It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New gov’t study finds Fukushima radiation in US marine life

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy
You said "I know people." So. No actual data. Stories.


I guess I was just lucky then.

Maybe if I had radiation therapy I would have room to talk I guess?

In encouraging news, a research letter estimates that modern radiation therapy techniques are less likely to cause heart problems than radiation therapy techniques used 20 or more years ago.

Source: Breastcancer.org
That refers to heart problems associated to radiation therapy that isn't as modern. Specifically breast cancer, which, if my knowledge of human anatomy is sufficient, involves the torso.

Skin scarring:

The following breast cancer treatments can cause scar tissue to form:

surgeryradiation therapy


Breastcancer.org

Maybe you were lucky.... eh?
edit on b000000312016-03-05T19:16:31-06:0007America/ChicagoSat, 05 Mar 2016 19:16:31 -0600700000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy



Skin scarring:

I have several scars. One big one from the staging surgery before any therapy. Others from things having nothing to do with cancer or treatment.

I don't worry much about any of them.





edit on 3/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy



Skin scarring:

I have several scars. One big one from the staging surgery before any therapy. Others from things having nothing to do with cancer or treatment.

I don't worry much about any of them.





It says skin scarring caused by radiation therapy.
Not good enough for you I guess.
Noticed your edit.
I don't mind about your scars.
I was giving you something more than my 'just stories... no data'.
That's all.
edit on b000000312016-03-05T19:20:21-06:0007America/ChicagoSat, 05 Mar 2016 19:20:21 -0600700000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy




It says skin scarring caused by radiation therapy. Not good enough for you I guess.

I had no burns or scarring from radiation therapy. That's good enough for me.
I have a large scar as a result of surgery (as part of the process of saving my life). That's good enough for me, a fair trade.


edit on 3/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Other people do get scars and people have had heart problems associated with radiation therapy.


Burns from radiation therapy? 
Heart damage from radiation therapy? Are you sure? 


Yeah, I'm pretty sure.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

So.
1) Do they regret having radiation therapy? Were the scars worse than dying?
2) Are the levels of radiation indicated by cesium levels found in seals sufficient to produce radiation burns and/or heart damage?

That was afterall, what prompted me to enter this conversation. I received very high levels of radiation 34 years ago. Far higher than what the tiny amount of radioactive material found in sea animals would provide.

edit on 3/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nah, I just thought maybe you forgot about requiring something more than stories.

I have never said that anyone should steer away from radiation therapy, not sure where you picked that up.
Or why you would want to make it up.

I never said radiation levels in any fish... even bottom feeder near Fukushima are dangerous for eating either.
edit on b000000312016-03-05T19:37:25-06:0007America/ChicagoSat, 05 Mar 2016 19:37:25 -0600700000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy




Nah, I just thought maybe you forgot about requiring something more than stories.

No. I didn't forget.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: butcherguy




Nah, I just thought maybe you forgot about requiring something more than stories.

No. I didn't forget.


Cool.
I really didn't think you did.
Have a good night.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese


You're concerned about details that are irrelevant to the big-picture.

With radioactivity it is the small details that matter.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I received very high levels of radiation 34 years ago. Far higher than what the tiny amount of radioactive material found in sea animals would provide.

But once you left the office the exposure stopped. Radioactive contamination internal to the body can't be turned off. It is the chronic lo level exposure that produces the mutations on a cell level that give rise to cancers.

Especially if the organism continues to ingest radionuclides from the surrounding environment, called bio accumulation, increasing levels of exposure over time.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I'll say to those who are so blasé about radiation what Marge Simpson said to Mr. Burns when she served him the 3 eyed fish.

"You go ahead and eat it!"

Go ahead people......keep eating those low level radioactive fish from the west coast....nothing could EVER go wrong........



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



Radioactive contamination internal to the body can't be turned off. It is the chronic lo level exposure that produces the mutations on a cell level that give rise to cancers.
We are exposed to "chronic" radiation on a continuing basis. Our bodies cope with it. It is when those levels get high that problems arise.



Especially if the organism continues to ingest radionuclides from the surrounding environment, called bio accumulation, increasing levels of exposure over time.
Some elements (radioactive or not) accumulate, some do not. Which elements are you concerned about? At what concentrations do bioaccumulation occur? In other words, at what levels do ingestion rates exceed excretion rates? Are seafoods from areas other than Fukushima exceeding those levels? The animals in the study of the OP certain are not, not that you would be consuming seals, that is.

As has been stated, you are more rightly concerned with mercury levels in seafood than radionuclide levels.


edit on 3/5/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Hey if you're cool with presenting information out of context and freaking out over words well then stress away about what you just don't get.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


One of the key discoveries made by Bandazhevsky was that [I]Cesium-137 bioconcentrates in the endocrine and heart tissues, as well as the pancreas, kidneys and intestines[/I]. 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.


whatisradiation.com...

Just fear mongering or an actual problem?


edit on 5-3-2016 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys



Just fear mongering or an actual problem?

Hard to say, since your source provides no source.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Definitely fear mongering. That is unless you can present evidence which shows the amount of cesium anywhere outside of the surrounding area of Fukushima is of any concern to human beings.

I await you to show me hundreds of percent rise within a given period of time, which amounts to next to nothing but continued pleas from the ignorant.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

As I said before....Please continue to eat the low level radioactive fish.

edit on 5-3-2016 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

I'd rather you eat your own link.



This means that with daily ingestion of 1 Becquerel of Cesium-137 tends to pass out of the body as fast as it accumulates, flatlining at 200 Becquerels. However with 10 Becquerels daily, levels will tend to rise, flatlining at 1400 Becquerels. This can be confirmed by having patients sit in the chair of a Whole-Body Counter to determine the number of Becquerels per Kilogram of body weight. The ICRP classifies these as safe levels even up to a daily consumption of 100 Becquerels daily.

Effects Of Cesium-137 On Human Health

However: “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.


Link

Now, when you can show me fish that are on the market which contain more than a becarrel of cesium 137, I will concede you might have a point. Until then, you are being called out as just not in the know here.
edit on 5-3-2016 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

As I said. Add more radiation to your diet. I really could not care any less what happens to you.




new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join