salts, meaning it can get into your body from a number of sources. Radioactive isotopes are far more damaging in your body than outside, and you can't really get away from them once you've absorbed them.

[indie9197]

52. Luckily with Cs137 the effective half life for humans is 70 days

And from what I was able find it is roughly 50-100 days for most fish. Cs137 does not bioaccumulate in plants and animals from what I read. However, Sr90 does steadily accumulate in plants and fish and is present in the ocean around Fukushima in large quantities. Sr90's effective half life in humans is 18 years. Very bad stuff and I don't know why nobody mentions it hardly.

http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1349767132

[Squinch]

59. Forgive me if this is a stupid question, and feel free to laugh heartily if it is but:

So if we buy a can of tuna, and hold it for the length of time that it takes for the half life to be over, does that mean it's safe to eat? Or is that can always contaminated and dangerous?

And does the other poster's comment about SR having an 18 year half life mean that tuna will be unsafe for 18 years?

[X_Digger]

67. Half-life refers to how long it takes for half of it to decay.

So if you started out with 50 grams of Caesium 134, in two years you'd have 25 grams of Caesium 134 and 25 grams of Barium 134.

[Squinch]

74. So either way, tuna is out, right? And one more question that I've always wondered about:

so in two years you have 25 grams of Caesium. Then in two more years do you have 12.5 grams, or is it all gone?

[reusrename]

75. That's right.

12.5 grams.

[X_Digger]

76. You got the math right.. eventually you're left with negligible amounts.

50.. 25.. 12.5.. 6.25.. 3.125..

I don't know enough about this element, it's toxicity, and the 'safe' amount that's ingestable, but eventually the tuna would be safe.

[Squinch]

105. Thank you so much. You've taught me something.

[caseymoz]

88. Here, safe is a relative term.

Any radioactive isotope in your body is going to damage or kill some cells. And it's all statistical. Whether it gives you 50 percent chance of dying within the next week or a 50 percent chance of dying in the next 20 years or the next 40 years is what's pondered.

Yes, sooner or later, the tuna will be relatively safe, but it might take 3 half-life cycles before it reaches a level of risk you're willing to accept. So, it might just take 54 years. The good news is, most Caesium compounds are not toxic.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

20. And this is the reason why they are contaminated.

Sit back and ponder how all these atomic weapons tests could raise the radioactivity levels worldwide.
this is an animated time line starting in 1945 of all those tests.

http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/

[Hestia]

34. Wow - thank you for that! It really puts it all into perspective seeing how many per year

by country and where. It appears that the Soviet Union stopped after Chernobyl and the fall of the Iron Curtain. But hey, we're number one in something - most fired nuclear weapons.

[NV Whino]

35. There were amazingly few during the Clinton years.

Fascinating presentation. Thanks formatting.

[wickerwoman]

43. Interesting. Thanks for this.

WTF is France's problem?

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. Here's a link to the original article. It provides some more context.

Some important opinion near the end.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/may/tuna-radioactive-materials-053012.html

[PoliticAverse]

15. Thanks, that article clarifies things, the normal radioactivity is from Potassium-40

(which you'd also find in other food items like bananas) and the '3%' increase
is the additional radioactivity from the cesium the tuna ingested.

[Brother Buzz]

13. This article puts the health risks into a little perspective

Fukushima-Derived Radioactivity in Seafood Poses Minimal Health Risks, Experts Say

June 3, 2013 — In 2012, Nicholas Fisher a distinguished professor in the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (SoMAS) at Stony Brook University and postdoctoral scholar Zosia Baumann, working with a colleague at Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station, reported that they had detected radioactivity in Pacific bluefin tuna swimming off the California coast. The source of the radioactivity was Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi powerplants, which were damaged by the strong earthquake and subsequent tsunami on 11 March 2011 and released large quantities of radioactivity into the Pacific Ocean. The news prompted widespread media interest and speculation as to the possible risks to seafood consumers posed by the levels of radioactivity found in the tuna.

Now, Fisher, Baumann and colleagues at Stanford and the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) report in a paper entitled "Evaluation of Radiation Doses and Associated Risk from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident to Marine Biota and Human Consumers of Seafood," published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that the likely doses of radioactivity ingested by humans consuming the contaminated fish, even in large quantities, is comparable to, or less than, the radiological dosages associated with other commonly consumed foods, many medical treatments, air travel and other background sources. The authors also conclude that contamination of Pacific bluefin tuna and other marine animals from Fukushima poses little risk to these animals.

Fisher and colleagues found that the sampled tuna contained elevated levels of radioactive cesium-134 and cesium-137, important components of the radionuclide mix released at Fukushima. Pacific bluefin tuna spawn in the western Pacific off Japan and reach the eastern Pacific, off the California coast, after a transoceanic migration.

In the original paper, the authors presented data on the radionuclide concentrations in the tissues of the bluefin, but did not estimate doses or health risks to marine biota or human seafood consumers that these concentrations might represent. The new works takes this next step.

<more>


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130603183103.htm

[paleotn]

40. Interesting

...thanks much for the link.

[defacto7]

53. "Radioactivity in Seafood Poses Minimal Health Risks, Experts Say"

for now.

[Brother Buzz]

55. Indeed, for now

And continued monitoring would be a prudent course of action. That, and resolve the Fukushima debacle.

[JDPriestly]

64. Would you (or the authors of the paper you link to) feed the tuna to your 18 month old?

I wouldn't.

The problem isn't just the tuna. It is the tuna plus similar contaminants that we ingest and that can cause cancer and other problems.

And I'm sorry that I don't have the link, but I have also heard something about inaccurate labeling on fish, that a fish may be labeled by an unscrupulous processor or wholesaler as a safe type of fish when it is not.

We need more review on our fish supply including more diligent testing before I want to buy or eat it. I certainly would not want to pack this stuff in my child's lunch box even if the toxic cesium has increased only slightly.

[Brother Buzz]

82. No, nor to any growing child, either

but at twenty bucks a pound, Bluefin tuna is not likely to end up in children's lunch boxes.

You are correct to be concerned about the fish industry, I've read the stories too. Asian fish imports and pen feed (farmed) fish are at the top of the suspect list.

[hobbit709]

5. So which will get you first? The Cesium or the Mercury.

[Phlem]

6. You know...

This crap is going to make being alive that much harder. The amount of people around the globe who rely on the ocean for a living...

We've had many extinction events in humans past, but one of them (I forget the name, lost in my stacks of Scientific American) was an Ice Age that forced life into a narrow span near the equator. It's was a premise that we are all the descendants of cave dwellers living in caves at the edge of the ocean. That they lived through that extinction era solely on seafood. Mind you this is a gross generality and my copies are to numerous to search.

Guess that options now gone.



And no one will be responsible, and no will know how to clean it up.

-p

On edit: the livable span seems to be located more towards South Africa.

[Coyotl]

11. Population Bottlenecks and Volcanic Winter

This one?

http://jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bottleneck.html

.... In a 1998 article, Stanley Ambrose proposed an alternative hypothesis—a volcanic winter scenario—to explain recent human differentiation. The bottleneck was caused by a volcanic winter resulting from the super-eruption of Toba in Sumatra. If Ambrose's hypothesis is correct, modern human variations differentiated abruptly through founder effect, genetic drift, and adaptation to local environments after around 70,000 years ago.

Ambrose points out that the Out of Africa dispersal date of around 100,000 years ago fits the generally warm, humid last interglacial period, 130 -74,000 years ago. ...

[Phlem]

32. This is the one.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-the-sea-saved-humanity

Nice to meet another science geek.



-p

[NutmegYankee]

18. The half life of the stuff will clean it out in to normal background levels in 200 years at most.

And it isn't going to pose much of a threat to sea life. The biggest danger is the collapse of the food chain because of acidification of the ocean from CO2.

[Phlem]

33. Agreed

or maybe massive droughts, followed up by acid rain.

So many choices!

-p

[SoCalDem]

10. Fish move....water moves..

any 8 yr old can tell you that..



humans poison the environment.

[arcane1]

19. It's a stark reminder that there's no such thing as "away"

Something can be thrown somewhere, but it's not thrown away

[Botany]

14. Biological Magnification

This crap will be showing up in the pacific "wild run" salmon too.

[KittyWampus]

16. let's look at the bright side… this is a chance for evolution to kick in.

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. Another bright side:

59% of the 'Tuna' Americans Eat Is Not Tuna

59% of the fish labeled "tuna" sold at restaurants and grocery stores in the US is not tuna.
Sushi restaurants were far more likely to mislabel their fish than grocery stores or other restaurants.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/59-of-the-tuna-americans-eat-is-not-tuna/273410/

, 87% of the snapper samples were not snapper. White tuna was mislabeled 59% of the time. Between one-third and one-fifth of the halibut, grouper, cod and Chilean sea bass tested were mislabeled.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/20/fish-seafood-fraud-common-oceana-report/1927065/

[arcane1]

29. Fish-mislabeling seems to be a recent and widespread phenomenon.

Is it just me, or is this something that has jumped up in the last few years?

[jberryhill]

31. Genetic testing got cheaper

Take a look at my "miniature German shepherd":

http://www.johnberryhill.com/jade-dna.pdf

[dixiegrrrrl]

51. Well,I had not heard of it until the last few years

but, could have just missed any news about it till then.

[Octafish]

17. It's nothing to worry about.

A few "scientific" DUers have made that clear.

[Brother Buzz]

27. Heck, even one of the scientists involved in the study agrees 'it' poses minimal health risks

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130603183103.htm

[Octafish]

41. Sure. Ask him what the Cs levels are in today's catch.

Or Strontium. Or Americium. Or stuff that doesn't get reported, let alone measured around here. If his job depends on going along with the program, I'm sure he'll be OK with "it."

Tepco estimated that between May 2011 and this month, a staggering 40 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium, 20 trillion becquerels of cesium and 10 trillion becquerels of strontium may have flowed into the sea in groundwater from under the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear complex.

SOURCE: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/08/23/national/tepco-radioactive-flow-raises-alarm-over-seafood-safety/#.UhqhzNIp92B

One thing I've noticed is how little information is available. When Gregory Jaczko, then NRC chair, said Fukushima was an emergency, Uncle Sam all of a sudden found cause to can him. Neat, huh?

[JeffHead]

39. In other words...

[Octafish]

46. A Public Service Announcement on Plutonium

What everyone should know:

DOE-STD-1128-98

Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities

EXCERPT...

4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination

There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire
to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) [font color="green"]The one characteristic that many believe is
unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force.[/font color] Whether from
alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or
removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area.

SOURCE (PDF file format): http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/standard/DOE-STD-1128-2008.pdf

Some science news that seems to have been missed, with Mayor Bloomberg loving on Lady Gaga and everything...

J Environ Radioact. 2011 Dec 27. (Epub ahead of print)

Radionuclides from the Fukushima accident in the air over Lithuania: measurement and modelling approaches.

Lujanienė G, Byčenkienė S, Povinec PP, Gera M.

Source

Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Savanoriu 231, 02300 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Abstract

Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs ranged from 12 μBq/m(3) and 1.4 μBq/m(3) to 3700 μBq/m(3) and 1040 μBq/m(3), respectively. The activity concentration of (239,240)Pu in one aerosol sample collected from 23 March to 15 April, 2011 was found to be 44.5 nBq/m(3). The two maxima found in radionuclide concentrations were related to complicated long-range air mass transport from Japan across the Pacific, the North America and the Atlantic Ocean to Central Europe as indicated by modelling. HYSPLIT backward trajectories and meteorological data were applied for interpretation of activity variations of measured radionuclides observed at the site of investigation. (7)Be and (212)Pb activity concentrations and their ratios were used as tracers of vertical transport of air masses. Fukushima data were compared with the data obtained during the Chernobyl accident and in the post Chernobyl period. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs were found to be by 4 orders of magnitude lower as compared to the Chernobyl accident. The activity ratio of (134)Cs/(137)Cs was around 1 with small variations only. The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.

SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22206700

And what a little bird told no one in particular...

Plutonium bioaccumulation in seabirds

Dagmara I. Strumińska-Parulska, Bogdan Skwarzec, Jacek Fabisiak

University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Chemistry, Analytics and Environmental Radiochemistry Chair, Sobieskiego 18, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland

Received 7 April 2011. Revised 5 July 2011. Accepted 16 July 2011. Available online 23 August 2011.

The aim of the paper was plutonium (238Pu and 239+240Pu) determination in seabirds, permanently or temporarily living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea coast. Together 11 marine birds species were examined: 3 species permanently residing in the southern Baltic, 4 species of wintering birds and 3 species of migrating birds. The obtained results indicated plutonium is non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of analyzed seabirds. The highest plutonium content was found in the digestion organs and feathers, the smallest in skin and muscles. The plutonium concentration was lower in analyzed species which feed on fish and much higher in herbivorous species. The main source of plutonium in analyzed marine birds was global atmospheric fallout.
Highlights

► We determined 239+240Pu in seabirds living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea. ► We noticed plutonium was non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of seabirds. ► We found the highest plutonium content in the digestion organs and feathers. ► We found Pu content was lower in birds feeding on fish and higher in herbivorous.

SOURCE: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X11001676

Gee. The plutonium must be from Chernobyl, seeing how Lithuania's clear on the other side of the world from Fukushima. Right?

Invisible things don't just "move." Right? Ask any global warming denier or GOP candidate.

Anyone remember reading about any of this in their local newspaper?

How about the tee vee? Anyone? Anyone?



PS: That is one of the all-time great movies. Probably Top 10 in the comedy genre.
Higher, definitely, if Chris Miller reads this. "Knowledge Is Good."

[Hubert Flottz]

87. "Mayor Bloomberg loving on Lady Gaga"

Assault with a dead weapon?

The atomic pollution must be off the coast of New York too!

I wonder if storms and the sun will suck up radiation over the ocean and rain it back down on the west coast?

It only takes a speck of some of those hellish man made elements to cause cancer, once it's inside of a human being.

TEPCO admitted that this disaster is worse than Chernobyl. I believe it stands to be at least four times worse than Chernobyl. Four times worse than this:

[DFW]

54. Yeah, that's what they told my dad, too..........

...when he was present for this (he took this picture):

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Who knows? Maybe they were right, and the cancer that killed him came from somewhere else. Maybe so. Maybe not.

[DeSwiss]

107. Probably.

[DFW]

116. There was another factor we weren't aware of, too

Last edited Wed Aug 28, 2013, 04:36 AM - Edit history (1)

At the time they built their house, my parents had built it in a Virginia wilderness in 1955. After my mom died, and we had to sell the house, before the new owners could take it over, by now it was "Washington suburbs," and radon testing was mandatory. Our house was sitting atop a high concentration of radon, many multiples of the limit considered safe, and a vent to the outside had to be built before the new owners could even move in. So that might have played a role as well. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, no one ever knew the danger of radon concentration. I left the house at age 16, but my parents lived there for 45 years.

[Civilization2]

21. Start to decommission the over one hundred Nuke-Plants in America now,.

The wast is persistent and no storage has been found,. the costs are simply pushed on to our children and theirs,. once again short-term capitalist gain trumps long term thoughtfulness, and concern for the future. Corporate-Capitalism is a blight on the planet, and will kill all of use if we do nothing to stop it. Nuke-energy is a money pit, and stupidly dangerous.

[mick063]

22. Take a look at tuna migration patterns from enclosed link

to understand that it is the Tuna traveling with the contamination and it is not the contamination itself doing the migration.

http://intellihub.com/2013/05/29/absolutely-every-one-bluefin-tuna-tested-in-california-waters-contaminated-with-fukushima-radiation/


I am not defending anything here. I am simply enlightening with fact.

[arcane1]

26. Thanks! That was a fascinating article! Seeing the migration map really drove it home.

Interesting too how Terry traveled mostly east-west. I suppose that has to do with comfortable temperatures or something. But it really made me think about how some creatures don't just live in one little spot in the ocean, and nothing can ever truly be considered localized in that sense.

I'm also interested in seeing the results of this (from your link):

"The real test of how radioactivity affects tuna populations comes this summer when researchers planned to repeat the study with a larger number of samples. Bluefin tuna that journeyed last year were exposed to radiation for about a month. The upcoming travelers have been swimming in radioactive waters for a longer period. How this will affect concentrations of contamination remains to be seen."

That will be a very interesting study!

Hmm, I wonder if the contamination works its way into the tuna poop, and from there to the very bottom of the food chain, and then can work its way back up the chain?

[mick063]

30. Another link then

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4002423


The levels are low.

Let me make this clear though. Any level of radiation above natural background is legally considered to be a hazard. Additionally, ingestion is considered to be a multiplier with respect to radiation exposure. You don't want to eat it, breathe it, or especially introduce it directly into the bloodstream via a puncture wound. Also understand that exposures received in modern medicine are at considerably higher levels than those found in the Tuna examined.

Natural background radiation is relative to location. Three percent above back ground levels in San Diego (The amount measured in the tuna) is lower than natural background levels in Denver. (Solar radiation must penetrate a mile more of atmosphere to reach San Diego). As the previous link suggested, the true impact will not be known until future migrations, running their full cycles, are complete.

[wtmusic]

24. Sorry to burst the hysteria bubble, but...

"This study shows that the committed effective dose received by humans based on a year’s average consumption of contaminated PBFT from the Fukushima accident is comparable to, or less than, the dose we routinely obtain from naturally occurring radionuclides in many food items, medical treatments, air travel, or other background sources (28). Although uncertainties remain regarding the effects of low levels of ionizing radiation on humans (30), it is clear that doses and resulting cancer risks associated with consumption of PBFT in eastern and western Pacific waters are low and below levels that should cause concern to even the most exposed segments of human populations. Fears regarding environmental radioactivity, often a legacy of Cold War activities and distrust of governmental and scientific authorities, have resulted in perception of risks by the public that are not commensurate with actual risks. "

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10670.full

[arcane1]

28. Thank you! This is the first time in weeks that I've seen with two interpretations of an issue...

that didn't descend into name-calling by the 5th post

I appreciate the info in your link, and I am always glad for a chance to improve my objectivity. Still, I would feel a lot better if that crap wasn't still being dumped into the ocean!

[wtmusic]

45. Everyone would feel better.

[Hestia]

36. These studies were done in 2011 - what are the most recent numbers? How can we compare apples

to apples if we do not have current data? What about the 2012 numbers? Are they just now releasing 2011 numbers to calm us down so we don't worry about 3 freakin' leaks that are now occurring at Fukishima or the rise of thyroid cancers in children in Japan?

[wtmusic]

44. Bogus OP. This is an old story, they're not releasing anything right now.

I have no idea why "Samuel Warde" is posting this again, or why his source is posting it again - unless it's just to drum up fear once again from something that's over a year old.

It would be great to get some new data, but there is none available.

[Ocelot]

68. Sorry, you're quite wrong, plenty of radiation is being released right now

And new data is being released all the time, but the American media are barely covering it. You need to dig for Japanese news updates, and those can most easily be found at the hub site enenews.com

Update from the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), who are themselves responsible for this disaster:

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201308240067

High-level radioactive tritium found in seawater at Fukushima plant port

Concentrations of radioactive tritium in seawater from the port of the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant have risen between eight and 18 times in one week, Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Aug. 23.

That's just tritium (one of the many radioactive elements that continue to be released into the ocean unabated), but you will find plenty more info by digging around. Bottom line is, things have gone from bad to worse in Japan & in the Pacific, and no one knows what to do.

Just because the US media is taking a nap on this topic doesn't mean it's not happening.

[wtmusic]

80. ENENEWS.COM is a worthless anti-nuclear echo chamber

If you want to scare yourself needlessly, be sure to consult it every day before breakfast.

I guess the moral of the story here is don't go drinking gallons of seawater next to Fukushima. Some perspective:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/10/the-fukushima-radiation-leak-is-equal-to-76-million-bananas/

[Ocelot]

99. You cite FORBES as a source?? LOL

Enenews is a NEWS HUB, not an echo chamber. They gather current articles from real news sources, like the one I just posted from an actual Japanese news source on August 23 of this year. You cite a FORBES article that compares radiation to BANANAS... that's just too funny. Meanwhile Japan is in an ever-expanding state of crisis. Why are you so adamant about plugging your ears while sticking up for the nuclear industry?

[wtmusic]

101. LOL yourself for reading enenews.com.

TV: “The Japanese are part of a massive non-consensual experiment on radiation exposure” — “Everywhere now is radioactive, we can’t escape it,” say Fukushima locals at beach (VIDEO)

Run and hide!

[Ocelot]

104. Interesting that you know about enenews

But can't counter any of its very well-sourced and gathered news articles, while posting transparent disinformation gleaned from right-wing rags. Hey, go eat some tuna, knock yourself out...

[closeupready]

102. lol, the pro-nuke banana argument again - one trick ponies,

those nuclear shills, I'm telling you.

[Brother Buzz]

47. The 2012 measurements were above-normal

yet not as high as the 2011 measurements.

The tuna that registered the highest levels of radioactivity were those that migrated to California in 2011, soon after the accident, but those that migrated in 2012 also demonstrated above-normal levels of radiation. Monte Burke at Forbes writes that the results of the study suggest "there is still a high level of radiation in the waters near the Fukushima plant most likely because, as marine chemist, Ken Buessler, asserts, the plant is still leaking radiation into the ocean nearly two years later."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/bluefin-tuna-radiation_n_2736221.html

[Hestia]

62. Thank you very much for the reply

[bvar22]

73. Isn't exposure to radiation cumulative?

Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)

I found this sentence structure interesting.

"This study shows that the committed effective dose received by humans based on a year’s average consumption of contaminated PBFT from the Fukushima accident [font size=3]is comparable to, or less than, the dose we routinely obtain[/font] from naturally occurring radionuclides in many food items, medical treatments, air travel, or other background sources". [/font]

Doesn't that mean that if we do NOT take personal precautions our total exposure to radiation (background + Fukushima) has near doubled just from the additions of Fukushima Melt Down?

Do you really find reports like this to be comforting?

[wtmusic]

78. That statement is poorly worded

What he meant to say was that the dose from eating a year's typical consumption of PBFT is comparable to eating a year's typical consumption of other food items, and even less than others (like bananas). But I agree, it could be interpreted as an aggregate, or doubling of total radiation dose. If so - it would be off the charts and PBFT would be banned.

[bvar22]

89. I don't find these increases in exposure to radiation to be acceptable,

...even IF they occur in small incremental amounts.

This makes it easy for articles like the above to discount the ever growing cumulative effects of radiation exposure by saying junk like,
"Oh, its ONLY a little tiny increase.

What they fail to mention it that this "little tiny increase" goes Right On TOP of ALL the OTHER "Little Tiny Increases" we have been adding to our environment since 1944.
It NEVER just Goes Away.
It is cumulative....ALWAYS.

We will NEVER see a DROP in our daily, unavoidable Exposure to Radiation.
Will you connect the dots and acknowledge WHERE this leads?

The Lesson from Fukushima:

[font size=3]As long as we continue to use Nuclear Power,
Fukushima and WORSE will happen again,
and AGAIN,....and AGAIN...and AGAIN.
Each time will ADD to the every day Environmental Radiation Exposure to every soul & location on our Planet.[/font]

When will YOU say, "OK. Enough!"

[wtmusic]

96. Then you would find the dangers from other energy sources even less so.

"Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

This author undercounts radiation deaths from Cherynobyl and Fukushima, but not by much. It's all relative.

[bvar22]

100. Your attempt to defelct is noted.

*

[Skrups]

37. So, when do we begin to worry?

Fukushima is still leaking, and no one has been exactly forthcoming about what is going on there. At what point or what radioactive % can we no longer trust anything that comes out of the Pacific?

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

38. Yikes, I just had salmon last night, caught out of Bodega Bay, CA. nt

[snooper2]

92. Just check your urine after you pee

If you turn off the light and it doesn't glow you'll be fine

[spanone]

42. k&r...

[Coyotl]

48. Move Along, Nothing to See (the Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer)

Chernobyl Death Toll: 985,000, Mostly from Cancer
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-concludes-chernobyl-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908

... The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency– still on its website that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl. ....

===============
How Many People Have Really Been Killed by Chernobyl?
Why estimates differ by tens of thousands of deaths.
April 26, 2013, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/04/chernobyl_death_toll_how_many_cancer_cases_are_caused_by_low_level_radiation.html

When the Chernobyl nuclear reactor exploded in 1986, experts predicted as many as 40,000 extra cancer deaths from the radiation spewed onto parts of what was then the Soviet Union. Friday is the 27th anniversary of the disaster. How many people has Chernobyl killed so far?

We’ll probably never know. That’s partly because even 40,000 cancer deaths are less than 1 percent of the cancer mortality expected in the affected population. Statistically, the deaths are undetectable. Even if they weren’t, science usually can’t say that a particular cancer was induced by radiation rather than something else.

One exception is thyroid cancer, a very rare disease in children that skyrocketed to nearly 7,000 cases in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine by 2005. There is no doubt that radioactivity from Chernobyl caused them, including about a dozen fatalities. We also know that two people died in the explosion and more than 100 people, mostly firefighters ignorant of the dangers, received doses high enough to cause acute radiation syndrome. Of them, 29 died within a few months, followed by 18 more deaths over the years. The group seems to be at higher risk for blood cancers.

Other than those sad cases, controversy rages about Chernobyl’s death toll. For the vast majority of the most affected populations, the disaster delivered doses equivalent to a handful of CAT scans. At such low levels, radiation’s health effects are considered long-term and stochastic, or essentially random.

Like the atomic decay that creates radiation, which is impossible to predict for any individual atom, the health effects radiation causes are random, too. A given person who lived in the fallout zone might or might not possess a cesium-137 atom that is quietly mimicking potassium in some innocent cell. ..........

[wtmusic]

56. NYAS was so embarrassed by that nonsense they've stopped printing it.

They found out a little too late it's Greenpeace-sponsored bullshit, and posted this disclaimer:

The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Chernobyl volume, are their own.

They even posted this review debunking it on their own website:

In fact, the "Yablokov’s Manifesto" on denial of the analytical approach and unconditional trust in the ecological or geographical research methods with primitive statistical tests puts an end to the reliability of all conclusions of the medical Chapter II.

Biased selection of articles and the author's conclusions are predetermined by his belief in a totally negative effect of any dose of radiation, and he is not embarrassed with brutal contradiction of the selected works and his own conclusions to the century-long experience in radiobiology and radiation medicine. Each section ends with conclusions about the catastrophic impact of Chernobyl radiation on human health, including increasing death rates. The value of this review is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error.

Describing the "radiogenic" mortality, the author forgets that we are all mortal, including the Chernobyl workers and the population of the contaminated areas, and attributes mortality mainly to the impact of radiation. Meanwhile, quite accurate data of the Russian national registry suggest that mortality rates of the Chernobyl workers standardized by age and sex are no higher but lower than the one for the population of Russia (Ivanov et al. 2004). Yablokov's assessment for the mortality from Chernobyl fallout of about one million (!) before 2004 puts this book in a range of rather science fiction than science. It is obvious that if such a mass death of people occurred, it would not have remained unnoticed, even more because it is not so much about the population of the three countries, than about the rest of Europe and even countries outside Europe (!).

http://www.nyas.org/asset.axd?id=8b4c4bfc-3b35-434f-8a5c-ee5579d11dbb&t=634507382459270000

[reusrename]

57. Well gee, that's convincing.

It can't possibly be true because the scientists do not support the nuclear energy industry. Oh, wait...

It can't possibly be true because somebody would have noticed, perhaps they would have even written a paper on it. Oh, wait...

[wtmusic]

58. "The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all"

"The book was not peer reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences. Five reviews were published in the academic press, with four of them considering the book severely flawed and contradictory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment

"The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

...A devastating review in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry points out that the book achieves this figure by the remarkable method of assuming that all increased deaths from a wide range of diseases – including many which have no known association with radiation – were caused by the Chernobyl accident. There is no basis for this assumption, not least because screening in many countries improved dramatically after the disaster and, since 1986, there have been massive changes in the former eastern bloc. The study makes no attempt to correlate exposure to radiation with the incidence of disease."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

Think what you want to think. This is idiot-material.

[Hestia]

63. Basically, in what I am reading, we will never know "for sure" how many deaths will be caused

by Fukishima and how many have been caused by Chernobyl because it seems that a lot of cancers do not show up for years/decades; ergo, the supporters say nuclear is safe because there is no known deaths, other than thyroid cancer because it cannot be proven that your particular cancer was caused by Chernobyl or Fukishima because that was decades ago.

Is anyone else coming up with another conclusion in reading these reports?

[wtmusic]

69. That's correct.

Just like we'll never know exactly how many cancers are caused by carcinogenic fly ash released by coal plants, by gamma rays from the sun, by radioactive radon gas in the ground, by fallout from atomic weapons testing in the 1950s.

Both you and I are "getting" cancer all the time - radiation from various sources is mutating DNA in our bodies constantly. The human body has developed a remarkable ability to kill cancer cells before they become tumors. Sometimes that mechanism breaks down, and it becomes less efficient as people get older - which is why older people are much more prone to getting tumors.

No supporter of nuclear energy, that I know of, claims it's completely safe - radioactive materials can and do cause cancer. Chernobyl will cause about 4,000 deaths from cancer, Fukushima in the hundreds. Nonetheless, it's much safer per unit of energy generated from coal; thousands of Americans die every year from coal-induced cancer. And millions will die from cancer caused by radon gas in their homes, exposure to the sun, or simply living in a brick or stone house.

Calculate your radiation exposure

[reusrename]

79. "Fukushima in the hundreds"

Fukushima is much worse than Chernobyl. I don't know how everyone can't see that.

Chernobyl #5 was operational for 3 years before the catastrophe. Fukushima has been in operation for 40 years. The disparity in radioactive inventory alone is astonishing.

I wonder about your grasp on this. And do you think all those containers of water being stored on-site are really going to be safe there for the next 100,000 years? Many are already leaking.

Where do you get this crap from?

[wtmusic]

85. The most likely number of cancer deaths is 130

and estimated to range from 15 to 1,300.

Accumulated water is a problem, but not one which can't be dealth with in the next 100,000 years - or even 10 years:

"That’s why TEPCO seems to be betting heavily on another solution—an elaborate state-of-the art system for filtering the accumulated water and removing radioactive materials from it. According to New Scientist, the new system supposedly can filter out 62 different radioactive substances. However, the April IAEA report noted that the filtering system is still a work in progress, and that in tests so far, "it has not accomplished the expected result" in terms of removing radioactive material from the water. Additionally, the system doesn’t remove tritium, which isn’t as radioactive as other materials in the water, but which still is a health hazard if it is inhaled or ingested. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that TEPCO hopes eventually to be able to discharge the cleansed water into the ocean, though that plan would likely meet intense opposition from local fishermen. Sherman, who has a chemistry background, said she’s skeptical that such a process could work on the enormous scale required. "You can precipitate these things out in the laboratory, but you’re talking about millions of gallons here," she explained."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/08/130807-fukushima-radioactive-water-leak/

[reusrename]

91. I'm not sure how I should put this.

THEY'RE LYING!

Why do I have to tell you this fact?

Just the other day they finally admitted that they have a 300-tonne-per-day toxic water leak into the friggin' ocean. They are lying liars who are lying, lying, lying. So all your bullshit based on those lies is just more lies. They've compounded the lies for years, one atop the other as the truth comes out, and you honestly haven't noticed it?

Seriously?

The truth is that they should have evacuated Tokyo because the fallout measured there was greater, by almost an order of magnitude, than the fallout for the evacuation zone at Chernobyl.

People will believe what they want, I guess. The stuff's invisible so there isn't even any sleight of hand necessary. But the lies have no basis in reality. I guess we have found an effective method of population control. We can just continue to let the nuclear industry run amok.

[wtmusic]

93. Believe what you like.

From what I've seen your beliefs are not based on fact, but on paranoia and fear.

You've provided no links to back up your point of view, I've provided many. What should that tell you?

[reusrename]

95. Do you honestly need a link to know they lied about the contaminated water?

If you really need a link, then I suggest that you start paying a little more attention to what's going on.

[wtmusic]

98. I know they lied.

There have been hundreds of international experts monitoring the situation in Japan, and none of the links I provided were from Tepco.

Again, believe what you like.

[reusrename]

103. Tepco is still in charge. They are the only ones there.

That's exactly how the lies are being spread. By Tepco and their enablers. There are no "hundreds of international experts monitoring the situation in Japan." It just isn't the case. There are hundreds of international experts crying for the UN to step in because they know they are being lied to.

http://nuclear-news.net/2013/03/12/the-whos-secrecy-pact-about-fukushima-radiation-fallout-new-york-nuclear-sympsium-11-march-2013/

It's a short clip, but it does get to the point.

[Hestia]

113. The Japanese gov't just took it over from TEPCO after the latest news.

It is all political - TEPCO waited until the pro-nuke crowd was voted in then they tell the world how bad it has been for the last 2 1/2 years. From what I understand, it is the Minister in Japan who has/is calling Russia for help, it's that bad.

[Hestia]

112. From what I have read, I agree that Fukishima is 100% worse than Chernobyl - which didn't have

water and radiation eating out the floors of the reactor buildings. Which really makes you wonder how far down the cores have really gotten to if it is damaging the ground and foundations they sit on.

[madokie]

71. Pretty much what whats being said

Nuclear is a subject you have to study and make up your own mind because there is no way that one can get a pro nukie to admit anything other than what they want you to believe. The Nuclear power Industries MO is to talk shit, obfuscate and when neither of those work out right lie. Lies even when the truth would sound better.

[reusrename]

81. Some of us learned most of what we know back when science was less adulterated.

You're right, though. Now it comes down to who can do the best research vs. who can pay for the most sycophants. I'll go with the best research every time.

[reusrename]

84. Sure, and cigarettes don't cause cancer. I get it.

There's no proof any one case of cancer is cause by smoking. I get it.

When they cannot dispute the facts and figures, they launch an assault on reason and the scientific method. It's so transparent I cannot believe people still fall for it.

[wtmusic]

86. No, the equivalent would be that there's no proof one cigarette will cause cancer.

These distinctions matter.

[reusrename]

94. I believe it was in the Surgeon General's Report.

The one that led to the warning labels being put on cigarettes. IIRC, there were studies that showed how people who smoked one to three cigarettes a day actually outlived folks who didn't smoke at all. Of course this probably had much more to do with the personality types or stress levels of those who can smoke a cigarette a day without getting addicted than it did with any inherent health benefits of tobacco.

[SidDithers]

49. How radioactive is radioactive?...nt

Sid

[ElsewheresDaughter]

66. no radiation amount is safe but this is way above above even that.

[jmowreader]

50. Which makes sense because bluefin tuna are extremely migratory

A bluefin tuna can swim from Los Angeles to Japan in 100 days, and bluefins never stop swimming - they will suffocate if they don't swim at least 5mph at all times.

[hunter]

60. Maybe we'll stop hunting them. One can hope.

I like eating tuna as much as anyone, but I can't help thinking if I was a tuna and had the devil's choice of being slightly radioactive or being eaten by humans, I'd go for the radiation.

[wtmusic]

72. Chernobyl has become a wildlife refuge

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/nuclear_power/2013/01/chernobyl_wildlife_the_radioactive_fallout_zone_is_a_wildlife_refuge_photos.html

Will this century's environmental rallying cry be "Nuke the elephants"?

[SunSeeker]

109. Fascinating article. Thanks for the link.

It makes the rather stunning observation that humans are worse for animals than radiation.

[Utopian Leftist]

61. Reagan asked many times,

what if space aliens landed on Earth, would we unite as a human race, to defend ourselves?

Well WTF!?! When we are facing global economic collapse and imminent destruction of all life on the planet, WHY IN THE HELLS WOULD WE WAIT FOR SPACE ALIENS!?!

If the world doesn't come together NOW to start solving these problems, then we really are doomed--that is no longer conspiracy theory.

[avaistheone1]

114. k&r

People are kinda of busy right now watching the Kardashians, Miley Cyris and stuff.

[live love laugh]

70. When the 1% start having 2-headed babies THEN this will matter. Let them eat tuna! nt

[Yo_Mama]

77. But it's not harmful

http://www.kgw.com/news/Albacore-tuna-show-traces-of-radioactive-cesium-175887861.html

That's a slightly more informative article.

And here's a really informative one:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cesium-lining-tuna

And here's something from OSU itself on the testing:
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2012/oct/pacific-albacore-carry-barely-detectable-fingerprints-fukushima-disaster

People are constantly exposed to radiation from the natural environment, Neville pointed out. “To increase their normal annual dosage of radiation by just 1 percent, a person would have to eat more than 4,000 pounds of the highest (radiation) level albacore we've seen.”

You can probably get equivalent dosages from a dental X-ray.

[Coyotl]

106. "...nowhere near enough to be concerned about food safety.”

From: "Neville, a graduate student in OSU's Radiation Health Physics program who was looking for Ph.D. research topics – and who had access to the specialized instruments needed to analyze the albacore samples for the type of radionuclides released by the Japanese reactor. He also obtained a modest NOAA grant to support the research." "Delvan Neville, a graduate researcher with OSU's Radiation Health Physics program and a co-investigator on the project."

Just down the road and up my fishing river, my grocery town!

[Hestia]

111. I don't think we get strontium and tritium from dental x-rays - aren't there different levels

and different types of radiation, which is the problem with Fukishima? I guess we'll really find out in November when they start trying to move the spent rods - what 1300 of them - from the roof of building 4.

They forced the news about how bad Fukishima is, then we are told that we get radiation everyday from the sun (then WTF haven't we converted wholly to solar decades ago if it is just the same), then all of a sudden we start getting news about 1 leak, then it's 2, now it's what 4 leaks that have been ongoing since March 2011? They are desperate enough to call Russia for help - you know Putin ain't gonna let that go by for free - who have been enemies with Japan for centuries.

I sure hope the 1% chokes on all that money they been raking in hand over fist the last couple of years.

[Yo_Mama]

115. It's possible that higher levels of tritium and strontium could end up in Pacific fish

if the water problem at Fukushima Daiichi isn't brought under control. But right now the contamination in the fish is not a human health hazard.

There are unfortunately ambient levels of tritium and even some strontium from the nuclear testing era. The half-life for Strontium 90 is close to that of caesium. The exposure that US children of my generation got to Sr 90 is massively more than we can ever get from Pacific fish due to Fukushima Daiichi.

Anyway, here's some background on the SR 89 and SR 90 concentrations. The so-far estimated effect is that it will raise strontium concentrations by about 1%. Which logically means, if you are at all interested about real risks, that over a few years the levels of SR 90 in the general environment will continue dropping, as they have been since the "bomb ourselves" golden age of nukes. That's because of the decay time for strontium, which is close to 29 years.

I am struggling to be both tactful and clear with my response. If you are truly concerned with risk associated with SR 90 ingestion from ocean fish, then while you should not be eating fish from the worst-contaminated areas of the coast of Japan, eating fish caught off the US Pacific does not increase your risk in any way that we would ever expect to be able to detect. Individuals with Sr 90-related cancers in the New World got them from the actions of a few countries, but none of those countries had names including the letter "J".

But it does bother me that people are having a shitfit over the contamination risks from Fukushima, when they are so infinitely low compared to the contamination risks that we ourselves inflicted on the global population.

If you are worried about Sr 90, Chernobyl and the nuclear testing era are the sources of the risk. Fukushima Daiichi doesn't change anything, which is why I am happily eating the fish. It is also interesting that no one discusses where your real major exposure to Sr 90 comes from. I suppose it might be too embarrassing?

Tritium forms titrated water:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

It doesn't accumulate well in the human body. In high levels it can be dangerous, at low levels it is not. There was pre-existing tritium contamination and it appears unlikely that the Fukushima Daiichi accident will change exposures.

Now I will abandon this field of hysteria. After all, I am a nuclear-era child, and in my bones and in my teeth I carry the burden that my own country gave me. Thus I must use my time wisely, for who knows?

[Hestia]

117. Thank you for your level headed response though for us non-nuclear scientists out here, there are

major questions and concerns, being:

1 - the major news blackout (MSM) that happened right after March 2011. Rachel Maddow was really hammering the nuke questions and even she was shut down, so there has been no real conversations about nuclear reactors since then, other than from the pro-nuke crowd.

2 - radiation exposure: tell the public that hey! the sun emits radiation; hey! you've gotten a chest x-ray; hey! you've gone to the dentist, right? You've been exposed! That is treating us as children, patting us on our head and sending us off to bed. This is a real concern, especially after all this info is coming out after 2 1/2 years.

Back in the early internet tube days and about 10 years after Chernobyl, a dear friends family made friends with a child in Norway who was way into Pokemon. He was a Chernobyl child, massive health problems, his birth defects were directly related to Chernobyl. There are a lot of children in the Scandinavian countries who are like this.

How did the world find out about Chernobyl since Russia didn't say shit about it? The massively high levels of radiation (assuming different types) in the atmosphere and, back when we had lucid leaders, they stormed Russia demanding information, which is how the world found out about it.

Now we are finding out that Japan/TEPCO sat on this ongoing problem before they finally had to admit that is beyond their control. Personally, I think it is much much much worse that what we are being told.

You can't blame everyone for getting their knickers in a wad because we do not have any leadership at all and feel down in our bones that they are hiding the truth from us. That's all we are asking for - right now, all we are seeing is different scientists who are a) telling us to worry, especially in November or b) it's all good, no worries mon. There's nothing in between when we know good and damn well there is miles between the two positions.

Personally, I refuse to believe that 3 meltdown reactors are nothing to worry about. I've read hints & allegations that they have melted through the floor/casings/whatever TF you call it, and doing what used to be known as the China Syndrome. I refuse to believe that going through an Olympic size pool of water each week trying to keep the fuel/reactors cool and storing that radioactive water in make-shift storage containers is a good thing. I refuse to believe that the levels are so high in the reactors that robots cannot perform because electronics are burning out is a good thing.

So, here we sit behind our keyboards, reading everything we can get our hands on trying to figure on our own, trying to figure out WITFH is going on! Telling us that the sun emits radiation ain't cutting it anymore, more is telling us that tuna swimming through radioactive water in Japan and coming to shore in California is going to be okay.

The one thing we are owed, world-wide, is our Energy Secretary, Europe's Energy Secretary, somebody (!) to sit down and explain in all in easy to grasp chunks of information. It's not that much to ask for.

[clarice]

83. Glow in the dark tuna???!!! What's next !!!!. nt

[JRLeft]

90. Unfortunately nothing will come of this. Will this be mentioned on any of the 3 big networks?

I seriously doubt it.

[Jackpine Radical]

97. What's the problem?

Now you can use your geiger counter as a fish finder.

[DeSwiss]

108. So-called ''experts'' say: ''What's the problem!?!?!''

Shock? UC Berkeley Professor Claims: “No matter what happens in Fukushima, it’s not going to be a problem over here” — U.S. Gov’t: “Any kind of release in Japan would be non-detectable here”

Date: Aug. 5, 2013 at 10:39p ET

...“With the amount of dilution that would occur, any kind of release in Japan would be non-detectable here,” said David Yogi, spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ...

Eric Norman, a nuclear engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the latest leak was not a concern.

“The Pacific Ocean is an enormous place,” said Norman, who found radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power in California rainwater, milk and plants soon after the earthquake and tsunami. “There’s a lot of material between us and Japan. No matter what happens in Fukushima, it’s not going to be a problem over here.” ...

- I've always wondered: ''As corruption spreads, does the price go down???''

K&R

[NealK]

110. K&R