Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 27, 2017
Fukushima nuke radiation POISONING world’s water
Highly toxic Cesium-134, the nuclear fallout from Fukushima, was recently found in Tillamook Bay and Gold Beach, in the US state of Oregon.
The terrifying discovery was reported by researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Cesium-134 was also detected in 2015 in Canada when a salmon pulled from a river in British Columbia was found to contain radiation.
GETTY
SHOCK: The food on your plate may have been tainted by radiation
Inside Japan’s CHERNOBYL: the ghost town abandoned after Fukushima meltdown
Thursday, 2nd March 2017
Bloomberg via Getty Images“Uptake by the food web and consumption of contaminated fish is the main health concern from the oceans”
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
The 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown was sparked by a massive tsunami off the coast of Japan caused by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake.
It decimated the nuclear reactor and sent hazardous nuclear waste spewing out into the Pacific ocean.
Japanese fish have tested positive for dangerous levels of radiation and now, it seems, fish as far away as the US have been infected by the waste.
Alaskan Salmon is imported for sale in most major UK supermarkets when Scottish salmon is out of season.
Terrifying scenes as Fukushima suffers earthquake
A statement on the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution website said: “For the general public, it is not direct exposure, but uptake by the food web and consumption of contaminated fish that is the main health concern from the oceans.
“Most fish do not migrate far from their spawning grounds, which is why some fisheries off Fukushima remain closed.
“But some species, such as the Pacific bluefin tuna, swim long distances and could pick up cesium in their feeding grounds off Japan before crossing the Pacific.”
GETTY
NUCLEAR: The salmon makes a huge journey from the Pacific to British supermarkets
The terrifying RADIOACTIVE wild boars of Fukushima
Thursday, 9th March 2017
REUTERS“We don’t expect to see health concerns from swimming or fish consumption, but we would like to continue monitoring until (the radiation level) goes back down again,” he said.
“In Japan, at its peak celsium-134 levels were 10 million times higher than what we are seeing today on the West Coast.”
25 Comments on "Fukushima nuke radiation POISONING world’s water"
Plantagenet on Mon, 27th Mar 2017 11:41 pm
The Japanese have been a big disappointment. Their society seems very efficient and well designed, but clearly they didn’t think things through when it comes to their nuclear power infrastructure.
Cheers!
GregT on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 12:27 am
“Their society seems very efficient and well designed, but clearly they didn’t think things through when it comes to their nuclear power infrastructure.”
Contradicting yourself yet again lil planter? You’re about as daft as Boat, but at least he isn’t a flaming hypocrite.
Hypocrite!
onlooker on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 4:01 am
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/nuclear-engineer-fukushima-last-250000-years/
Nuclear Engineer: Fukushima Meltdown Could Last 250,000+ Years
Radiation, the gift that keeps on giving
forbin on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 4:34 am
published in the Daily Star over here – look it up if you dare (!)
“Scientists were excited about this – not because of concern about the radioactivity – but because the radioactivity demonstrated that bluefin tuna do routinely travel all the way across the Pacific Ocean. The amounts the fish carried were minuscule — far less, ounce for ounce, than the amount of naturally occurring radiation in a banana — but enough for scientists to gain insight into animal migration. The detected concentrations of cesium-134 and cesium-137 were well below safety limits set by the most stringent government regulations.”
Source :-
http://www.beachapedia.org/Radiation_From_Fukushima
take a look , see what you think
Forbin
deadlykillerbeaz on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 6:27 am
Son-of-a-bitch!
250,000 years of radiation is a lot!
7.49 billion people don’t really care, if you want to know the truth.
And we worry and have a hissy fit over a few trillion barrels of oil and a couple hundred trillion tons of coal that will be burned no matter what.
There really is nothing to worry about, so don’t.
Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly.
davy-fan on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 7:11 am
i’m not sure about radiation scare anymore. the site enenews is still chockfull of people who go “ZOMYGOD we’re doom” since 2011 or whenever fuku happened. i know it’s 3/11 something too lazy to look up.
i begin to think mawk_amuck is brilliant and he’s right.
If it’s cheap because people are afraid of radiation like the snow crabs after 3/11 and i loaded it up. still don’t see a 2nd head growing on my shoulder yet.
What a fool i feel for telling a list of many people that they’ll start seeing multiple head babies a couple of more years ago.
Antius on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 7:17 am
People lack a bullshit detector when it comes to scare stories about radiation.
Instruments are capable of detecting ionising radiation in miniscule quantities. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that tiny amounts are found in migratory fish. In fact, tiny quantities are present all over the world. It doesn’t necessarily mean there is a problem, it is more that we are very good at detecting it.
If populations are accumulating doses at levels sufficient to have a significant effect on their life expectancy, then contamination becomes a real concern. But we are talking about levels that are substantially lower than background dose rates. Why worry about a trillionth chance when any one of us could get run over and killed tomorrow?
Antius on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 7:20 am
‘250,000 years of radiation is a lot!’
The inside of a nuclear reactor is very radioactive. I don’t know where 250,000 years comes from. But ultimately, the plants will need decommissioning with a waste management strategy. Normal beer.
davy-fan on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 7:27 am
yes when the science i was taught told me nuclear energy is in order of MeV (M could roughly be considered as Million) then i begin to freak out. Unlike politicians who shuffle billions and trillions to various projects, I once had a firm grasp of the number 1 million and it’s big, i tell you. if getting hit bit a bullet is uncomfortable i assure you a theoretical bullet propelled by nuclear energy is no mosquito bite.
anyways, sober up and listen to mawk_amuck. he’s the smart one on knownukes. what can i say i feel stupid and defeated. time to follow the glorious leader mawk_amuck
Midnight Oil on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 8:40 am
You all got it all wrong! It’s actually SAFER now, the radiation is sterilizing the harmful germs and preventing illness.
Please, the alarmists are just trying to scare us in believing we have to go back in caves.
Bensen, Borax, Beatty and Mario.
penury on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 9:42 am
I was pleased to note that the usual deniers are already posting, Radiation is good for you. Everyone should cheer because the radiation will keep you safe. You people need to do some reading, or research and find out the truth. Been there,done that, got the free medical. Guess what? The effects of the nuclear waste will KILL you.
Antius on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 10:35 am
Davy-fan, you seem to have trust issues. But I have nothing to gain by misleading anyone about this. I have been carrying out risk assessments for the past 15 years. I have carried out radiological, fire, chemo-toxic and conventional health and safety risk assessments.
The risk to an individual from radiation for long term doses or prompt doses <1Sv is a linear function of the total energy absorbed by their tissues. There are two weighting factors: one for the tissue being irradiated and another based upon the type of radiation involved. A large dose of radiation implies a large risk. For an adult, a 1Sv dose results in a 5% additional risk of fatal cancer later in life. That translates to losing about a year of life expectancy for the average adult. That’s a big dose – enough to cause symptoms of radiation sickness. A smaller dose implies a proportionately smaller risk. It is that simple. The same holds true for most other contaminants we have to deal with, risk is proportional to dose, unless specifically it involves an infectious agent.
A rough rule of thumb to gauge how serious a radiation exposure is, work out the dose in Sv and then multiply it by 365 to estimate the number of days life expectancy lost. For a child before puberty, you can roughly double that estimate. For a 2mSv dose (background radiation in most places) the life expectancy lost is about 0.73 days per year for a man or woman about 30 years of age and about 1.5 days for a child. If you live in a highly contaminated area, such as the outer edge of the Fukushima exclusion zone, dose may be up to 20mSv per year. Over 20 years of exposure, life expectancy for the average man would be reduced by 146 days and 292 days for a child. That is substantial, a 0.5% reduction in life expectancy for an adult and 1% for a child, but still small compared to other hazards such as obesity, air pollution, occupational hazards, etc. When you factor in the fact that nuclear accidents are very unlikely to occur and only occurred in Japan due to severe geological conditions, the risk to human life is small compared to other hazards.
When you have tools available to estimate the risks, you are much less vulnerable to scaremongering and you are able to see situations in a new light. It’s one of the reasons why I am not frightened of radiation and am happy to live within 10km of a nuclear power plant, but air pollution and palm fat in my food really ticks me off. Those things knock years off of my life expectancy.
Ace on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 10:59 am
This is a fear porn article. For real facts check the actual research. https://fukushimainform.ca/2016/12/09/fukushima-radiation-has-reached-u-s-shores/
https://fukushimainform.ca/2016/11/15/pushing-the-limit-fukushima-fingerprint-isotope-found-in-salmon-from-2015/
Note, only trace levels found, no concern for human health or marine life.
davy-fan on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 11:18 am
@Antius thanks for the straight answer and it made me a fool. I read everything of this technical nature and came out with the email about two headed babies. I feel like a fool 4 years later.
I’m glad I escape the prison of enenews or the like. I went out jogging in rain the days caesium radiation from fuku was supposed to hit Boston. I even felt weird a few months after.
Thanks for making me look like a weirdo going around shopping for iodine for my thyroid.
And thanks for that paper in Italian that said the huge amount of Pu from Fuku is enough to eliminate entire earth population many times over. And thanks for nukes over Japan with one is a Pu bomb and a simple line of reasoning indicates an aweful lot of Pu left unfissioned.
Yeah no…no more fear which sometimes inevitiably lead to dumping of stocks. If you need a psychopath who will hold to your cold dead shares, I am it now. I will hold and wait for the top of the curve to sell for huge profits. It’s because I’m no longer affected by cold hard science. I don’t have fear anymore. No doom
respectfully
davy-fan on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 11:33 am
and of course I don’t trust people, you’ll be very surprised to know the scenario in “10 cloverfield lane” is just routine life BS. Try a drama show for a full day and flash back to real life. You’ll discover that the show is real life. If you’re fortunate to be among loving, supportive, clean, intelligent people, you’re very lucky. For normal life, I hug a weapon, any weapon. Not because I want to put it to use. I just want to be left alone to do my plumbing because without it diseases will follow and that’s no fun.
Nobody wants to be my friend. they inevitably want to dominate or leech or show their love with liberal use of profanity. I’m taking a sweet revenge on them though. I want to be alone and try to outlive them.
Apneaman on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 12:27 pm
10 Devastating Radiation Accidents They Never Tell You About
http://listverse.com/2016/03/26/10-devastating-radiation-accidents-they-never-tell-you-about/
onlooker on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 1:01 pm
I think you forgot this one AP
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4346408/Russia-covered-nuclear-disaster-worse-Chernobyl.html
Russia covered up a nuclear disaster in Kazakhstan in the 1950s that was FOUR TIMES worse than Chernobyl reveals secret report
onlooker on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 1:13 pm
Chernobyl Thyroid Statistics
Here are some startling statistics.
In general, Chernobyl fallout exposure increased the risk of autoimmune thyroid disease, benign thyroid nodules, hypothyroidism, and papillary and follicular cancer. The risk following childhood exposure lasts for life, although the risk does appear to decline somewhat many years after exposure.
The cancers affecting those exposed to Chernobyl fallout tend to be more aggressive.
Prior to Chernobyl, thyroid cancer in children was almost non-existent. Starting in 1990, however, there was a dramatic increase in childhood thyroid cancers in Belarus, Ukraine, and to a lesser extent, Russia.
The most dramatic rate increase of thyroid cancer is in children who were 10 or younger when the Chernobyl accident occurred, and most specifically, those who were under 4.
In Ukraine, the incidence of thyroid cancer in children rose 10-fold in children who lived in that region.
Researchers found that in certain parts of Belarus, almost 40 percent of children who were under four when the accident occurred have developed or will develop thyroid cancer. This rate is higher than earlier estimated, and is far above the rates for those exposed to radiation in other parts of the world. Researchers believe this high rate may be due to iodine deficiency in that geographic region.
Among children living in Belarus, thyroid cancer is even more common and more severe in those who were younger than 2 years old at the time of the 1986 accident. Researchers believe that the rapid cellular growth that occurs in children under 2 facilitated a quicker and broader development of the cancer.
The incidence of thyroid cancer was 45 times greater among those who received the highest radiation dose as compared to those in the lowest-dose group.
https://www.verywell.com/chernobyl-has-continuing-thyroid-impact-in-region-3231749
Mu Tru on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 2:37 pm
“worrying amounts of radiation”
“terrifying discovery”
Worrying? Terrifying? 100% false. The only outfit that gains from this fear-mongering is the Woods Hole Institute trying to scare up money to fund its research. The radiation detected is fantastically small, and only proves we have really good detectors. But the risk to people and the rest of the west coast ecosystem? Pose that question to Woods Hole and they’ll admit the risk is pretty much zero.
diemos on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 9:18 pm
“I don’t know where 250,000 years comes from.”
@Antius Natural Uranium ore exists in equilibrium with all of it’s decay products and most of the gamma dose comes from the decay products. When the ore is refined the uranium metal is separated from the decay products and the uranium metal has lower radiation levels than the ore.
Over time the decay of the uranium atoms replenishes the decay products and the radiation output rises. The timescale is set by the Th230 which has a half-life 75,000 years so it peaks at a little over 3 half-lives.
At the same time as the decay products are accumulating in the metal. The original ones that were separated and discarded are decaying away at the same rate so the total remains constant.
________________________________________ on Tue, 28th Mar 2017 10:22 pm
Bears need t0 be exterminated. Bears are spreading radiation onto land
Antius on Wed, 29th Mar 2017 6:19 am
‘The incidence of thyroid cancer was 45 times greater among those who received the highest radiation dose as compared to those in the lowest-dose group.’
I do not doubt this. In fact, some 5000 cases of thyroid cancer have been diagnosed in children who were aged up to 18 years at the time of the accident in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia since 1990. Although rarely fatal, this will severely impact the lives of those people. The effect was made worse by the blanket of secrecy maintained by Soviet authorities following the accident. This prevented the enactment of countermeasures that could have protected these people.
Background caesium contamination has or will cause up to several thousand additional fatalities in contaminated areas.
The consequences of a severe nuclear accident are not trivial. But as always, it needs to be weighed in the context of other hazards. In the US, some 200,000 people die due to air pollution from fossil fuels each year. So in the 30 years since Chernobyl, several million people have died from fossil fuel pollution in the US alone. In Europe, the figure will be even higher as population density and pollution levels are higher. Tens of millions will die from cancer and heart disease as a result of lifestyle choices that they could easily avoid.
This happens every year. People mostly ignore it. A nuclear accident is something that only happens if we are careless or unlucky. In order to result in the same number of fatalities as fossil fuels, every nuclear reactor in the US would need to melt down every single year.
It has been my observation that most people are very bad at understanding what is most dangerous to them. They tend to over react to some things and completely under react to others.
Antius on Wed, 29th Mar 2017 6:33 am
‘“I don’t know where 250,000 years comes from.”
@Antius Natural Uranium ore exists in equilibrium with all of it’s decay products and most of the gamma dose comes from the decay products’
OK. But that is more than a little misleading isn’t it. What was initially written suggests that the region will suffer a radiological emergency for 250,000 years. Whereas in reality, there will be a couple of hundred tonnes of moderately radioactive oxides that we will have find a place for.
Antius on Wed, 29th Mar 2017 6:36 am
Here is the World Health Organisation summary on health effects from Chernobyl, for those interested:
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/
Kenz300 on Wed, 29th Mar 2017 10:55 pm
Nuclear energy is toxic to people and the planet…..
7 Top NRC Experts Break Ranks to Warn of Critical Danger at Aging Nuke Plants
http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/09/nrc-experts-warn-dangers-nuclear/
Nuclear energy is poisoning the planet…………
5 Years After Fukushima, ‘No End in Sight’ to Ecological Fallout
http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/05/5-years-after-fukushima/