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.

 

Radioactive cesium in all Fukushima fish under government limit in 2016 (99% contaminated)

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 03:19 AM
link   

According to the prefectural fishery laboratory, 95 percent of the 8,502 samples collected in 2016 showed radioactive cesium at levels that were hardly detectable, while readings for another 422 samples were below the limit.

“We were able to present data that fish and seafood in Fukushima are safe,” said an official of the laboratory, which is hoping to expand the area and scope of sampling.

SOURCE


What a spin that is. They're saying that over 99% of the fish are contaminated, but they're counting that as a victory because of an arbitrarily set limit. Many people argue that the amount of radioactive cesium permitted in food should be only 5 becquerels per kilogram. The regulatory maximum in Japan is 100 becquerels per kilogram.


Citizens for Health, along with the other coalition members of Fukushima Fallout Awareness Network (FFAN Homepage, FFAN on facebook), filed a petition with the FDA to drastically reduce the amount of radioactive cesium permitted in food, from a ridiculous 1200 Bq/kg to 5 Bq/kg (see why here, read why here). The Bq (Becquerel) is a measure of radioactivity. The FDA is now accepting comments on our petition and every person’s voice counts, so leave a comment in support here!

Our petition asks for a binding limit of 5 Bq/kg of cesium 134 & 137 combined in food, nutritional supplements, and pharmaceuticals. This is necessary because of continuing exposure to radiation in the wake of the ongoing catastrophe at Fukushima, where reactors are still releasing radioactivity, along with atomic bomb testing and routine releases from nuclear power plants. We also ask that testing be widespread and, when technologically feasible, measurements below 5 Bq/kg be taken. Through this effort we would like a database of contamination levels to be established and maintained, with information relevant to researchers, so that movement of the cesium radionuclide in our environment can be tracked since it tends to biomagnify once released.

SOURCE


"Wherever there's radiation cesium, there's going to be plutonium." - Arnie Gundersen

Nuclear Expert in Japan: Plutonium “is everywhere… it is everywhere”

The tiniest bit of plutonium can kill a person.

Even if that doesn't bother you, if you're eating Fukushima fish, there still appears to be an over 99% chance that it contains radioactive cesium. I don't care how you spin that, it's not good news.
edit on 12-1-2017 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Thanks for bringing this forward considering if you're not researching this ONGOING disaster, you may not be aware of it currently. It has been all but 'wiped' away from mainstream news, and people are STILL eating Pacific seafood!


Personally, as much as I LOVE seafood, that chapter in my life is OVER. I do, however warn people all time and they look at me like I'm speaking Klingon. That tells me the cover story and media blackout is working VERY effectively.

So sad... I mean its just horrible, f#ing horrible.

In a few years, maybe less, we will begin to see cancer rates start to climb, and most likely be blamed on something else initially until it can't be deflected anymore. By then it will be to late...... Hell, it's already too late


I'm already prepared to accept the new reality we are going to face. I recommend others start doing the same because it isn't going away. Not in the next thousand generations even.


edit on E31America/ChicagoThu, 12 Jan 2017 04:41:03 -06001amThursdayth04am by EternalShadow because: add



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion


Many people argue that the amount of radioactive cesium permitted in food should be only 5 Bq/kg. The regulatory maximum in Japan is 100 becquerels per kilogram.


Since the accident every time they find more contamination somewhere, they raise the 'safe' levels to that amount.

'Safe levels' are misleading anyway, there is no such thing as safe radioactive contamination, lol.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalShadow
Thanks for bringing this forward considering if you're not researching this ONGOING disaster, you may not be aware of it currently. It has been all but 'wiped' away from mainstream news, and people are STILL eating Pacific seafood!



It's already started.

Cancer is now the leading cause of death in 22 states. Surprisingly, that’s good news.

People's attitude seems to be...

"Well, you've got to die of something. What difference does it make?"

These are the same people who don't care about fluoride in the water supply or chemtrails in the sky.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
What a spin that is. They're saying that over 99% of the fish are contaminated, but they're counting that as a victory because of an arbitrarily set limit. Many people argue that the amount of radioactive cesium permitted in food should be only 5 becquerels per kilogram. The regulatory maximum in Japan is 100 becquerels per kilogram.
Here's an interesting comment by one of the researchers, Ken Buesseler:

The Lingering Effects of Fukushima on Fish

“We can answer ‘is it safe to eat?'” says Buesseler. “But not answer when and why will it be safe to eat.”
I think what he's saying is a confirmation of what you are saying that we have so-called "safe to eat" limits set but that they are set somewhat arbitrarily since the effects of radiation at low doses are not well understood.

I hardly eat seafood anymore. Even without the concerns about radiation there were concerns about other contaminants like mercury which could build up if you eat a lot of seafood, though mercury contamination varies with the size of the fish. I suspect to some degree so does radiation contamination though bottom feeding is another factor that can drive both types of contaminants higher.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion




It's already started.

Did you read the article you linked?

Americans are also simply living longer, and the overwhelming majority — 86 percent — of all cancers in the US are diagnosed in older people, over the age of 50.
www.vox.com...

It actually shows a decrease in cancer incidence rates over the past 20 years. Yes, more people die from cancer than did before. For two major reasons; there are more people and they live longer.

edit on 1/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Profusion




It's already started.

Did you read the article you linked?

Americans are also simply living longer, and the overwhelming majority — 86 percent — of all cancers in the US are diagnosed in older people, over the age of 50.
www.vox.com...

It actually shows a decrease in cancer incidence rates over the past 20 years. Yes, more people die from cancer. For two major reasons; there are more people and they live longer.


Lol. EVERYONE has cancer within their bodies through diet, lifestyle choices, and maybe a satellite that re-entered earth in the 70's, dusting the planet with plutonium. Every excuse will be used to downplay Fukushima. Time will tell, and time will be the only measurement left to gauge life expectancy on our planet, whereas before we could look towards the future with logical optimism, not so much ever again I'm afraid. Those downplaying this are pied pipers of doom. I don't give a f# how you try to justify or rationalize it....THE DAMAGE IS DONE AND ONGOING!!



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow



Those downplaying this are pied pipers of doom.

And those who exaggerate it? What do you call them?

There is no question that Fukushima was a major nuclear disaster. There is no question that Chernobyl was a major nuclear disaster. There is no question that there have been other near nuclear disasters. There is no question that nuclear weapons testing increased "background" radiation levels. Reasonable people understand that. Reasonable people understand that nuclear power is a very dangerous tool. Reasonable and educated people understand that the Fukushima disaster does not mean the end of life as we know it but that there are lessons (crucial lessons) to be learned from it.

edit on 1/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EternalShadow



Those downplaying this are pied pipers of doom.

And those who exaggerate it? What do you call them?

There is no question that Fukushima was a major nuclear disaster. There is no question that Chernobyl was a major nuclear disaster. There is no question that there have been other near nuclear disasters. There is no question that nuclear weapons testing increased "background" radiation levels. Reasonable people understand that. Reasonable people understand that nuclear power is a very dangerous tool. Reasonable and educated people understand that the Fukushima disaster does not mean the end of life as we know it but that there are lessons (crucial lessons) to be learned from it.


So "reasonable" people keep raising acceptable levels of exposure, and "reasonable" people keep people in the dark as far as fair reporting and updates, and these "reasonable" people also say minimal amounts of exposure is okay, and "reasonable" people tell the public have no fear, the ocean will suck it up and it will dissipate. All these "reasonable and highly educated people" are f#king telling the world it's going to be awesome, we just need to get used to absorbing more radiation because as I recall one "reasonable and educated" person saying that radiation is actually good for us......

Like I said... I'm prepared for what you deny and try to misinform the public.

I'm seriously sick of being treated like an idiot when faced with obvious truth.

Enjoy your fish. I hope you can keep your teeth to chew it.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow


So "reasonable" people keep raising acceptable levels of exposure,
Can you provide evidence of this occurring?



people keep people in the dark as far as fair reporting and updates,
This thread is an example of that not being the case. There are also independent researchers providing data on an ongoing basis.
www.ourradioactiveocean.org...
kelpwatch.berkeley.edu...

edit on 1/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

So "reasonable" people keep raising acceptable levels of exposure,



originally posted by: Phage
Can you provide evidence of this occurring?
I haven't seen anything about raising any fish radiation limits but Japan did increase the amount of radiation schoolchildren were allowed to be exposed to by a factor of 20 at one point, to the same level recommended for nuclear plant workers, which resulted in the resignation of Toshiso Kosako in protest.

Fukushima Effect

In April, Japan's government caused anger when it raised the upper limit of safe radiation exposure for children from 1 millisievert a year to 20mSv a year, the same level the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends for nuclear plant workers.

The decision prompted Toshiso Kosako, a Tokyo university professor, to tearfully announce his resignation as a government nuclear adviser, describing the revised upper limit as "intolerable".


They also raised the limits for nuclear plant workers. I'm not sure about the EPA wanting to implement higher limits than the safe drinking water act would allow after nuclear emergencies:

Post Fukushima: US EPA approves vastly higher radiation limits in drinking water

Then, post Fukushima, the Japanese Japanese Ministry of Health decided to more than double the maximum allowable exposure for nuclear workers from 100 millisieverts to 250 millisieverts...

Now we have the US EPA significantly raising the allowable limits of radioactive contamination in America’s domestic drinking water (article below). Is this the result of the atmospheric contamination previously received in the US in the days after the Fukushima multiple reactor meltdown, or are the authorities taking a proactive step in preparing for the next nuclear disaster sure to come?
I would suspect the latter because it's not going to be received well when limits are raised right after a disaster, as Japan learned.


This thread is an example of that not being the case. There are also independent researchers providing data on an ongoing basis.
www.ourradioactiveocean.org...
kelpwatch.berkeley.edu...
Ken Buesseler is a great source of actual information about the scope of the ocean water contamination problem. I don't know if he's behind the ourradioactiveocean.org site but he's quoted in it and he works at Woods Hole. Someone posted a great video by Ken last year and since he was talking about facts and not portraying it as doom porn it didn't seem to generate any interest here.



posted on Jan, 13 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I wasn't aware of the Japanese school situation. Shameful. Of course, the Japanese government (and TEPCO) botched a number of things quite throughly.

The article about the EPA changing drinking water standards is deceptive. PAGs are not regulations and have no impact on EPA drinking water regulations. They are guidelines for local authorities on how to respond to emergencies (like a nuclear disaster) and have nothing to do with Fukushima.

The drinking water PAG is not binding and does not in any way affect regulatory requirements or enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), including maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) for radionuclides established by regulation under the SDWA.

www.epa.gov...

The PAG in question can be found here:
www.epa.gov...
edit on 1/13/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13

log in

join