Skip to main content

View Diary: Update on Fukushima Radionuclides in the North Pacific and Off the West Coast of North America (31 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Update on Fukushima Radionuclides (0+ / 0-)

    Once again Jay Cullen is comparing external sources of radiation like x-rays to internal sources of radiation which have a very different effect on the body.  This is an argument and line that is s consistently being peddled by those whom I believe,  are using a false analogy of external radiation sources and comparing it to internal ingested radiation.  They also falsely employ comparisons of bananas to to cesium.  While bananas leave the human body, cesium stays within the muscles of the human body.  In my opinion this comprises tortured science.

    A Japanese professor answers these arguments in a long letter he wrote urging parents not to send exchange students to Japan because of the widespread nature of food contamination there.

    The same thing that holds true in Japan holds true elsewhere as  Russian scientist recently warned.  You cannot test and check entire catches of fish.  And fish is coming from all over the ocean.  Heavy elements and metals deposit in ocean sediment.  These fish and shellfish can have higher levels of cesium, strontium 90 and other heavy elements and metals like zinc.

    Another issue  Cullen bypasses altogether is strontium 90, plutonium and other radioactive  elements that have been released into the ocean for which there have been no studies done.    It is very difficult to check  for strontinum 90.  The Japanese have reported it takes a month to do an entire test so they don't do it as often on their fish catches. But yet much of the leak material flowing into the ocean is now strontinum 90 although it is a lower amount than cesium and could t ake much longer to reach the West Coast.

    Also, the amount of radioactivity in seawater is not necessarily a measurement of the amount of radioactivity in either ocean sediment or ocean fish. I'dlike to know the specific places that seawater was checked and if other checks were made as well and ocean sediment and varoius kinds of bottom dwelling fish.  

    Jay Cullen is a marine scientist, he is not a physician or medical  doctor.  I don't believe he can prescribe what is or what is not say, he can only offer an opinion. Meanwhile, the EPA and FDA have both acknowledged that there is no safe level of radiation.

    More recently, a very large epidemological study of thousands of radiation studies was done by a Cambridge researcher and reported in Science News Daily.  This research concluded there is no safe threshold of radiation.  This research follows other large epidemological studies now being made.

    Jay Cullen quotes Nicholas Fisher in a previous statement he submitted to a newspaper in British Columbia which did  not print various letters to the editor which were submitted in rebuttal.  Nicholas Fisher, too, is worried about the "alarmist nature" of the press he states in a research article he published last year. In this article Fisher holds out t he Health Physics Society as an organization which states we shouldn't be concerned about radiation. The new President of the Health Physics Society is an individual who worked at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, a DOE lab on the Hanford radiation studies commissioned by the Center for Disease Control. This study was commissioned to study thyroid disease and other illness of  the Hanford and Washington victims of the goverments secret  release of readioactive iodine C131 done in the Cold War period when the Human Radiation studies were secretly conducted.  The study concluded there was no real link between the thyroid cancer found in the victims and the government's release of iodine.  The President of the Health Physics Society worked in the lab that produced this report.  There was a huge hue and cry over the report which was withdrawn and had to be redone after it was critiqued for having underestimated the amount of radioactive iodine released by 3 times.  The report cost us $14 million.  Other scientific results which disagreed with the conclusion were burried in the report and the research had to be  redone by the CDC.  Meanwhile, they found many participants in the study who they later contacted had died at a level of 20% higher than the general p population.

    All these researchers are tied together in my opinion from what I have seen  by politics.   Their positions and arguments are not free of their political beliefs.  If a person takes the time to investigate more closely, you sometimes find they are linked directly to the Defence policy of the US government and the political  line of the present US administration which is pushing nuclear power heavily.  No surprises as the nuclear industry was oneBarack Obama's biggest campaign supporter.   Obama continues the policy only interrupted briefly by the Clinton administration,  not to release studies about the effects of radiation on humans. That is why most of the secret Human Radiation studies done by higher universities as well as the CIA, remain classified for decades still.

    •  Hi torturedscience (0+ / 0-)

      This is a very aggressive post. I stick to reporting the data being collected in the ocean and marine organisms.  I compare this data to established public health guidelines, for example drinking water standards, to gauge what health risks the people living on the west coast might face. I have never presented myself as a medical doctor so I am not sure why you mention that in your post (my handle is MarineChemist which I think makes my training rather obvious). My goal is to report what we know about radionuclides from Fukushima in the marine environment and to help put the risk in perspective.

      You can see where all of the data mentioned in this post was collected and all the other references I provide by following the links and reading them.

      Can you tell me what "low levels" of radiation led to the negative health impacts in the Cambridge study you cite? The paper in question is Moller and Mousseau 2013 Biological Reviews as reported on by Science Daily News.  You say

      More recently, a very large epidemological study of thousands of radiation studies was done by a Cambridge researcher and reported in Science News Daily.  This research concluded there is no safe threshold of radiation.  This research follows other large epidemological studies now being made.
      If you read the paper they actually consider 46 studies and not thousands. They are detecting effects using meta-analysis at exposures of 0.01-0.1 Sv.  These levels are orders of magnitude higher than a North American would be exposed to by choosing to consume ~25 kg of contaminated tuna in a year.  That is internalizing fish with ~10 Bq/kg Cs-137.

      I can't speak to any of your theories of conspiracy or political meddling in science and science funding.  You should really lobby your government to support high quality work like Buesseler's and to provide a solid monitoring program so that we know what is happening along our shared coast.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site