First results from crowdfunded study shows radioactive seawater from Fukushima has NOT reached the U

reply to post by Phage


From your link:

But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, can swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan. However, cesium is a salt taken up by the flesh that will begin to flush out of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters less affected by Fukushima. By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima.

The author in your article goes on to say

Is there concern about other radionuclides, such as strontium-90?
The continued release of radionuclides from groundwater and leaking tanks at Fukushima nuclear power plants site needs to be watched closely, as the character or mix of radionuclides is changing. One example is the higher levels of strontium-90 contained in groundwater and storage tanks that are leaking into the ocean. Because strontium-90 mimics calcium, it is taken up by and concentrated in bones, where it remains for long periods of time (it has a half-life of 30 years and calcium/strontium is not replaced as quickly in the body as cesium). If leaks of strontium-90 continue, this radionuclide could become a larger concern in small fish such as sardines, which are often eaten whole.  So far, however, evidence suggests that levels in fish of strontium-90 remains much lower than that of cesium-137.

As we now know the release of Strontium 90 was huge according to recently released figures from TEPCO despite stating otherwise last year. With this in mind and the fact the article you sourced was written in August 2013, I wonder if the author would hold the same views?

This stuff is getting into the food chain, you said at first it was just the bottom of the sea that was affected, then you said it was localised, now your own source has proven that BlueFin Tuna has traces. 

Is the radiation just localised to the sea floor around Fukishima, or localised to the food chain in the immediate area or as your source said affecting the food chain a lot further away? 

reply to post by flammadraco

As we now know the release of Strontium 90 was huge according to recently released figures from TEPCO despite stating otherwise last year.

No. We don't know that. We know that strontium levels in the waste water were higher than first calculated. We don't know how much has been reaching the ocean since the original release. But the fish don't seem to be showing much. The strontium levels, when high enough to be detected, are far below those of cesium.

This stuff is getting into the food chain, you said at first it was just the bottom of the sea that was affected, then you said it was localised, now your own source has proven that BlueFin Tuna has traces.

No. I did not say it was just the bottom of the sea that was affected, I said that bottom feeders show high concentrations because they are bottom feeders. Yes I said it was localized. Yes, as I have said, cesium from Fukushima was found in bluefin tuna in California. Bluefin tuna migrate from Japan to California. And, like I said, when the tuna leave the Fukushima region the level of contamination decreases. Now, I suppose that if a shark living in California waters ate only contaminated tuna, that could be considered affecting the food chain in California waters. But I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Is the radiation just localised to the sea floor around Fukishima, or localised to the food chain in the immediate area or as your source said affecting the food chain a lot further away?

My source does not say it is affecting the food chain a lot further away. It says what I said.

However, cesium is a salt taken up by the flesh that will begin to flush out of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters less affected by Fukushima.

Human0815
reply to post by pyramid head

 

The "Plume" of Fukushima was, of course, not harmless
and no one here said this

Cells come and Cells go on a daily Level,
none of them is made to stay for ever.

edit on 10-2-2014 by Human0815 because: (no reason given)

So because cells die radiation has no effect? I dont really think you understand what you are saying. You are just throwing out random terminology at this point. What you said has no relevance to radiation.

I see you are in japan so this conversation really has no point, you are going to justify staying there no matter what is presented to you. By this short conversation I see you do not have a wealth of knowledge in biology, (which is ok this is not an attack) but as someone who does work in medicine and has a considerable amount schooling and practice in the area of cancer, I would get the F out of japan.

Justify staying to yourself all you want you couldn't pay me to go to japan.

reply to post by pyramid head

By this short conversation I see you do not have a wealth of knowledge in biology, (which is ok this is not an attack) but as someone who does work in medicine and has a considerable amount schooling and practice in the area of cancer, I would get the F out of japan.

Sensationalist much?

Anywhere in Japan? Hokkaido? Shikoku? Kyushu? Okninawa? I guess Koreans should leave Korea too since there are places there that are closer to Fukushima that places in Japan are.

Just how intense to you think the radiation levels are? Are they above background levels everywhere within 1,000 miles of Fukushima? Do you think people should leave Denver because radiation levels are higher there than they are in Iowa?

reply to post by pyramid head


I didn't say that or do you read it?

In my Opinion Ken Busseler is on the right Way,
his approach with crowd-funded Money is the Way to go,
we do similar things here too.

Instead that everyone is using a Geiger Counter we bought
a medical Scintillation Counter which is able to detect much lower
Levels than a Geiger Mueller Tube which is in a way a very
bad Instrument to detect Food Contamination,
i want to recommend this one more Time for everyone who is
Mega-Concerned, like i am

Create a Group of 20-25 Families, collect the Money, get educated
in the use of the Machine and buy a used one from a medical Supply!

You can buy used and calibrated Machines for ca. 5.000$ upwards.

No. We don't know that. We know that strontium levels in the waste water were higher than first calculated. We don't know how much has been reaching the ocean since the original release. But the fish don't seem to be showing much. The strontium levels, when high enough to be detected, are far below those of cesium.

Exactly we don't know Phage, no one knows for sure what is going on but there are ATS members on this thread that seem to think they know everything. One member even stated they had data no one else on ATS had.

No. I did not say it was just the bottom of the sea that was affected, I said that bottom feeders show high concentrations because they are bottom feeders. Yes I said it was localized. Yes, as I have said, cesium from Fukushima was found in bluefin tuna in California. Bluefin tuna migrate from Japan to California. And, like I said, when the tuna leave the Fukushima region the level of contamination decreases. Now, I suppose that if a shark living in California waters ate only contaminated tuna, that could be considered affecting the food chain in California waters. But I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Well I am worried about the shark eating infected fish in the food chain in California. This was what I was saying to you earlier in the thread that the food chain will be infected with this radiation, but you said I was wrong and that it was only the bottom feeders at Fukishima that would be affected. This was not an accurate assumption on your part.

My source does not say it is affecting the food chain a lot further away. It says what I said.

However, cesium is a salt taken up by the flesh that will begin to flush out of an exposed fish soon after they enter waters less affected by Fukushima.

Whilst I agree with you regarding the Caesium being metabolised out of the fish, what about Strontium 90 that you have already agreed no one knows enough about.

Are you really relying on information from TEPCO who have already been proven to be untrustworthy with information. Do you and other members disputing claims that this incident is very bad, not realise that TEPCO is a corporation and is doing everything in its power to limit the bad press it receives. TEPCO answers to shareholders and not to the sheeple that this accident affects.

Phage
reply to post by pyramid head

 

By this short conversation I see you do not have a wealth of knowledge in biology, (which is ok this is not an attack) but as someone who does work in medicine and has a considerable amount schooling and practice in the area of cancer, I would get the F out of japan.

Sensationalist much?

Anywhere in Japan? Hokkaido? Shikoku? Kyushu? Okninawa? I guess Koreans should leave Korea too since there are places there that are closer to Fukushima that places in Japan are.

Just how intense to you think the radiation levels are? Are they above background levels everywhere within 1,000 miles of Fukushima? Do you think people should leave Denver because radiation levels are higher there than they are in Iowa?

edit on 2/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The fact of the matter is Phage that this incident is far from over. They have just started to clear away the fuel rods and any number of things can go wrong;

- over 400 tons of nuclear material in the pool could reignite

- the fire-damaged tank is tilting badly and may topple over sooner than later

- collapse of the structure could trigger a chain reaction and nuclear blast, and

- consequent radioactive releases would heavily contaminate much of the world.

Or there could be another Earthquake that would turn this clean up operation into one of the biggest catastrophes this world has ever seen. Whilst you may assume we are all scaremongering, I believe we all have to have an open mind about the devastation this has caused and could cause if things go wrong.

reply to post by flammadraco


Which one is the "Fire Damaged Tank"?

As far as i know there was no Fire in any Tank, Pool, Dry-Well
or anywhere else, there was a bit of Fire of Oil/ Fat and once
far away from the Reactors itself was a Cable burning!

reply to post by Human0815


Good Evening Human0815

I said "Fire Damaged" tank

Japanese nuclear plant hit by fire and third explosion
www.theguardian.com...

Human0815
reply to post by pyramid head

 

I didn't say that or do you read it?

Why bother responding if thats what your going to write. You dont know what your saying, or talking about thats the point.

Phage
reply to post by pyramid head

 

By this short conversation I see you do not have a wealth of knowledge in biology, (which is ok this is not an attack) but as someone who does work in medicine and has a considerable amount schooling and practice in the area of cancer, I would get the F out of japan.

Sensationalist much?

Anywhere in Japan? Hokkaido? Shikoku? Kyushu? Okninawa? I guess Koreans should leave Korea too since there are places there that are closer to Fukushima that places in Japan are.

Just how intense to you think the radiation levels are? Are they above background levels everywhere within 1,000 miles of Fukushima? Do you think people should leave Denver because radiation levels are higher there than they are in Iowa?

edit on 2/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The effects of radiation are devastating on populations and is a dirty secret most governments will not fully disclose to their public, nor will they provide adequate research to fully inform the people. The effects do not even have to be seen in the first generation, they can be passed on to the second and third generations.

If you want to rely on information provided by tepco and gangster governments thats fine. Knowing what I know about the effects on radiation, I would not set foot anywhere near there until there was CONVINCING evidence provided to the contrary. Especially if you are of child bearing age, and plan on having kids, your kind of gambling and relying on the government do do all the research and tell you the truth. Governments do not exactly have a good record there.

reply to post by flammadraco


I hope you know that the Fire in Nr.4 was not a nuclear Fire,
not the Rods burned but some Oil or Fat (i do not remember exactly)

Building Nr.4 got re-inforced in the Weeks and Months after
the Quake and is stable. We discussed this Ad Nauseum
because our all Friends A. Gundershill claimed something
(the Instability of that Building) without ever had been there.

I still have the Files about the Re-Inforcement of the Structure
and even think that it is the most stable Building in Fukushima
i could look for a direct link if you need it!

@ Pyramid Head: Blubber, Blubber

reply to post by flammadraco


You need to be very tough to discuss a specific Topic like
this one, Attacks are very common in the Internet World.

The Discussion here in this Thread is even relative friendly
compared to other ones.

Regarding the Topic and your Post:
i mentioned only the Fire and the Stability Issue because
i am able to say something but i do not know what
happen in the Future.

The Rods must and should go, it is stupid to keep
them in Nr.4 and imo. it is not "that" Risky like
Arnie try to tell us.

I see no Risk for the molten Fuel,
as long as the Cooling is running!

PS: the Guardian link provided a good Info
how i felt in that Days:
The Guardian

We evacuated at 03/15 to Bangkok.
(and returned ca. 7-8 Weeks later)

reply to post by Human0815


It would be great if you could keep us posted on developments that you see in your own media in Japan, shame we don't have a Forum just for news updates on this incident that ATS members can refer to.

The attacks are astonishing in these threads concerning Fukishima, I can understand why some users believe that these threads have paid shrills on them. To me its like TEPCO have an army of shrills working the internet to discredit any news about the incident that has not been sanctioned by them.

reply to post by flammadraco


To think about Shills is logical but imo. it is not the Reality.

ATS is not a Target for Shills regarding nuclear Energy.

I still think that everyone replied to you in a accurate Way,
with sourced Material and with the right Mind.

Just Relax, no one is able to harm you!

reply to post by flammadraco

Or there could be another Earthquake that would turn this clean up operation into one of the biggest catastrophes this world has ever seen. Whilst you may assume we are all scaremongering, I believe we all have to have an open mind about the devastation this has caused and could cause if things go wrong.

Or an asteroid could hit the Earth.
What the hell is your point? Of course things can go wrong. But guess what? Things can go right too.

Even if they do go right, the Fukushima region is screwed. For "the rest of the world" to be damaged? Maybe you want to speculate about what it would take for that. I don't see any point.

What is your point? "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" What are you trying to accomplish? Do you have something productive to offer? Some solution to the very difficult problems?

Me? I'm trying put a bit of rationality in the picture. I'm pointing out that, as things are, there is no danger to the eastern Pacific. You?

To me its like TEPCO have an army of shrills working the internet to discredit any news about the incident that has not been sanctioned by them.

What news? You mean news like that in the OP? What news has been discredited? You mean the news in your kelp thread?

The "shill" call. Right on cue. See my sig?

reply to post by Phage


My agenda was to seek more information about this and the reason why I wanted to seek more information was the way you and others attacked both me and other ATS members who dared ask questions against the official line. How is copying an article headline about Caesium in US kelp scaremongering. What will your views be when the "Kelp Watch 2014" announce they have found Caesium in US kelp directly linked to Fukishima, will you move the goalposts again? I can see it now, you'll be saying "but its not detrimental to human health".

Yesterday, your opinions went from 1) Only the bottom feeders were affected by Radiation then 2) Only Sea Life in the immediate area were affected by Radiation, to 3) Sharks could eat Tuna contaminated by radiation of the coast of the US. I could copy and paste your different views into this post if you like but I have wasted enough energy discussing this with you.

With this in mind Phage, you are no more clued up to all of this than anyone else, and I am done discussing this subject with you. Unless of course you or anyone else does actually have "Data that no one else on ATS has".

reply to post by flammadraco

What will your views be when the "Kelp Watch 2014" announce they have found Caesium in US kelp directly linked to Fukishima, will you move the goalposts again?

No. Because it is going to happen. We know that contamination from Fukushima will arrive in California. We also know it will do so at far below dangerous levels.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

1) Only the bottom feeders were affected by Radiation

I did not say that.

Only Sea Life in the immediate area were affected by Radiation

That is true. And once affected some of that sea life leaves the area. And when that sea life leaves the area the level of contamination in that sea life ceases to accumulate. When that sea life leaves the area the level of contamination goes down.

Sharks could eat Tuna contaminated by radiation of the coast of the US.

That was a joke. But if I tried to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand because your confirmation bias would prevent you from doing so.

With this in mind Phage, you are no more clued up to all of this than anyone else, and I am done discussing this subject with you.

You haven't been discussing. You've been throwing out random statements that fly in the face of the known facts.