50 Reasons We Should Fear the Worst from Fukushima

[Octafish]

50 Reasons We Should Fear the Worst from Fukushima

by Harvey Wasserman
Published on Monday, February 3, 2014 by Common Dreams

Fukushima’s missing melted cores and radioactive gushers continue to fester in secret.

Japan’s harsh dictatorial censorship has been matched by a global corporate media blackout aimed—successfully—at keeping Fukushima out of the public eye.

But that doesn’t keep the actual radiation out of our ecosystem, our markets … or our bodies.

Speculation on the ultimate impact ranges from the utterly harmless to the intensely apocalyptic .

But the basic reality is simple: for seven decades, government Bomb factories and privately-owned reactors have spewed massive quantities of unmonitored radiation into the biosphere.

The impacts of these emissions on human and ecological health are unknown primarily because the nuclear industry has resolutely refused to study them.

Indeed, the official presumption has always been that showing proof of damage from nuclear Bomb tests and commercial reactors falls to the victims, not the perpetrators.

And that in any case, the industry will be held virtually harmless.

This “see no evil, pay no damages” mindset dates from the Bombing of Hiroshima to Fukushima to the disaster coming next … which could be happening as you read this.

Here are 50 preliminary reasons why this radioactive legacy demands we prepare for the worst for our oceans, our planet, our economy … ourselves.

1. At Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), the U.S. military initially denied that there was any radioactive fallout, or that it could do any damage. Despite an absence of meaningful data, the victims (including a group of U.S. prisoners of war) and their supporters were officially “discredited” and scorned.

2. Likewise, when Nobel-winners Linus Pauling and Andre Sakharov correctly warned of a massive global death toll from atmospheric Bomb testing, they were dismissed with official contempt … until they won in the court of public opinion.

3. During and after the Bomb Tests (1946-63), downwinders in the South Pacific and American west, along with thousands of U.S. “atomic vets,” were told their radiation-induced health problems were imaginary … until they proved utterly irrefutable.

4. When British Dr. Alice Stewart proved (1956) that even tiny x-ray doses to pregnant mothers could double childhood leukemia rates, she was assaulted with 30 years of heavily funded abuse from the nuclear and medical establishments.

5. But Stewart’s findings proved tragically accurate, and helped set in stone the medical health physics consensus that there is no “safe dose” of radiation … and that pregnant women should not be x-rayed, or exposed to equivalent radiation.

6. More than 400 commercial power reactors have been injected into our ecosphere with no meaningful data to measure their potential health and environmental impacts, and no systematic global data base has been established or maintained.

7. “Acceptable dose” standards for commercial reactors were conjured from faulty A-Bomb studies begun five years after Hiroshima, and at Fukushima and elsewhere have been continually made more lax to save the industry money.

8. Bomb/reactor fallout delivers alpha and beta particle emitters that enter the body and do long-term damage, but which industry backers often wrongly equate with less lethal external gamma/x-ray doses from flying in airplanes or living in Denver.

9. By refusing to compile long-term emission assessments, the industry systematically hides health impacts at Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc., forcing victims to rely on isolated independent studies which it automatically deems “discredited.”

10. Human health damage has been amply suffered in radium watch dial painting, Bomb production, uranium mining/milling/enrichment, waste management and other radioactive work, despite decades of relentless industry denial.

11. When Dr. Ernest Sternglass, who had worked with Albert Einstein, warned that reactor emissions were harming people, thousands of copies of his Low-Level Radiation (1971) mysteriously disappeared from their primary warehouse.

12. When the Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC) Chief Medical Officer, Dr. John Gofman, urged that reactor dose levels be lowered by 90 percent, he was forced out of the AEC and publicly attacked, despite his status a founder of the industry.

13. A member of the Manhattan Project, and a medical doctor responsible for pioneer research into LDL cholesterol, Gofman later called the reactor industry an instrument of “premeditated mass murder.”

14. Stack monitors and other monitoring devices failed at Three Mile Island (1979) making it impossible to know how much radiation escaped, where it went or who it impacted and how.

15. But some 2,400 TMI downwind victims and their families were denied a class action jury trial by a federal judge who said “not enough radiation” was released to harm them, though she could not say how much that was or where it went.

16. During TMI’s meltdown, industry advertising equated the fallout with a single chest x-ray to everyone downwind, ignoring the fact that such doses could double leukemia rates among children born to involuntarily irradiated mothers.

17. Widespread death and damage downwind from TMI have been confirmed by Dr. Stephen Wing, Jane Lee and Mary Osbourne, Sister Rosalie Bertell, Dr. Sternglass, Jay Gould, Joe Mangano and others, along with hundreds of anecdotal reports.

18. Radioactive harm to farm and wild animals downwind from TMI has been confirmed by the Baltimore News-American and Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

19. TMI’s owner quietly paid out at least $15 million in damages in exchange for gag orders from the affected families, including at least one case involving a child born with Down’s Syndrome.

20. Chernobyl’s explosion became public knowledge only when massive emissions came down on a Swedish reactor hundreds of miles away, meaning that—as at TMI and Fukushima—no one knows precisely how much escaped or where it went.

21. Fukushima’s on-going fallout is already far in excess of that from Chernobyl, which was far in excess of that from Three Mile Island.

22. Soon after Chernobyl blew up (1986), Dr. Gofman predicted its fallout would kill at least 400,000 people worldwide.

23. Three Russian scientists who compiled more than 5,000 studies concluded in 2005 that Chernobyl had already killed nearly a million people worldwide.

24. Children born in downwind Ukraine and Belarus still suffer a massive toll of mutation and illness, as confirmed by a wide range of governmental, scientific and humanitarian organizations.

25. Key low-ball Chernobyl death estimates come from the World Health Organization, whose numbers are overseen by International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations organization chartered to promote the nuclear industry.

26. After 28 years, the reactor industry has still not succeeded in installing a final sarcophagus over the exploded Chernobyl Unit 4, though billions of dollars have been invested.

27. When Fukushima Units 1-4 began to explode, President Obama assured us all the fallout would not come here, and would harm no one, despite having no evidence for either assertion.

28. Since President Obama did that, the U.S. has established no integrated system to monitor Fukushima’s fallout, nor an epidemiological data base to track its health impacts … but it did stop checking radiation levels in Pacific seafood.

29. Early reports of thyroid abnormalities among children downwind from Fukushima, and in North America are denied by industry backers who again say “not enough radiation” was emitted though they don’t know how much that might be.

30. Devastating health impacts reported by sailors stationed aboard the USS Ronald Reagan near Fukushima are being denied by the industry and Navy, who say radiation doses were too small to do harm, but have no idea what they were.

31. While in a snowstorm offshore as Fukushima melted, sailors reported a warm cloud passing over the Reagan that brought a “metallic taste” like that described by TMI downwinders and the airmen who dropped the Bomb on Hiroshima.

32. Though it denies the sailors on the Reagan were exposed to enough Fukushima radiation to harm them, Japan (like South Korea and Guam) denied the ship port access because it was too radioactive (it’s now docked in San Diego).

33. The Reagan sailors are barred from suing the Navy, but have filed a class action against Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), which has joined the owners at TMI, the Bomb factories, uranium mines, etc., in denying all responsibility.

34. A U.S. military “lessons learned” report from Fukushima’s Operation Tomodachi clean-up campaign notes that “decontamination of aircraft and personnel without alarming the general population created new challenges.”

35. The report questioned the clean-up because “a true decontamination operations standard for ‘clearance’ was not set,” thereby risking “the potential spread of radiological contamination to military personnel and the local populace.”

36. Nonetheless, it reported that during the clean-up, “the use of duct tape and baby wipes was effective in the removal of radioactive particles.”

37. In league with organized crime, Tepco is pursuing its own clean-up activities by recruiting impoverished homeless and elderly citizens for “hot” on-site labor, with the quality of their work and the nature of their exposures now a state secret.

38. At least 300 tons of radioactive water continue to pour into the ocean at Fukushima every day, according to official estimates made prior to such data having been made a state secret.

39. To the extent they can be known, the quantities and make-up of radiation pouring out of Fukushima are also now a state secret, with independent measurement or public speculation punishable by up to ten years in prison.

40. Likewise, “There is no systematic testing in the U.S. of air, food and water for radiation,” according to University of California (Berkeley) nuclear engineering Professor Eric Norman.

41. Many radioactive isotopes tend to concentrate as they pour into the air and water, so deadly clumps of Fukushima’s radiation may migrate throughout the oceans for centuries to come before diffusing, which even then may not render it harmless.

42. Radiation’s real world impact becomes even harder to measure in an increasingly polluted biosphere, where interaction with existing toxins creates a synergy likely to exponentially accelerate the damage being done to all living things.

43. Reported devastation among starfish, sardines, salmon, sea lions, orcas and other ocean animals cannot be definitively denied without a credible data base of previous experimentation and monitoring, which does not exist and is not being established.

44. The fact that “tiny” doses of x-ray can harm human embryos portends that any unnatural introduction of lethal radioactive isotopes into the biosphere, however “diffuse,” can affect our intertwined global ecology in ways we don’t now understand.

45. The impact of allegedly “minuscule” doses spreading from Fukushima will, over time, affect the minuscule eggs of creatures ranging from sardines to starfish to sea lions, with their lethal impact enhanced by the other pollutants already in the sea.

46. Dose comparisons to bananas and other natural sources are absurd and misleading as the myriad isotopes from reactor fallout will impose very different biological impacts for centuries to come in a wide range of ecological settings.

47. No current dismissal of general human and ecological impacts—”apocalyptic” or otherwise—can account over time for the very long half-lives of radioactive isotopes Fukushima is now pouring into the biosphere.

48. As Fukushima’s impacts spread through the centuries, the one certainty is that no matter what evidence materializes, the nuclear industry will never admit to doing any damage, and will never be forced to pay for it (see upcoming sequel).

49. Hyman Rickover, father of the nuclear navy, warned that it is a form of suicide to raise radiation levels within Earth’s vital envelope, and that if he could, he would “sink” all the reactors he helped develop.

50. “Now when we go back to using nuclear power,” he said in 1982, “I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.”

As Fukushima deteriorates behind an iron curtain of secrecy and deceit, we desperately need to know what it’s doing to us and our planet.

It’s tempting to say the truth lies somewhere between the industry’s lies and the rising fear of a tangible apocalypse.

In fact, the answers lie beyond.

Defined by seven decades of deceit, denial and a see-no-evil dearth of meaningful scientific study, the glib corporate assurances that this latest reactor disaster won’t hurt us fade to absurdity.

Fukushima pours massive, unmeasured quantities of lethal radiation into our fragile ecosphere every day, and will do so for decades to come.

Five power reactors have now exploded on this planet and there are more than 400 others still operating.

What threatens us most is the inevitable next disaster … along with the one after that … and then the one after that …

Pre-wrapped in denial, protected by corporate privilege, they are the ultimate engines of global terror.

------------------------------------------

Dear Forum Hosts: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. It can be posted in its entirety with proper attribution.

Harvey Wasserman

Harvey Wasserman's Solartopia Green Power & Wellness Show is at www.progressiveradionetwork.com, and he edits www.nukefree.org. Harvey Wasserman's History of the US and Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth are at www.harveywasserman.com along with Passions of the PotSmoking Patriots by "Thomas Paine." He and Bob Fitrakis have co-authored four books on election protection, including How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election, at www.freepress.org.

SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/03-3

[Octafish]

1. If a dirty bomber terrorist did to America what Fukushima is doing to the planet...

...more people might grok the situation kick.



Remember Jose Padilla? The guy -- allegedly -- wanted to contaminate a city with a "dirty bomb" made up from some kind of irradiated or nuclear medical waste. Unfortunately, we may never know the details of his plan, let alone the truth, as the United States government proceeded to torture the guy so bad that his mind is fried. And Padilla only thought* about doing something with a dirty nuke.

Nothing to debate when one's brain's been reduced to oatmeal.

How U.S. Interrogators Destroyed the Mind of Jose Padilla

* And there's questions about where he got that idea. Cough. FBI.

"We now know much of what Jose Padilla knows, and what we have learned confirms that the President made the right call and that that call saved lives." -- James Comey, then-Deputy Attorney General now head of...the FBI; press conference

[questionseverything]

54. sigh, i had forgotten comey was w's front man in the padilla case

of all the illegal activity the last admin participated in padilla is what bothered me the most...holding and torturing an American citizen for nearly 5 years before bringing him to trial...a sham of a trial with padilla refusing to act in his own defense because his mind was crippled by the torture

//////////////////////////

QUESTION: You said that if you had picked him up under criminal charges that he would have gotten a lawyer, would have clammed up and would have walked free. But couldn’t you have done what the Justice Department does thousands of times every year and offered him a plea agreement to work with you?

COMEY: All the time we offer plea agreements and people cooperate if we have a hammer over them. The challenge of the Padilla case, for me as the United States attorney, was the absence of a hammer. If I can’t credibly threaten criminal charges, no lawyer in the world is going to tell their client to talk to me, because a good lawyer would know, what I’m sure Mr. Padilla’s lawyers knew, that if you just clam up, they can’t do anything with this. (Comment; An admission that they had no evidence against Padilla)

QUESTION: So at this point, you have no plans to present any of this to a grand jury?

COMEY: No, we do not have any plans to present this, the information I’ve given you today, to a grand jury. I don’t believe that we could use this information in a criminal case, because we deprived him of access to his counsel and questioned him in the absence of counsel. (Comment; They intentionally broke the law and realize they won’t be able to prosecute their case)

//////////////////////////////////////////////

so besides not prosecuting comey, he is rewarded by being made the head of the fbi??????????????

excuse me while I bang my head against the wall

[RobertEarl]

2. That's some scary stuff, Octafish

Harvey has done well putting all that together.

Anyone else notice the pinkish skyline, that at times glows like neon? I've only seen it just recently. I wonder how that happens.

Anyway, our worst problem is that, as Harvey points out, we have another 400 ticking time bombs to be dismantled. We have been warned. Will we as humans do the right thing?

[MineralMan]

5. At sunrise or sunset?

At times, the clouds turn a beautiful salmon color at sunrise or sunset. I've been noticing that all my life. Sunsets are beautiful, and have nothing to do with radiation from nuclear powerplants or testing.

Have you only recently noticed the colorful sky when the sun rises and sets?

The cause of that is atmospheric filtering out of part of the visible light spectrum. Light clouds are particularly good at filtering out the shorter light wavelengths, resulting in pink, orange, and reddish colors. It's a beautiful natural phenomenon.

[RobertEarl]

8. Sunsets are beautiful.

But a pink glow in the middle of the day? You've not seen it yet?

Anyway, what do you think of the 50 ways in the op? I mean, I know you don't want to go to far of topic.

[MineralMan]

11. Near the horizon? Sure I've seen it. Same reason.

I've also seen the sky blood red at midday. Smoke from forest fires creates that effect. It's quite beautiful, but ominous, too.

A pink glow on the horizon? Near a large city? Smog. Same filtration of light.

It has nothing to to with radiation at all. At the quantities emitted from Fukushima, or collectively throughout time, there is no effect on light.

Now, I have seen Cherenkov radiation. Back in 1957, my junior high school science class visited the first commercial nuclear power generating facility every built, at Santa Susana, CA. We got to look down into the reactor, and clearly saw the pale blue glow of the Cherenkov radiation. A couple of years later, that plant had the first reactor meltdown of a commercial reactor, and exposed the area around it to radioactive isotopes.

That was when my opposition to nuclear power generation began - at the first commercial nuclear power generation reactor ever built.

However, I still stick to facts, rather than emotional fantasy when arguing against that technology. Facts.

[RobertEarl]

17. Pale blue?

I've heard of that and many have seen it. You know, a pale blue on a background of blue sky would hardly be noticeable. That's why some are noticing, at times, the pink. Because it contrasts.

[MineralMan]

64. No. Many have not seen Cherenkov radiation in the atmosphere.

That's because it cannot occur in the atmosphere. It only occurs in an operating water-cooled nuclear reactor. Here's a photo:



go look it up.

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

[MineralMan]

12. 'what do you think of the 50 ways in the op?'

Nothing new in there. Radiation is dangerous. Radioactive isotopes are dangerous when they are released into the environment. Nuclear power generation is not safe. It cannot be made to be safe.

[RobertEarl]

26. 400 similar nuclear waste sites

What do you think? Can the same system that built these plants under the idea of "Too cheap to meter", be the same system that says: "Oh, fuck, we screwed up" and begin closing them before they blow?

What do you think of the firing of the NRC head who also claims as you do that nukes are not safe. The system had someone inside who rang the alarm and so the system kicked him out. Some 'system' we have, eh?

And you believe it will magically change?

[longship]

45. Anomaly hunting again?

Any anomaly....

FUKUSHIMA!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. That dog doesn't hunt.

[Cleita]

13. There was a time when Los Angeles has the reputation of gorgeous sunsets

because the air pollution caused all the lovely colors that made them so. That doesn't mean Angelenos liked all the COPDs and cancers that resulted from them.

Also some of the most beautiful films out there are the ones of mushroom clouds from A-bomb tests back in the fifties and sixties, the ones that were filmed in color. They are breathtaking, in more ways than one.

[MineralMan]

15. There are no mushroom clouds in the skies these days.

And yes, smog has been a terrible issue. It still is, although here in the US, we've improved air quality. Los Angeles is no longer regularly covered with a yellow-brown haze. I remember when it was, though. It's better today, but cities like Beijing are still locked in a cloud of pollution on a regular basis.

I've actually seen a mushroom cloud from nuclear explosions in Nevada. In fact, I have some Kodachrome slides I took from one such nuclear test in Nevada. But, in 2014, radiation is not coloring the horizon. It simply is not. To say it is is to speak an untruth. Untruths make for very bad arguments.

[Cleita]

19. You missed the point of my post but carry on. n/t

[MineralMan]

21. No, actually, I didn't.

It's just that it wasn't really pertinent to the discussion I'm having with an individual in the thread, really.

[Octafish]

90. Thanks for caring, Cleita.

For as long as I remember on DU, you have been kind to others in both the topics you post and in how you address other people as individuals. My first name on DU -- the only other one before I was Octafish -- was Oblomov, named after a fictional character by the Russian novelist Ivan Goncharov.

That word is Oblomovism.

Now, when I hear a country squire talking about the rights of man and urging the necessity of developing personality, I know from the first word he utters that he is an Oblomov.

When I hear a government official complaining that the system of administration is too complicated and cumbersome, I know that he is an Oblomov.

-- Nikolai Dobroliubov, "What Is Oblomovism?" (1859)

PDF: https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/297815/original/Dobroliubov.pdf

Some people will never "get" any of that.

[Octafish]

7. 'Chernobyl Was Transparent Compared to Fukushima': Harvey Wasserman on Ongoing Crisis

"I believe we got better information from the Soviet Union about Chernobyl than we're getting from TEPCO and the Japanese about Fukushima," Harvey Wasserman said.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20116-chernobyl-was-transparent-compared-to-fukushima-harvey-wasserman-on-the-ongoing-crisis

A rarity these days, Wasserman is a sage and a patriot.

[RobertEarl]

10. Wasserman is a sage and a patriot

Very brave. The nuke cabal would love to crush him. They send out the science deniers to go after him, but he keeps on telling the Truth.

It took a few years for any semblance of truth of Chernobyl to surface. It was repressed and backstabbed, but it surfaced. As the polluted water from Fukushima continues to contaminate the Pacific, we will see much more dire information surface here.

[Logical]

3. FFS, this again? nt

[ChisolmTrailDem]

4. Hide thread by keyword is your friend. Also, remember all that silly fuss over the

dangers of Chernobyl, LOLOLOLOL!!! They thought it was so dangerous they covered the whole goddamned power plant in concrete, haha!! What a bunch of Soviet rubes! How they couldn't have known that there was really no danger is beyond me.

Fact is, you can allow your young son or daughter to hug teddy bears made from Cesium molecules and they'll wake up the next morning with a healthy glow.

[RobertEarl]

6. Thats all you got?

Being rude is what you use to represent yourself here? That's not logical.

[Octafish]

9. Didn't know TEPCO had solved the ongoing catastrophe.

Gee. Stopping the flow of who knows what radionuclides into the environment from three runaway, nuclear meltdown reactors wasn't mentioned at all in the Sunday paper. I'd think it would be news.

Thanks for the heads-up, Logical! Most uninformative, as always.

[G_j]

16. this again? //\\

[SidDithers]

20. Apparently, the World Health Organization is now part of the cover-up...

or something.

Sid

[Octafish]

112. The IAEA seems to be, per The Tokyo Shimbun.

Tokyo Shimbun Article Regarding Confidentiality Clause in the IAEA/FMU Pact, Complete Translation

EXCERPT...

Confidential clause in agreements between IAEA and Fukushima and Fukui Prefectures: shared information could be non-publicized

Complete translation of the December 31, 2013 Tokyo Shimbun article
(Note: This is an unofficial translation, and Tokyo Shimbun is not responsible for the content).

SNIP...

In Fukushima Prefecture, it was the prefectural government that entered into an agreement with IAEA in the area of decontamination and radioactive waste management, whereas Fukushima Medical University entered into an agreement with IAEA in the area of the survey of radiological effect on human health. The memorandum includes detailed "Practical Agreements" which contained a clause stating, "The Parties will ensure the confidentiality of information classified by the other Party as restricted or confidential."

Fukui Prefecture also entered into an agreement with IAEA in the area of development of human resources in the field of nuclear energy, and its memorandum also included a confidentiality clause.

Neither prefecture admits to any information having been classified confidential at this time, but if either the prefectures or IAEA decide to classify information for "they contribute to worsening of the residents' anxiety," there is a possibility that such information as the accident information, as well as radiation measurement data and thyroid cancer information may not be publicized.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs official who was involved in the making of the memorandum stated, upon interview, that "As this is an international agreement, I cannot reveal which party, Japan or IAEA, asked for the confidentiality clause."

SNIP...

Ruiko Mutoh, representative of The Complainants for Criminal Prosecution of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster, expressed her concern that "IAEA has a history of hiding information about health effects in Chernobyl. The same thing could happen to Fukushima."

SOURCE: http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.com/2014/01/tokyo-shimbun-article-regarding.html

[SidDithers]

113. We all know that the World Health Organization is just a tool of the BFEE...nt

Sid

[Octafish]

116. Interesting that you have to ridicule the BFEE, SidDithers.

Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons and political power are economic wealth are intertwined. I've written about it here.

As for the BFEE, while I do all I can to expose their treachery, you chose to make fun. Why you do so is your business, SidDithers. Not mine.

For those interested in the topic of what Bartcop termed the Bush Family Evil Empire:

Their trail as warmonger-banksters goes back at least to war profiteering during World War I, when Samuel Prescott Bush ran Remington selling rifles to both sides. Before that, there's evidence their ancestors were slave holders.

I've talked about his son, Prescott Sheldon Bush; grandson, George Herbert Walker Bush; and great-grandsons, George Walker Bush, John Ellis (Jeb) Bush, and Neil Mallon Bush. From what you've written about the BFEE, you seem to take their side, which is odd for someone interested in supporting democracy.

[Chan790]

107. Really.

Fukushima alarmism is yesterday's "snow that burns and doesn't melt!"

It's tedious to people who understand basic science. I've long been one to poo-poo the utility of STEM education, but I guess I have egg on my face; if more of these people had basic science comprehension...they would be more-largely immune to the Chicken Littles like Wasserman.

[zeemike]

14. Yes but it is a slow death, and you can't prove anything.

So just pretend it is not happening...that is the answer.

for the impaired.

[Octafish]

91. I'm getting on in years...

...and that message is getting loud and clear. I didn't expect so many DUers to want to speed it along, though!

Thank you, zeemike, for giving a hoot about the planet and the nation. Not many are brave enough to stand up and notice the invisible clothes.

Someone else who's noticed: TUCRadio.org.

[Cleita]

18. I think we and the world at large need changes in leadership that

can take the bull by the horns and solve these global problems, not only this but global climate change, genocide, etc., etc.. All three branches of our government in Washington are a joke. The EU is a joke. The UN is a joke. The world, teetering on the edge of mass species extinctions, due to the activities of one species, ours, is not a joke.

[MineralMan]

22. We have the means to make those changes, Cleita.

We just argue among ourselves to much to actually do so. It's too bad, really.

No such global changes will happen at once. Not a chance. Instead, we must make those changes one leader at a time. We have the means to do that.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond! Elect the very best candidate who can win in every local, state, and national election. We can do that. If we do not, we do nothing, really.

[Cleita]

23. No we need strong and dare I say heroic leadership and we don't have it and we

wont as long as people believe in the fact that the system still works. It doesn't.

[MineralMan]

24. OK. Well, then, don't bother to participate.

We have the system we have. There is no "heroic leadership" that will alter the system we have.

We also do not have anything like an overwhelming agreement of opinion on much of anything at all in this country, much less in the world. There is as much opposition to your definition of what would be "heroic leadership" as there is support for it. There is no consensus in the United State, much less in the rest of the world, for anything at all.

What we have is a system that lets us all express our opinions and vote for those who will be in government. That's the best it's going to get, frankly. It's not a perfect system. There is no perfect system. Your "heroic leadership" is someone else's tyranny. And vice versa. That's why we have a political system that operates through mediating extremes. It's not perfect, but doesn't promise to be.

You and I, for example, agree on many things. We also disagree on many things. Which of us is correct? The answer is that neither of us is correct. We simply disagree, based on many reasons, on some things. Which of us is in charge? Neither of us is in charge. And that's a good thing.

[RobertEarl]

28. There was a hero

The man was head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

He stated, as you do, that nukes are not safe.

He was removed. You know this. Why must you be constantly be reminded?

We had heroic leadership. And he was crushed by the tyranny of the nuke establishment.

But it isn't about leadership. It IS about the denial of the science which states clearly that nukes are not safe.

[Cleita]

31. He needs to come out from the shadows.

So he's been removed from a government bureaucracy, it doesn't mean he has to shut up. As a matter of fact that should free him to be really honest about this. Our job will be to have his back and spread his message everywhere we can. I know it's not easy in this day of propaganda media, but we must find every way of doing it.

[RobertEarl]

37. He has come out

He was closeted while in the seat.

He was in charge here while Fukushima blew up. He saw the Truth and listened to the scientists who told him what was going on at Fukushima.

As soon as he started coming out, he was railroaded. Crushed.

His name is Jazcko. He has spoken the fact that the US has 30 nuke plants that need to be closed yesterday. But somehow this system, with its media, is ignoring him and the science.

Even here on DU he is ignored, so we have to keep reminding folks that there was a hero in the system. But the system crushed him.

[Cleita]

38. Heroism is not easy.

He needs to come out again and again and he needs his supporters to have his back and spread his message. He can't do it alone. Keep putting up the posts and the message.

[Cleita]

39. Also, I live downwind from a nuke plant sitting on three

earthquake faults that needs to be closed yesterday so I'm very sympathetic to any cause to do so. Although there are activists in the area they are few and ignored. They, like myself, are not leaders and this is what we need.

[RobertEarl]

40. Sen. Boxer is doing it

You can bet she's getting bombed. She's just another hero in a short list. We would all do well to help her resist being crushed. Notice how she came out against SONGS? She, and Sen. Wyden, are leading the way.

[Cleita]

41. Barbara is my hero and she accomplishes so much.

She also never ignores a constituent. I know. She always answers my concerns. She can't do it alone and I certainly do have her back on this.

[MineralMan]

32. The reasons we have nuclear power generation

are complex, and have little to do with one head of the NRC. They're partly economic in nature, and partly political. Having nuclear power generation benefited power companies economically. It also benefited our military during the cold war, since it provided a reason to go mine uranium ores in quantity. The nuclear power industry and the arms race with the former Soviet Union made production of fissionable Uranium isotopes a priority.

It's far more complicated that just the danger of radiation.

Still, facts work better than nonsense when arguing against nuclear power generation. Truly.

[RobertEarl]

42. Eh?

What's complicated about nukes not being safe?

Seems pretty simple to me.

Yes, they make nukes so they can blow other places to pieces. Duh, f'n duh.

So who was the smart ass that decided this was what we would spend billions of dollars on? And why would any sane person support such? All that does is feed into the conspiracy theory that the PTB want to rid the planet of most humans.

I stand totally, unequivocally opposed to all forms of nuclear power. It's the right thing to do, eh?

[MineralMan]

46. Yes, well, so do I. And my opposition and yours have had identical

results.

There was no single "smart ass" who decided any of this, to be quite frank. Nuclear armaments began to be developed under FDR. Nuclear power generation began under Eisenhower, and continued apace under JFK and Presidents thereafter. Both were opposed by many individuals and a few organizations. None were capable of ending either.

I stand opposed. You stand opposed. And yet, nuclear power generation continues. Fewer new plants are being built, and part of the reason for that is the opposition. Part of it is that they aren't economically superior to other power generation methods, as was promised early on.

There have been many, many nuclear weapons tests, including atmospheric ones. There have been some incidents with nuclear power plants. Both have released radioactive isotopes into the environment. The impact of that, globally, is not known, either real impact or theoretical impact. It may have caused, or may cause in the future, cancers, genetic changes, etc. Those may have caused, or may cause either minor or severe issues for humanity. We're not sure, yet, because not enough time has passed to observe the global effects.

In the meantime, our continuous release of carbon into the atmosphere is causing climate change. We know that. How bad the results o that may be, we're not sure, yet. It's the same thing, really. Both technologies are harmful to the environment and to humans. How harmful? Well, by the time we actually know that, it will be too late to prevent it.

Fukushima has causes some more man-made radioactive isotopes to enter the environment. That is not a good thing, obviously. Locally, near Japan, the impact will be real and fairly obvious in a rather short time. Globally? That's not so clear. The amount of the impact and its effects aren't known. They can't even be accurately estimated.

They may be large impacts or almost unnoticed. We do not know the answer to that, and won't for decades, at least.

Fukushima happened. It cannot be undone. Mitigating the continuing release is important, but will take years, if not decades. We can't change that, either. So what do we do?

Some will scream and shout and wave their arms madly. Others will shrug. In then end, neither group will change what has already happened. In the meantime, other nuclear power plants will continue to operate. In time, some of those will have events. All will produce radioactive waste which we don't know how to handle yet.

It's all bad. It should have been prevented. Some of us tried to prevent it. We failed. Now, we have the situation we have.

Here's what I think: I think we had better hope that those who are working on containing future releases from Fukushima succeed. I think we should continue to work toward stopping the building of new power plants and work toward shutting down the ones that are running. I think we should try to figure out what to do with the waste all of that will generate.

I don't think we should write false information in our efforts. I don't think we should ever do that. I think we should write truthful information that is not exaggerated or blown up beyond reality. I think those who do that damage the efforts of those who are trying to slow down and shut down this industry. Every exaggeration ends up being exposed for what it is. Every lie gets exposed as untrue. Each time that happens, some people will use those exaggerations and lies to point at those who are simply relaying the truth and to call them liars as well.

You will do as you please. I will ask you not to do that, each time you overstate, exaggerate, or spread false information. I suspect we will be at an impasse.

[RobertEarl]

47. You are so wishy washy

One one hand you state that nukes are dangerous and then you state we don't know they are dangerous.

You really are the one who is helping nukes continue to operate.

So please stop handing out your bullshit about how I am hurting your cause.

[MineralMan]

48. No, I am not.

But, please proceed...

[RobertEarl]

51. Yes you are

You stand on shaky ground.

You make false, unfounded claims about me, and here you are talking off both sides of your keyboard.

"Nukes are not safe" but "we don't know what radiation will cause".

Jeeez, there is tons of science that radiation is the cause of many maladies. You can't have it both ways, no matter how much your heart desires it.

Just stop.

[MineralMan]

53. 'Just stop.'

Thanks for the order. I think I'll ignore it.

[madrchsod]

102. another reason nuclear power plants are no longer viable...insurance

no insurance company will cover new construction. the only way to cover the cost of insurance is to pass the cost to the consumer. the last figure i read it would cost 10-15 billion to build a plant,somewhere in the range of 5-10 billion in insurance costs,and up to 15 years to build. i found this tidbit of information interesting .there is one forging plant in the world that can make the containment vessels. at the time i read this article the back log was 5yrs.

[FBaggins]

104. Sorry... that's almost entirely wrong.

New construction is covered by insurance. Yes, that's "passed on to the consumer", but that's true for any type of power generation. 10-15 billions would build mutliple reactors... the cost for a "plant" depends on the number of reactors and the type. It doesn't take anywhere near 15 years to build the average reactor...

I don't know where you got the idea that only one plant in the world makes containment vessels. They tend to be construted on-site. You may be thinking of reactor pressure vessels... but even that would not be true. They're produced in quite a number of places and several forges can handle them (one company in Japan, two in China, one in Russia, and new forging capacity with those requirements is under construction in Japan, China, S.Korea, France, Russia, and the Czech Republic (and more planned in the UK and India).

[MineralMan]

106. That's true, too.

I don't anticipate many new reactors in the US, if any at all. It's just not economically or socially feasible any longer. The new push is in the direction of alternatives.

[FBaggins]

109. If any at all?

You mean... apart from the five currently under construction, and the Bellefonte plant still scheduled to resume construction when Watts Barr 2 is complete?

[MineralMan]

110. Looking forward.

Are there any in the planning stages now? I don't know.

So I checked.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/new-reactor-map.html

Apparently there are. I stand corrected. Still, all of those plant applications date from 2007 or 2008. I don't see any more recent applications on the list there.

[FBaggins]

111. Plenty in the planning stages... but not as many as you'll see there.

Several of the ones on that graphic are just this side of dead... at least until gas prices climb and economic recovery make future demand more visible. I don't expect much movement for at least 2-3 years as the four new design units approach completion (making timelines and cost estimates more certain)... though the first couple SMR designs may start something once the NRC gives them a green light.

[Cleita]

29. Oh, I participate all right.

The only presidential candidate that wouldn't have gotten a hold your nose vote from me through my lifetime was John F. Kennedy, but I was four month's shy of my twenty first birthday then. You had to be twenty one back then to vote.

I'm not talking about our weak and corrupt governments. I'm talking about movement leadership from outside the system. Back in the sixties all the major changes in civil rights, women's rights and workers rights were done from outside the system with real leaders. Sure many of them went into politics after like Tom Hayden, but did not begin by pandering to the system.

We need that now, globally.

[MineralMan]

33. OK. You work on that.

I'll work on electing the best possible candidates that can win in the existing system. We're both old. We choose our battles.

[mylye2222]

25. In 1986, in France

after the Chernobyl disaster occured, our governement lied to us in the way the Japan one is acting now. For us, they told the cloud has stopped by itself at our borders. Despites the fact that all the others EU countries had taken safety disposition ( telling poeple not to eat the vegetables from their garden, etc) French pople believed. They were scientists who had created an independant Research center, who had faces death treads for years. There are many citizen of ours who had develloped mass cancers and never get compensation despite claims and legal processes.

And now sadly, the history repeats itself.

[snooper2]

27. someone found some new words on the Intertubes LOL

"46. Dose comparisons to bananas and other natural sources are absurd and misleading as the myriad isotopes from reactor fallout will impose very different biological impacts for centuries to come in a wide range of ecological settings."

[Octafish]

92. That's what idiots do.

They work to obfuscate, hide and ridicule. Smart people can see through them and their "arguments."

[Shivering Jemmy]

30. This article needs citations

Or it's not worth anything.

[Octafish]

34. Sorry. The original has links to supporting documentation.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/03-3

[marions ghost]

35. Where there's heat, there's fire

Thanks for keeping this topic alive Octafish, in spite of all the nay-sayers and know-it-alls it attracts. I notice they never address this:
-------

At least 300 tons of radioactive water continue to pour into the ocean at Fukushima every day, according to official estimates made prior to such data having been made a state secret.

39. To the extent they can be known, the quantities and make-up of radiation pouring out of Fukushima are also now a state secret, with independent measurement or public speculation punishable by up to ten years in prison.

[closeupready]

36. As long as you exclude bananas, you'll be okay.

And plutonium and radiation sickness are invisible ... like air!

[dbackjon]

43. So much fail in this screed.

Let's start with: If there was no "safe dose of radiation" we'd all be dead.

We are all exposed to radiation, 24/7. Obviously, we have evolved to handle some level of radiation.

[Octafish]

85. The Implications of The Massive Contamination of Japan With Radioactive Cesium

No. People need to learn what they don't get on tee vee. For instance, how it relates to the "no safe dose" idea, details from a guy who does understand the medicine and science:

The Implications of The Massive Contamination of Japan With Radioactive Cesium

Steven Starr
Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Director, University of Missouri, Clinical Laboratory Science Program
Helen Caldicott Foundation Fukushima Symposium
New York Academy of Medicine, 11 March 2013

EXCERPT...

There is however strong evidence that the ingestion of these levels of so-called “low-dose” radiation are, in fact, particularly injurious to children. Research done by Dr. Yuri Bandazhevsky, and his colleagues and students, in Belarus during the period 1991 through 1999, correlated whole body radiation levels of 10 to 30 Becquerels per kilogram of whole body weight with abnormal heart rhythms and levels of 50 Becquerels per kilogram of body weight with irreversible damage to the tissues of the heart and other vital organs.

One of the key discoveries made by Bandazhevsky was that Cesium-137 bioconcentrates in the endocrine and heart tissues, as well as the pancreas, kidneys and intestines. This goes completely against one of the primary assumptions used by the ICRP to calculate “effective dose” as measured by milliseiverts: that Cesium-137 is uniformly distributed in human tissues.

Let me restate that. The current ICRP methodology is to assume that the absorbed dose is uniformly distributed in human tissues. This is, in fact, not the case.

This table, taken from Bandazhevsky’s “Chronic Cs-137 incorporation in children’s organs,” compares the radioactivity measured in 13 organs of 6 infants. Very high specific activity, that is, levels of radioactivity, often 10 times higher than in other organs and tissues were found in the pancreas, thyroid, adrenal glands, heart, and intestinal walls.



CONTINUED...

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/StevenStarr.html

Sorry, I'm no expert -- just a lowly reporter, relaying something I thought would be of interest.

[stevenleser]

87. Here are the geiger counter readings in the Fukushima area and further north. VERY low

http://radiationnetwork.com/Japan.htm

There is no massive contamination of Japan with Cesium.

[dbackjon]

88. I do understand radiation

It is apparent you missed the point.


We are exposed to radiation daily. From the Sun. From the decay of radioactive elements in the earth.

That lovely granite countertop in your kitchen - radioactive (some more than others, depending on the source).

[Octafish]

93. Thanks.

Good luck!

[FBaggins]

44. A magnificent example of the Gish Gallop

Harvey should stick to areas where he retains some credibility.

[RobertEarl]

50. Hahaha

You talking about credibility?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4274437

Eh, FB, core not hot?
Everything that gets close to the corium melts. Say FB, where is the corium? You don't know do you? If you did you'd tell us wouldn't you?

But you do say there is "There's no evidence that it's "hot". Eh? Wtf? No evidence the nuclear reactor core is hot? You did not write that!! Oh, wait, yes you did!!

Time for you to retire, Mr. "There's no evidence that it's (the melted nuclear reactor core) "hot". Good gawd almighty!! Unfucking believable the twisted phrases you write, eh?

in response to this from FB

FBaggins (12,506 posts)
25. Nobody is challenging that there have been intermittent whisps of vapor

Incorrect to call it "steam"... but that's another discussion.

What seems to be the case is that the blown up reactor's melted core is contacting water.

Ah... nope. It only means that water is contacting a warm surface. The core has been "contacting water" for years now (since they've been pouring water in there all along).

And the reason they do that is the core is still hot.

There's no evidence that it's "hot". The temperature has been measured and reported in there for years now... and hasn't been anywhere close to boiling in quite some time. But it certainly has been high enough to put off a visible "steam" at the right temperature and humidity. Note that these "steam" events have reportedly always followed rain.

That's your science lesson for the day, Baggins.

And here's yours - note that the surface doesn't need to be anywhere close to the boiling point of water (let alone the melting point of uranium)

[FBaggins]

52. You continue to point to threads that make you look foolish

BY all means... keep doing so. You'll only increase the impression of the real anti-nukes here that you are a pro-nuclear sock puppet.



You seriously think that the corium is still in a liquid state?

Tell me... what happened to the corium at Chernobyl... with no ongoing supply of water at all?

[RobertEarl]

56. It's ok "Cores are not hot", Baggins

I am not a puppet for the nukes. But you just keep on believing that.

Meanwhile the rest of us will attempt to save the planet from nuclear waste which will last thousands of years.

All we can do at this point, tho, is hope we find a way to neutralize the waste, and in the meantime neuter the nuke lovers who are making excuses for the unsafe nukes.

[FBaggins]

61. Wouldn't a sock puppet say that?

Whether you do it intentionally or not... the effect is the same (to make legitimate nuclear opponents look ridiculous).

[RobertEarl]

63. That's all you got?

You have been boiled down to that innocuous phrasing?

You put yourself up as an expert, yet you are reduced to mumbling something about the nuclear cores are not hot. It's right there, in your own words. So why would anybody believe anything else you might be mumbling about?

[FBaggins]

67. Nope. I've got much more than that.

You put yourself up as an expert, yet you are reduced to mumbling something about the nuclear cores are not hot.

Not "mumbling"... a straightforward statement of fact. They are not "hot" in the sense that you believe. They are not still liquid and burning their way through the Earth. They aren't even hot enough to boil water.

What I've "got" is dozens of examples of your ongoing nuttiness drawn from UFO and other woo sites.

[Octafish]

55. Every point Wasserman makes is sourced.

Sorry, I didn't write that in the OP:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/03-3

What there, specifically, do you disagree with?

[FBaggins]

59. GIGO

His sources are largely worthless.

What there, specifically, do you disagree with?

Lol! You think I don't see the gallop coming after I already identified it? I pick a few and you go round and round and then point out that there are 45 that I haven't addressed.

As with all such gallops, they range from accurate but misapplied (4&5 and 29-31 for instance)... to outright falsehoods (21,25)... to the ridiculous (42)

[Octafish]

62. So, you're too busy to do more than smear the article.

Gotcha.

[stevenleser]

69. That's the point of a Gish Gallop. Throw so much nonsense out there people dont have the time to

look up the information to refute it.

[Octafish]

76. Thank you for explaining.

My intention was to share an interesting article from Harvey Wasserman.

People can call it or me Gish Gallop, I won't mind.

[FBaggins]

70. Lol!

You don't get the whole "Gish Gallop" thing... do you?

You can't defend it by insisting that others go along for the ride. I gave you several examples... that's more than sufficient.

[Octafish]

75. So, it's my fault for sharing an interesting article.

I'll be sure to try and remember your illuminating discourse.

[FBaggins]

84. Well... only to the extent that posting a similar 9/11 conspiracy gallop would be your fault.

Which is to say... "yes".

[Octafish]

86. No need to smear, just show where I'm wrong and I'll apologize.

As for your problem: I'm sorry. There's nothing I will write to help you.

[FBaggins]

89. Show where you're wrong?

You just spent a couple posts distancing yourself from the nonsense... you just wanted to post something interesting.

So how would I show that you were wrong?

[Vashta Nerada]

118. Yeah, a lot of those sources are from woo and conspiracy theory websites.

Nice try.

[Octafish]

119. Really? Name one.

Here's a link to Harvey Wasserman and links to the sources for his 50:

http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/02/50-reasons-fear-fukushima/

Name the ones that are "woo and conspiracy theory websites."

[Vashta Nerada]

121. Ecowatch, for one.

rat hause -- woo
GreenMedInfo -- woo
owndoc.com -- woo
nukefree.org -- conspiracy
naturalnews.com -- woo

Shall I keep going?

OP has no credibility. Not you, but what you posted.

[Octafish]

128. You don't know Harvey Wasserman.

He stands on the front line. Stood up against the Stolen Election of 2000 fraud by documenting the criminality. Stood up against the electronic vote fraud in Ohio 2004 by documenting the criminality. Stood up to war criminals who lied America into war in Iraq. Stood up to the banksters and warmongers of Big Science who've ripped off the US Treasury to the tune of trillions for atomic power. That Harvey Wasserman, the guy who is editor of nukefree.org and writes for The Progressive, let alone understand the economic consequences four years before the disaster. That Harvey Wasserman?

[NuclearDem]

129. Which has absolutely ZERO bearing on the credibility of his claims here.

But there you go again, tying any disagreement with people like Caldicott and Wasserman to being anti-transparency or anti-democracy.

For someone who spends an awful amount of energy trying to point out smears and attacks against them, you seem to utilize a lot of the same tactics as the propagandists you accuse everyone else of being.

It's hypocritical, disingenuous, and just downright nauseating, and for you to keep any sort of credibility on these issues, it has to stop.

[SidDithers]

131. Wasserman is using info from naturalnews?...

OMFG.



Sid

[Vashta Nerada]

132. Yes he is.

For his source at #38.

http://www.naturalnews.com/041610_fukushima_radioactive_leak_state_of_emergency.html

So much for credibility.

[SidDithers]

133. "So much for credibility." For Wasserman and for the OP...nt

Sid

[Vashta Nerada]

134. Indeed.

The rest of the sources I pointed out are all woo as well, on par with Natural News.

[stevenleser]

49. And the one conclusive reason why you shouldn't...

http://radiationnetwork.com/

[Common Sense Party]

57. But what about the starfish???

[RobertEarl]

58. What about the starfish?

What do you know except they are dying off in what the scientists say is a wasting disease? And they still don't know why?

You show a lack of common sense even bringing this up. Why do that?

Are you a believer in the "nukes are safe party"?

[Common Sense Party]

60. What do you KNOW about the starfish?

Not suspect. Not guess. Not fear.

What do you KNOW?

[RobertEarl]

65. Starfish eat mussels.

Mussels in the pacific have been found to have plutonium in them. The Department of Energy, of the USA, is the source of the finding of plutonium in the mussels.


For more education, see this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4393361

[FBaggins]

68. And as has been pointed out to you multiple times...

... the plutonium wasn't from Fukushima.

[Common Sense Party]

71. Plutonium from where? Naturally occurring or man-made?

Plutonium-239? 240? What levels?

[FBaggins]

72. Man-made

The samples were taken close to where nuclear bomb testing used to occur... and the plutonium levels were consistently lower than the last time they checked. So obviously they weren't from Fukushima.

There have only been a couple cases where any plutonium has been identified that could have come from Fukushima... and they were comparatively close to the reactors.

[RobertEarl]

99. Plutonium from nuclear reactions

Very little natural plutonium exists on this planet.

Here is a report and link to more info about plutonium found by the DoE.
In this report from the DOEnergy, US government, it is described why they test for radioisotopes, where they test, when they test and some test findings. Note the bolded listing for plutonium found in the mussels that were tested. This finding confirms the idea that plutonium can be passed up the food chain to the starfish.


Department of Energy: Biological Monitoring at Amchitka Appears to Show Impacts from Fukushima Dai-ichi Incident The U.S. Department of Energy Office Legacy Management (LM) has a long-term stewardship mission to protect human health and the environment from the legacy of underground nuclear testing conducted at Amchitka Island, Alaska, from 1965 to 1971. Atmospheric monitoring in the United States showed elevated cesium activities shortly after the nuclear incident. LM scientists anticipated that atmospheric transport of cesium would potentially increase the cesium activities in the 2011 biological samples collected near Amchitka. Because cesium-134 has a relatively short half-life of 2 years and indicates leakage from a nuclear reactor, it is a clear indicator of a recent nuclear accident Because the Amchitka 2011 sampling event occurred soon after the Fukushima nuclear accident, the biota impacted by atmospheric precipitation showed the greatest impact (e.g., species that live in freshwater or shallow ocean waters) when compared to marine biota living in deeper water. This is because ocean currents are a slower transport process than wind currents. LM scientists anticipate that the marine biota will show the impacts of Fukushima during the next sampling event, currently scheduled to occur in 2016.

Table 10. Descriptive Statistics for 234U 28 times Min Detectable Concentrations

* Plutonium-239 — .039 pCi/kg Dolly Varden
* Plutonium-239 — .186 pCi/kg Goose Egg no shell
* Plutonium-239 — .104 pCi/kg Gull egg
* Plutonium-239 — .298 pCi/kg Chiton
* Plutonium-239 — .093 pCi/kg Dragon Kelp
* Plutonium-239 — .084 pCi/kg Rockweed
* Plutonium-239 — .379 pCi/kg Greeling
* Plutonium-239 — .038 pCi/kg Halibut
* Plutonium-239 — 4.194 pCi/kg Horse Mussel tissue
* Plutonium-239 — .378 pCi/kg Irish Lord
* Plutonium-239 — .036 pCi/kg Octopus
* Plutonium-239 — .05 pCi/kg Pacific Cod
* Plutonium-239 — .279 pCi/kg Rockfish
* Plutonium-239 — .152 pCi/kg Reindeer Lichen
* Plutonium-239 — .195 pCi/kg Sea Urchin



US Gov’t: Alaska island “appears to show impacts from Fukushima” — “Significant cesium isotope signature” detected — Scientists anticipate more marine life to be impacted as ocean plume arrives

http://enenews.com/us-govt-headline-alaska-island-appears-to-show-impacts-from-fukushima-significant-cesium-isotope-signature-detected-video

[FBaggins]

105. But not from Fukushima

Plutonium levels were declining and none of them were attributed to Fukushima. Isotopic ratios made clear that it was from nuclear testing (which is what you should expect since this is where the testing took place and it's why they were looking there).

[FBaggins]

66. What do we know?

We know that the disease began before Fukushima melted down.
We know that it hasn't been spotted in starfish close to Fukushima (where the fuku-radiation was many times higher)
We know that it occurs on the East Coast of the US as well (where fuku-radiation is orders of magnitude lower than even the almost nonexistent levels on the West Coast)
We know that already-existing levels of radionuclides in their environment are many MANY times higher than anything they could have received from Fukushima.

In short... we know that it's as ridiculous as claiming that Fukushima is heating up the Pacific ocean... changing the color of your sky...killing tens of thousands of babies in the Pacific NW... or that the government is trying to control your thoughts with HAARP brainwaves and chemtrails.

[FBaggins]

108. What we know - take two

Woods Hole just reported last week on their sampling off the coast. I'll repost here since you can't comment on the other thread:

Search online for information on Pacific Ocean radiation from Fukushima, and the search results fill up with fear filled claims the Ocean is burning up from the radiation, and we're all about to die. On Tuesday, initial results were announced by an effort organized by the Woods Hole Institute showing trace amounts of Cesium-137 and other radioactive elements in the Pacific, at levels scientists say

...snip...

Seeing this, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute is hoping to organize dozens of seawater sampling sites along the western coast of North America. They've launched a website, Our Radioactive Ocean, which is crowdfunding an an organization which will do the necessary radiation monitoring necessary to bring the light of truth to this problem.

The current funding has supported seawater sampling at 8 sites from the Seattle area down to San Diego.

In all cases the level of Cesium-134 is below detection, and while Cesium-137 is detectable its concentration is about 1.3 Bq per cubic meters. That Cesium-137 concentration is exactly the level that's left over from atomic bomb testing in the 1950's. Meaning the scientists have yet to detect any radioactive material from Fukushima on the US West Coast.

http://www.examiner.com/article/woods-hole-detects-only-1950-s-a-bomb-radiation-fukushima-plume-yet-to-arrive

OTOH... maybe the starfish a quiverring with irrational fear over what the fuku-radiation will do to them when it does get there... leaving them in a state of more-than-rhetorical goo.

It happens here often enough. Why not in the sea?

[Octafish]

115. Thanks. But Geiger counters don't tell the whole story.

Geiger counters do not detail what radionuclide is creating the radiation they measure. There may be a low reading, but the reading may be from a microscopic particle of a deadly substance, like plutonium, americicum, strontium, or cesium.

Dr. Andy Kanter, MD, MPH, President of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Social Responsibility, has studied radioactive plume projections from nuclear reactor accident scenarios and other public health impacts of nuclear radiation dispersion. He is the director of Health Information Systems/Medical Informatics for the Millennium Villages Project for the Earth Institute at Columbia University as well as an Asst. Prof. for Clinical Biomedical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology at Columbia University.

“Even a single hot particle consumed or inhaled into the body can cause a cancer.”

SOURCE (w video, links): http://www.infiniteunknown.net/tag/andy-kanter/

Steven Starr explains the dangers of ingesting a hot particle.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/StevenStarr.html

BTW: While the network of government affiliated Geiger counters is reassuring, journalists know it's a mistake to trust one source of information.

[catbyte]

73. WOW

[Octafish]

79. Wasserman put together a very important compilation...

The original article has links to what he asserts:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/03-3

As Corporate McPravda won't address Fukushima, my point in posting isn't to instill fear, rather to incite action:
Washington needs to address the issue -- scientifically, transparently and democratically -- immediately.

[NuclearDem]

74. Goddamnit, not this crap again.

[Octafish]

77. No need to get angry. It's a different article.

See? Plutonium from Fukushima is a global catastrophe

Quick Question from the What's-In-A-Name Department: Your paycheck wouldn't happen to depend on nuclear energy, would it, NuclearDem?

[NuclearDem]

78. Terrific.

No, I've happened to have nuclear in my user names since I was 12. Haven't changed because it's just easier to remember.

It's irrelevant, since I've been quite clear that I'm opposed to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. I just keep my skepticism grounded in reality and not hysteria.

Nice try though. Can't defend your sources without resorting to name calling and logical fallacies.

[Octafish]

80. Since you were 12?

How long ago was that?

And here have I called you by any other name than "NuclearDem"?

Won't make any defense for logical fallacies, yours or mine.

[NuclearDem]

81. 13 years ago. And no, my only DU username has been NuclearDem.

Email addresses and other forums long before DU as well have had the word in it.

But enough about me. I've been quite clear about my opposition to nuclear energy, but as with all other topics, anyone that doesn't subscribe to the extremes of your arguments must obviously be an agent of the industry or the surveillance state.

[Octafish]

96. You're no expert on nuclear meltdowns? Not quite what I got out of it.

It's a relief, really, going by the near-50 messages you posted in support of nuclear energy re Fukushima. That must clearly be a coincidence.

[NuclearDem]

98. What a bunch of crap. I in no way defended nuclear energy.

I pointed out how Caldicott's rhetoric exaggerated the dangers of plutonium and how your sources were complete bunk, and you subsequently danced around it by accusing me of a being an industry shill and being anti-democratic or anti-transparency. That's not a defense of nuclear energy, it's a defense of good science.

Not all radiation is going to kill you. How you construe that as a defense of the nuclear energy industry is beyond me.

[Octafish]

114. They're your words.

Maybe you forgot. Here's Reply #51:

I'm not even a particularly big fan of nuclear power, but the bullshit being spewed by more than a few here is doing the argument against nuclear power absolutely zero favors.

BTW: I read what I wrote, too. I never accused you of being anything.

[NuclearDem]

117. And yet I've said here and elsewhere that I'm opposed to nuclear energy.

And it still remains that the dishonesty, exaggeration, and hysteria of the anti-nuclear fringe is doing rational skeptics like me absolutely no favors.

[Octafish]

120. Correct. However, you were saying something else there and then...

...from what you're saying now. Which is my point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. You know why I keep myself away from threads like this one?

The bullshit you just pulled with another poster.

Now I will start to trash them. You and Robert can become a circle for all I care. Thanks to you guys this subject is in the exact same category as I/P subjects as far as DU is concerned.

Have a good one.

Now off to the trash with this.

I know, I know, this means I must magically have become, without my knowledge of course, a fan of the nuclear industry. Don't bother, this thread is now going to the trash.

[NuclearDem]

125. No I wasn't.

That you read it like that is your problem.

I am not a proponent of nuclear energy. I wasn't then, and I'm not now.

[One_Life_To_Give]

82. A Free Press

Bikini Island, Soviet Union etc. all had tight control over access and the freedom of an independent press to move about.
Geiger Counters are $50 and Dosimeter badges are substantially less.

Just about anyone with a little motivation can go out and get their own personal readings from the surrounding perimeter. And it appears just about anyone can get within 20km of the site now that Tamura and Kawauchi had their evac order lifted. Assuming somehow the Gov't prevents any journalist from verifying the 8mSv at the Fuku Plant fence. Similarly Marine vessel traffic has not been restricted outside of 20km and any vessel could have taken samples of the water at any time.

Compared to the restrictions placed by the Soviets following Chernobyl. 20km Security zone with no press allowed. Kiev locked down from reporters and reporters forbidden to interview evacuees. http://www.penelopeironstone.com/Rubin.pdf

Not enough information, too late in coming etc. Certainly we get this from Western Gov'ts as well. But unlike military bases we have a public and press that is mobile and educated. Makes it more difficult to lie to people when quantifiable facts are easily verified and corroborated.

[Octafish]

97. Hit democracy right in the lede.

Thank you, One_Life_To_Give.

The free press is the only business mentioned by name in the entire Constitution because justice, the republic and democracy depend on it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

83. Like flies to honey. Good job. K&R n/t

[Octafish]

124. Check out the New York Academy of Medicine conference...

http://www.nyam.org/events/2013/2013-03-11.html

Some or a lot of which is online:

www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fukushima%20New%20York%20Academy%20of%20Medicine&sm=3

If any of the flies ever feel like lifting a wingtip to CONTRIBUTE, they can find a link to the whole thing.

Notice how they never do, Dude. They are dud DUers.

[FBaggins]

126. There was no NYAM conference.

There was a woo conference held at NYAM's conference center... but not sponsored (let alone endorsed) by them.

[Octafish]

130. So what? It's their stationery.

Official NYAM: http://www.nyam.org/events/2013/2013-03-11.html

Doubt they'd turn away money from Nobel Prize winners and Harvard professors talking about the health effects of the Fukushima Disaster.

So. What conferences on the health effects of Fukushima and nuclear radiation have you brought to our attention, FBaggins?

[FBaggins]

135. Their stationary?

You mean... the website where they track the events that occur in their facility? That's an endorsement?

Take a look at some of the other events on the same site. They say explicitly when they're the sponsor. This one is Caldicott's own club.

Doubt they'd turn away money from

They won't turn away money from anyone that wants to rent the facility. You want to get married there? Fine. Just don't call it the "New York Academy of Medicine Wedding" or imply that they approved the color of your tuxedo.

Nobel Prize winners

??? Surely you're not referring to Caldicott?

Harvard professors

Professors of something relevant to the topic? Or decades-ago professors of pediatrics?

So. What conferences on the health effects of Fukushima and nuclear radiation have you brought to our attention, FBaggins?

I try to limit myself to the relevant ones. The Health Physics Society (and Japanese HPS)... UNSCEAR... NCRP... etc. You know... mostly people with PhD's and decades of experience in relevant fields.

[Egalitarian Thug]

127. That's not what flies do, as you well know.

They are annoying, they buzz incessantly, and they live on shit for a short time. Besides making maggots, that's the purpose for their existence.

[frwrfpos]

94. excellent post

Im glad the light is shining brightly on the nuclear power industry.

[Octafish]

123. Thank you. The One Big Thing... ''US RADIATION PANEL RECOGNIZES: NO SAFE RADIATION DOSE''

It's a PDF, but it's worth grabbing from Nuclear Resource and Information Service, a democratic bunch if ever there was one:

http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radtech/nosafedose072005.pdf

[Logical]

95. About once a week we get one of these. But nothing on the MSM. The MSM loved Chernobyl and TMI......

wonder why this is not getting coverage!

[RobertEarl]

100. Here's some news

Not from the M$M, but still news to many

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101683651

University of Alaska Scientists: Fukushima Radiation May Be Making Alaska Seals Sick
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/fukushima-radiation-may-making-alaska-seals-sick.html

University of Alaska Scientists: Fukushima Radiation May Be Making Alaska Seals Sick
Posted on January 26, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog

Is Fukushima Radiation Making West Coast Wildlife Sick?

American sailors on the USS Reagan got really sick after having snowball fights with radioactive snow blowing off of the coasts of Fukushima.

University of Alaska professors Doug Dasher, John Kelley, Gay Sheffield, and Raphaela Stimmelmayr theorize that radioactive snow might have also caused Alaska’s seals to become sick (page 222):

On March 11, 2011 off Japan’s west coast, an earthquake-generated tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant resulting in a major nuclear accident that included a large release of airborne radionuclides into the environment. Within five days of the accident atmospheric air masses carrying Fukushima radiation were transiting into the northern Bering and Chukchi seas. During summer 2011 it became evident to coastal communities and wildlife management agencies that there was a novel disease outbreak occurring in several species of Arctic ice-associated seals. Gross symptoms associated with the disease included lethargy, no new hair growth, and skin lesions, with the majority of the outbreak reports occurring between the Nome and Barrow region. NOAA and USFWS declared an Alaska Northern Pinnipeds Usual Mortality Event (UME) in late winter of 2011. The ongoing Alaska 2011 Northern Pinnipeds UME investigation continues to explore a mix of potential etiologies (infectious, endocrine, toxins, nutritious etc.), including radioactivity. Currently, the underlying etiology remains undetermined . We present results on gamma analysis (cesium 134 and 137) of muscle tissue from control and diseased seals, and discuss wildlife health implications from different possible routes of exposure to Fukushima fallout to ice seals. Since the Fukushima fallout period occurred during the annual sea ice cover period from Nome to Barrow, a sea ice based fallout scenario in addition to a marine food web based one is of particular relevance for the Fukushima accident. Under a proposed sea ice fallout deposition scenario, radionuclides would have been settled onto sea ice. Sea ice and snow would have acted as a temporary refuge for deposited radionuclides; thus radionuclides would have only become available for migration during the melting season and would not have entered the regional food web in any appreciable manner until breakup (pulsed release). The cumulative on-ice exposure for ice seals would have occurred through external, inhalation, and non-equilibrium dietary pathways during the ice-based seasonal spring haulout period for molting/pupping/breeding activities. Additionally, ice seals would have been under dietary/metabolic constraints and experiencing hormonal changes associated with reproduction and molting.

[Logical]

101. Do you remember the coverage of TMI? nt

[RobertEarl]

103. Barely

But what I recall was a whitewash.