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

a reply to: pl3bscheese

No, background radiation is constantly flowing through you, not a one time event.

Big difference between radiation 'flowing through you' and radioactive sources contained within your body.

Not that you don't understand the terms used to explain the differences between external and internal sources, I think you do.

Suffice to say, once the X-ray, airline flight or exposure to external sources of radiation is over, the machine is turned off, the flight lands and you walk away from the source of radiation. Internal radioactive materials in your bones or connective tissue can't be 'turned off', you can't 'walk away', they are with you where ever you go, constantly emitting damaging radiation to nearby tissues over their decay life.

You are talking apples and oranges by switching from internal (to the body) radiation sources to everyday background radiation from external sources.

I expect that from the disinfo crowd though, its one of their favorite ploys. Thats why I began replying to you directly, to expose that misconception to the readers.

Enews article about external vs. internal sources of radiation…

a reply to: intrptr

What have studies of Chernobyl shown? I thought I read where worms changed. I am trying to get this to a level I can understand.

a reply to: Profusion

And this is shocking to people with their heads up their butts..

a reply to: MOMof3
Without going onto specific cases, I'm leaving you a link to how radiation and differences between sources, types and exposures affect us. Its the simplest source I have, to a very complex issue. You can read this knowing it is scientifically accurate and not fettered with mis or disinfo by proponents of the industry.

Learning about radiation and the hazards it presents is a study of terminology and definition. No way around it.

source guide

a reply to: intrptr

Thanks. I should educate myself on issue.

a reply to: MOMof3

You can ask questions too, of a specific nature, I am pretty good at laymen terms, but not a physicist. There are no silly questions. It kick starts the learning here.

So give me your 'whatabouts…'

a reply to: intrptr

I read the differences in radiation exposure that you sourced. That explains the scenes I saw in movies where they scrub you because of external irradiation/contamination. But what is the treatment for the third kind, Incorporation.

a reply to: MOMof3

But what is the treatment for the third kind, Incorporation.

The only thing that lessens radioactivity is decay over time. There is no treatment for radioactive contamination in the sense you are thinking. Like surgery, for instance, elements are atom sized, or even smaller, called 'nuclides'. They can't be removed by intervention, they are too small.

They can be detected by special means and instruments, but once incorporated the bodise immune system is 'blind' to the radioactivity, only repairing the damage caused. As long as the immune system isn't overwhelmed by too massive a dose, either from within or without, the bodies immune system can deal with mutated cells and damaged tissue ad heal itself.

Thats why people exposed to radiation from the atom bomb burst and the fallout after survived, they didn't get a lethal dose from the bomb burst or didn't get cancer from radioactive contamination incorporated, afterwards.

Have you ever seen the movie "Silkwood" with Cher? Highly recommended.

a reply to: MOMof3
After nuclear accidents people that have been exposed to non-lethal amounts are given iodine pills to flood the thyroid gland with iodine. This prevents the thyroid gland from picking up radioactive iodine and lessens the chance that the person will get thyroid cancer.
Local officials stockpile iodine pills in the area around nuclear reactors to hand out in case of an accident involving radiation release.
But radioactive iodine is just one of the elements that are found in a reactor accident.

a reply to: intrptr

I did see silkwood, a long time ago. You have clarified a lot. I have to think for awhile about the implications.

If you weed through all the bully bull slung at him, THIS is Obama's biggest failure IMO.

What a complete failure this has, and continues to be.

a reply to: intrptr

What you still refuse to mention pooping out half of what you ingest within 24hrs? I showed you that over a year ago. What about the process the body continues to go about slowly removing the remaining chunk of what got stored into deep tissue?

I mean seriously, I'm part of the "disinfo crowd" for popping holes in the weak reasoning that keeps being presented here? Get real.

The site you linked to... it's garbage. Do you not get that from looking at the homepage? Honestly now.. that looks like a remotely reasonable site to you?

Home Page

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Does it come through the skin? I mean, is it painful or you don't notice?

a reply to: MOMof3

You gotta be a little bit more specific than that. what are you referring to exactly?

We ingest radioactive particles every day. There's minute amounts of uranium in public water supplies, for instance. If you look at EPA thresholds, you'll see all sorts of nasties that are acceptable within clearly defined thresholds.

Having radioactive particles ingested sit in your body is going to cause tissue damage, no doubt. Having it removed from deep tissue stores will also cause damage. I would think it would hurt the same as you hear in some cancer patients who get their body nuked with radiation treatment, except that doesn't even apply here. The doses mentioned in the OP are just so incredibly low. A fraction of a becarrell per meter cubed. That's less than 1 disintegration per second in something the size of a really big box.

There are numerous sources of radiation that all go through the same energy release via disintegration which damages us at a cellular level. Yes, 3 is greater than two, but 1000 is insignificant in comparison to 999.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Let us say that the fish in the ocean do get an infusion of radioactivity from fuku. Can you eat enough that it would contaminate your body more than it could process? I think.

a reply to: MOMof3

Mercury from seafood is a far greater concern than radionuclides, unless you're eating bottom feeders from the Fukushima region.

a reply to: MOMof3

Yea sure, but which fish where? I mean there's probably less than .0001% of the total fish in the world's oceans that have tissue concentrations of radioactive particles due to Fukushima as to cause much concern. Now, if you were in Japan and getting fish from the Fukushima prefecture, I would be wanting some information before consuming it.

I'd be more concerned with locally farmed fish that have far too high mercury concentrations.

Ok. Thanks for your patience. You too phage. What does this mean for the people of Japan?

a reply to: MOMof3

It means the region around the nuclear disaster will be in a bad way for a long time.
It means that the fishing industry in the region is shot.

a reply to: MOMof3

A little more absorption for you in the form of two videos.

The first one is kind of dry, but bear with him, he explains how radiation is measured using props… don't let the terms of bequerels confuse you, thats all math, just focus on how radiation (rays) emits and how it is detected
The second one demonstrates the dangers of alpha ray emitters. Thy have a very short decay but path are easily blocked, unless they are ingested. You can see that by listening to the detectors he uses. He places an alpha source from an old smoke detector next to one and then covers it with a piece of paper to show how short the decay path for alpha emitters is. Don't be boggled by the tech just listen…