Scientists Confirm Fukushima Radiation in California Kelp

TruthGypsy
The professor, Matthew Edwards, from the San Diego University was contacted by a member on another forum. He replied to the email saying that no testing in that area had come back yet, and that the tests were just beginning. Media sensationalism? Here is a link to the thread on that forum with the email message in full:

Cesium in CA Kelp Confirmed by Scientists: Fact of Fiction?
getthetruthout.icyboards.net...

This link, just like the one you left in the Japan mega thread, leads to another forum with a request to log in/register before seeing anything. Either post the information with a reference or provide a valid link that does not require 'sign up' to view - not sure why you're even linking to another forum at all...?

wishes

TruthGypsy
The professor, Matthew Edwards, from the San Diego University was contacted by a member on another forum. He replied to the email saying that no testing in that area had come back yet, and that the tests were just beginning. Media sensationalism? Here is a link to the thread on that forum with the email message in full:

Cesium in CA Kelp Confirmed by Scientists: Fact of Fiction?
getthetruthout.icyboards.net...

This link, just like the one you left in the Japan mega thread, leads to another forum with a request to log in/register before seeing anything. Either post the information with a reference or provide a valid link that does not require 'sign up' to view - not sure why you're even linking to another forum at all...?

I did post about the email here - and the fact that Matthew Edwards replied (specifically about the article posted in this thread) and said that no such test results had been received back yet, and that they were just in the beginning stages of testing. I find that pertinent to the thread, don't you?

As for the link? It was a courtesy as to where the information came from in case anyone wanted to see the emails for themselves. There isn't much else there, other than the actual text of the emails themselves. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word about an email without providing a link to the source. No need to go there and "sign up to view" unless you want to see the emails for yourself. I told you what the emails said here already.

TruthGypsy

wishes

TruthGypsy
The professor, Matthew Edwards, from the San Diego University was contacted by a member on another forum. He replied to the email saying that no testing in that area had come back yet, and that the tests were just beginning. Media sensationalism? Here is a link to the thread on that forum with the email message in full:

Cesium in CA Kelp Confirmed by Scientists: Fact of Fiction?
getthetruthout.icyboards.net...

This link, just like the one you left in the Japan mega thread, leads to another forum with a request to log in/register before seeing anything. Either post the information with a reference or provide a valid link that does not require 'sign up' to view - not sure why you're even linking to another forum at all...?

I did post about the email here - and the fact that Matthew Edwards replied (specifically about the article posted in this thread) and said that no such test results had been received back yet, and that they were just in the beginning stages of testing. I find that pertinent to the thread, don't you?

As for the link? It was a courtesy as to where the information came from in case anyone wanted to see the emails for themselves. There isn't much else there, other than the actual text of the emails themselves. I wouldn't expect anyone to take my word about an email without providing a link to the source. No need to go there and "sign up to view" unless you want to see the emails for yourself. I told you what the emails said here already.

My point was the link goes to another forum where you have to sign up and log in to see anything - in other words, it's not really a 'source' at all - do you have a source for the email itself? Same with the stuff on the mega thread, putting a link to another forum that you can't see anything unless you become a member is not a 'source' - it's a link to another forum. I can't 'see' the email you're talking about (I tried) so we do have to take your word (or not) because there is no source as you posted it... just a link to another forum's main page... just saying... I don't have an opinion on the pertinence because I can't see it...

Just an FYI Caesium is in EVERYTHING after the first atomic weapon was used. Only sealed containers predating atomic testing have no caesium.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Yes.
It is also possible to determine the source of that cesium by isotope analysis.

Phage
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Yes.
It is also possible to determine the source of that cesium by isotope analysis.

Which unless I missed it ... I did not find anywhere in the sources provided.

Scientists analyzing kelp off the coast of San Diego confirmed the presence of cesium this week, a radioactive isotope directly linked to the Fukushima Daiichi power plant.

That makes it sound like the mere presence of cesium is linked to Fukushima .. which is not true. I see no actual evidence for the claim.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

You are correct sir.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


If you read my response on the first page of this thread I had already stated that the author of the article had "Jumped the Gun" however as my understanding of ATS t&cs when using another news source you have to include the title of the article word for word.

However whilst the tests may not have been conducted as of yet, even the scientist carrying out these test have hypothesised that Caesium will be found even though it will not be at levels detrimental to human health.

To be honest, I've seen a lot of posts varying from 'Fukushima is killing horses in rural Canada' to 'I have a migraine today, has Fukushima caused it?'.

You sound like a bunch of hypochondriacs. Maybe it's time to step away from the computer and get outside? Yeah, I know it's cold. Take the car or something.

reply to post by Alekto


Check the facts. Fukushima is hands down the worst nuclear disaster humanity has ever faced. It will take generations to clean-up. Reactors 1,2, and 3 are still to radioactive to go near. Radiation continues to leak, and there is a global wool over eyes agenda to keep this frightening reality on the down low.

Alekto
To be honest, I've seen a lot of posts varying from 'Fukushima is killing horses in rural Canada' to 'I have a migraine today, has Fukushima caused it?'.

You sound like a bunch of hypochondriacs. Maybe it's time to step away from the computer and get outside? Yeah, I know it's cold. Take the car or something.

hypochondriac
hʌɪpə(ʊ)ˈkɒndrɪak/Submit
noun
plural noun: hypochondriacs
1.
a person who is abnormally anxious about their health.

Not seen that on this thread, perhaps your confused with another thread, or perhaps you don't know what your talking about

reply to post by jrod


A global wool?? Seems to be an agenda of quite the opposite. It is a fact that science has been and continues to debate the reality of their findings to combat the sensational fear driven headlines! An example would be this very thread!! Good grief...

game over man
reply to post by jrod

 

A global wool?? Seems to be an agenda of quite the opposite. It is a fact that science has been and continues to debate the reality of their findings to combat the sensational fear driven headlines! An example would be this very thread!! Good grief...

Seems to be your Agenda to "Troll" each thread that does not have the same opinions that you have. Still waiting for the "DATA" that only you have and no one else on ATS has been privy to, or were your talking out of your ass?

reply to post by jrod


Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl but only because
it is not over yet!
(so we do not know the final Results!)

The Explosion in Chernobyl expelled nearly the whole Core
(ca. 75-80%) the rest burned for 10 Days,
there was nearly nothing left to care for,
Fukushima Cores are not expelled and not burned yet.

Phage
reply to post by sean

 

Isn't it airborne contamination that gets into rain? Don't you think air samples would cover that?

Doesn't rain end up in soil? Don't you think soil samples would cover that?

Yes, rain captures dust out of the air when it falls and it ends up in soil. How does testing samples on the ground tell you how much contamination is in one drop of rain?

game over man
reply to post by jrod

 

A global wool?? Seems to be an agenda of quite the opposite. It is a fact that science has been and continues to debate the reality of their findings to combat the sensational fear driven headlines! An example would be this very thread!! Good grief...

Fear driven headlines? Where are they? I have not seen any. There is increasing concern about the global impacts of such a disaster by aware individuals.

The average American is concerned about the latest pop to self destruct than a global man made catastrophe and so is the media they are fed.

Talking to a doctoral student yesterday, he said that a recent study in Alaska found radioactive nucleotides that could be traced to Fuk in all samples of plants and animals taken, and he said the sample areas were diverse. He is specializing in radioactivity and it's affects on biology, so he might be "slanted" in perception or completely out in left field as I haven't seen the data.

Now he said there were trace amounts found, but he mentioned plutonium... and that got my attention. I don't remember if he said plutonium was in every sample, he just said "radioactive nucleotides" and went on to mention strontium, cesium and then plutonium.

If this is true, it's noteworthy... IF this is true. The plutonium mention actually had me thinking he might've been mistaken, or a chicken little type... and I wasn't aware that Fuk put out ANY plutonium, but again, I'm certainly no expert or even very informed.

And we live with radioactivity every day... and there is mildly bad and worse types, but if Fuk radiation has really covered Alaska, it's interesting at the least.

reply to post by Baddogma

There are various models for the dispersal of contamination from Fukushima through the Pacific. They vary somewhat but they all show that the level of contamination will be far below dangerous levels. At this point, sampling is in close agreement both in the rate at which the contaminants are transported and in the low levels of contamination.

The contamination will arrive in California sometime this year. Sampling in the Pacific, off Vancouver, shows that the levels are very low.

There was plutonium released at Fukushima but it is important to know that because of atmospheric nuclear testing, there was a certain amount of plutonium in the environment already.

They analyzed Pu isotopes in seawater collected during the same sampling cruise of sediment samples in July–August 2011. The Pu concentration and isotopic composition (240Pu/239Pu atom ratio of 0.181–0.218) were similar to the baseline data before the accident, indicating no immediate Pu contamination in the investigated seawater.

www.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp...

reply to post by flammadraco


I already explained to you its public information. Go and find it yourself. Your opinion of the fishing industry is elementary at best. Do you have any idea of much tuna is consumed in the US? Do you know where it comes from? Do you know the US requirements? How much volume per year?

Do you realize its anywhere from 5-20 people propagating the Fukushima disaster on the internet including yourself?

What does a family run seafood company and/or fishing fleet get out out if shipping radioactive tuna into the US? Especially this dangerously radioactive tuna you claim is being covered up? The government is paying off the fishing industry? You're encouraging society to believe in this massive Pacific ocean size cover up. It's ridiculous.

Where is your proof? All of you Fukushima internet bandits have no connection to the anything related to this issue. You are just pulling tabloid rubbish off the web.

Run the numbers... show me.

www.seafoodbusiness.com...

$445 million worth of imported tuna. Say $6.00/lb..import cost..74 million lbs in one year. Tell me what we need to fear...74 millions lbs where is the highly radioactive fish? It's either covered up or ignorantly missed? That's all you got as your argument, pure fearful speculation.

Baddogma
Talking to a doctoral student yesterday, he said that a recent study in Alaska found radioactive nucleotides that could be traced to Fuk in all samples of plants and animals taken, and he said the sample areas were diverse. He is specializing in radioactivity and it's affects on biology, so he might be "slanted" in perception or completely out in left field as I haven't seen the data.

Now he said there were trace amounts found, but he mentioned plutonium... and that got my attention. I don't remember if he said plutonium was in every sample, he just said "radioactive nucleotides" and went on to mention strontium, cesium and then plutonium.

If this is true, it's noteworthy... IF this is true. The plutonium mention actually had me thinking he might've been mistaken, or a chicken little type... and I wasn't aware that Fuk put out ANY plutonium, but again, I'm certainly no expert or even very informed.

And we live with radioactivity every day... and there is mildly bad and worse types, but if Fuk radiation has really covered Alaska, it's interesting at the least.

That is really, really interesting - myself and others here would love to know more about this - any chance you can get whatever reports he has/gets and share them? Or direct us to where they might be posted? Yes, Plutonium blew up as well as many other nasty types of cancer causing radiation and as I understand it, one particle of plutonium inhaled is enough to kill - it just takes 'time'.

There are some who prefer living in denial that Fukushima won't have any impact outside Japan - and others (like myself) who believe it has exponentially raised radiation limits so that we can all expect cancer in one form or another in the next decade or so. It's what we breathe in that's the worst, if we eat it there's some chance of elimination and if its on our skin it can be washed off. Those who think the already ridiculous sky high cancer rates are from anything but radiation are the ones who think Fukushima isn't such a bad thing overall, just a local problem.... that's going to go on and on and on for decades and somehow magically not effect the ocean and the rest of the northern hemisphere.... yeah, right.

I'm not one iota surprised there's evidence of it in Fukushima - I'm relieved that 'someone' is actually getting out there able to do real field work and grateful for people like you who relay information!