Sunday, May 4, 2014

The Art of Deception

What aren't counted?

That is my question when I read estimates of Cesium-137 in dying sea lions and other animals:
Enenews: Alarm as record numbers of seals & sea lions ‘starving to death’ along California coast — “It’s just spiked… calls started coming nonstop” — “So many unhealthy… washing ashore” — “Extremely complex issue… multitude of factors in play” — “Definitely a mystery, we’re hoping it’s not the new norm”
Expert officials are always (metaphorically) scratching their heads, saying that the reported Cesium-137 level is not high enough to cause acute radiation syndrome symptoms in the dying sea mammals.

I understand its possible that accumulated cesium levels from the hot rain that came down in the spring of 2011 and from the ocean plume are not high enough to cause symptoms of acute radiation exposure.

However, what the 'experts' aren't talking about are the other radionuclides that accompanied Cesium across the globe.

Cisco, a long-time poster at Enenews, recently made this point in a comment. Cisco asked me to post at my blog about this issue. I will but I'll let you read Cisco's comment yourself because s/he is pretty clear:
CISCO May 3, 2014 Enenews forum 
It's important to know when tests are conducted for a specific radionuclide, i.e. Iodine, Cesium, Strontium, et al, the isotope of choice is generally the test which is the lower cost to employ.

Testing for Plutonium and/or Americium requires collection, equipment, and assaying of much higher magnitudes of precision and exponentially higher costs.
It should be understood when Cesium 134 and 137 are reported, these radionuclides are not only the markers for Fukushima; but, they are just two of hundreds of other radionuclides that are present with the Cesium being tested and reported. Those other radionuclides travel in juxtaposition with the Cesium and are equally if not more threatening, like Plutonium, Uranium-235, Americium, Strontium, et al.
What needs to be communicated is…surrounding/accompanying that Cesium is a radioactive amalgamation of equally dangerous radionuclides whose damaging radioactivity is hundreds/thousands of times worse than just the Cesium counts. When we see CPM counts at the Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center ( and others, two things should come to mind… 
1. The radionuclide being tested for and reported is a marker for the other hundreds of radioactive isotopes in suspension with it. 
2. All those other isotopes are deposited on objects, soil and water, and they accumulate somewhere near where they were detected. Do the math, and it's…a no brainer where this monumental clusterfu#k is going.
Majia here: Cisco is correct that testing for Plutonium, Uranium, and Americium is more expensive and specialized equipment is necessary. We don't even have the equipment at my campus to test for these radionuclides.

So, no reports are made publicly of transuranic elements that are likely to be present with the cesium (or elements such as Strontium or Iodine either). The general public concludes no other radioactive elements were measured in the samples and the reported levels pose "little to no risk."

However, as explained very clearly by Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg in 1966, fission produces MANY transuranium elements, including fifteen isotopes of plutonium. ['A Look at 25 Years of STS' Science News, 89(12), 181-183, 191]. Wikipedia defines transuranic elements:
The transuranium elements (also known as transuranic elements) are the chemical elements with atomic numbers greater than 92 (the atomic number of uranium). All of these elements are unstable and decay radioactively into other elements
So, behind every measurement of cesium is very likely an entire zoo of highly radioactive and chemically toxic elements, such as the myriad isotopes of Plutonium and Americium. Please see the bottom of this post for a complete list of transuranium elements provided courtesy of Wikipedia (list doesn't include the range of isotopes).

Moreover, it’s instructive to note that even the most stringent regulatory standards are often based on risk coefficient tables that presume risk can be predicted on the basis of exposure to a single radioactive isotope. For example:
For both internal and external exposure, a risk coefficient for a given radionuclide is based on the assumption that this is the only radionuclide present in the environmental medium. That is, doses due to decay chain members produced in the environment prior to the intake of, or external exposure to, the radionuclides are not considered.[i]
This model of dose-effects taken from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumes a vacuum where exposure is limited to a single radioisotope. The model’s predictions for dose-effects do not incorporate cumulative and synergistic effects.

So, official cesium measurements can be described as 'safe' because the risk is measured as a single one-time assault with NO effort to incorporate the presence and impact of OTHER RADIONUCLIDES.

Thus, the public is persuaded that North American sea lion's adverse mortality event is completely unrelated to Fukushima ocean contamination.

Unfortunately, real world chemical and radiation effects for flora and fauna are impacted by bioaccumulation and exposure interactions. Bioaccumulation is ‘the biological sequestering of a substance at a higher concentration than that at which it occurs in the surrounding environment or medium.’[ii] Biomagnification is defined as ‘the sequence of processes in an ecosystem by which higher concentrations of a particular chemical, such as the pesticide DDT, are reached in organisms higher up the food chain, generally through a series of prey-predator relationships.’ Biomagnification results from bioaccumulation and biotransfer whereby ‘tissue concentrations of chemicals in organisms at one trophic level exceed tissue concentrations in organisms at the next lower trophic level in a food chain.’[iii]

Takashi Hirose provides an example of the implications of biomagnification processes in his book, Fukushima Meltdown, using actual radioactivity concentration data from the Columbia River: Assuming a river water concentration of radiation from the Hanford nuclear plant of one, the egg yolk of a water bird living by the river would be 1,000,000 times more concentrated.[iv] Humans that consume meat, milk, and eggs are at the top of the food chain and therefore will accumulate significant levels of contamination over the course of their lifetime. The impact of bio-contamination is also affected synergistically by the presence of other radioisotopes and chemicals. It can be difficult to predict exposure interactions given the complex synergies of bio-accumulation processes.

Genetic damage and epigenetic changes to gene expression can be transmitted across generations. Each person inherits the totality of genetic damage and epigenetic changes to their parents’ germ-line, or reproductive cells. Consequently, even the most precautionary risk assessments from agencies such as the ICRP may understate real world risks from exposure by failing to account for cumulative and synergistic effects.

Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides: Federal Guidance Report No.13, http://www.epa. gov/radiation/docs/federal/402-r-99-001.pdf, date accessed 25 November 2012.

[ii] U.S. Geological Survey (2011) Bioaccumulation,, date accessed 2 August 2012.

[iii] U.S. Geological Survey (2011) Biomagnification,, date accessed 2 August 2012.

[iv] T. Hirose (2011) Fukushima Meltdown (Osaka, Japan: Asahi Shinsho Books), p. 73.

On Kelp Contamination off Long Beach, CA 2011

S. Manley and C. Lowe (6 March 2012) ‘Canopy-Forming Kelps as California’s Coastal Dosimeter: 131I from Damaged Japanese Reactor Measured in Macrocystis Pyrifera’, Environmental Science & Technology,

‘Study Finds Radioactive Fallout in California Kelp Beds’ (5 April 2012), Everything Long Beach,, date accessed 6 April 2012.

WIKIPEDIA List of the transuranic elements by chemical series (from Wiki link above)

· Actinides

· 93 neptunium Np

· 94 plutonium Pu

· 95 americium Am

· 96 curium Cm

· 97 berkelium Bk

· 98 californium Cf

· 99 einsteinium Es

· 100 fermium Fm

· 101 mendelevium Md

· 102 nobelium No

· 103 lawrencium Lr

· Transactinide elements

· 104 rutherfordium Rf

· 105 dubnium Db

· 106 seaborgium Sg

· 107 bohrium Bh

· 108 hassium Hs

· 109 meitnerium Mt

· 110 darmstadtium Ds

· 111 roentgenium Rg

· 112 copernicium Cn

· 113 ununtrium Uut*

· 114 flerovium Fl

· 115 ununpentium Uup*

· 116 livermorium Lv

· 117 ununseptium Uus*

· 118 ununoctium Uuo*

·         Period 8 elements
·         none yet discovered.


  1. There is a research field that deals with chemical mixtures.

    "Traditionally, toxicological studies and
    human health risk assessments have focused
    primarily on single chemicals. However,
    people are exposed to a myriad of chemi-
    cal and non chemical stressors every day
    and throughout their lifetime. Some recent
    events that highlight the need to understand
    these complex exposures and their role in
    the etiology of disease include the Deepwater
    Horizon oil spill, the earthquake in Japan
    and subsequent Fukushima nuclear disaster,
    and the unknown environmental and health
    effects of hydraulic fracturing. Additionally,
    nonchemical stressors such as infectious
    agents, diet, and psycho social stress should
    be examined for their contribution to health
    effects associated with chemical exposures.
    It is imperative to develop methods to assess
    the health effects associated with complex
    exposures in order to minimize their impact
    on the development of disease."

    1. Mercury synergizes with cesium-137 in creating DNA damage. Mercury damages the DNA repair function. Flu vaccines contain mercury.

    2. Your article entitled "Why minimum detection limits for radionuclides are misleading or wrong." is a wonderful companion to this article, Bobby1!

      Articles entitled "Japanese sludge & more health problems." & "Iodine-131 surge in Japan. Strontium-90 nightmare." reveal ongoing criticalities as well as putting a human face on nuclear contamination suffering ongoing here in North America.

      Quote: "I-131 in Chiba has shown an uptick, but is still below the levels of December through February. This is consistent with the recent upturn in visible activity from the Fukushima webcams."

      quoted from:

      also see:

      "What isotopic ratios from the Unit 3 debris fragments tell us about the explosion there." is also a "must-read".

      "Excessive cesium-134 at Daiini. Evidence of criticality there April 2012 or after."

      Note to the reader that these are only recent articles. In addition to this blog, for further reading see:

  2. What you have outlined Majia, is of course common sense if you are trying to measure the effects of radiation.

    Of course it's also common sense if you are trying not to measure the effects of radiation.

    The average person in-between has no idea what to think. Fact is that we have a mysterious, invisible agent that is causing health problems and the only people who formally study it have a vested interest in not telling the truth. The government has a vested interest in not telling the truth. The regulatory agencies have a vested interest in not telling the truth. In a way, all of Japan has a vested interest in not telling the truth.

    Who does have a vested interest in telling the truth?

    Environmentalists should, but seem too vested in "global warming" to open their eyes to real manmade environmental disaster.

    Public health officials should, but they've obviously been curtailed. Doctors? No, they'll make money. The reason health care costs so much is that the entire health system is set up to fix health issues rather than prevent them.

    The church? Barely hanging on right now and it's too technical.

    College students? They should be a force. Not sure why it means nothing to them.


    Until people understand the scale of what is happening at Fukushima, then there will be no movement. Most think it's a relatively small problem among many very big ones, they don't realize what is really at stake.


    1. James, could i repost this at my website? I'm going to link Majia's blog, but, this layman's summary and appeal is priceless. The site is new and this won't get much reads at first, but, it is devoted to what you've just said - not specific to radiation only but to thinking and acting, to shifting paradigms. I would also hope you think about adding a tiny lead-in to it and submitting it to your local paper or online version in the Opinion editorials section. it will take me a day or two to place it.

  3. spot-on point & superbly delineated, TY! Majia: falsely framing the time-frame & telling lies of omission are dangerously effective tactics deployed by those who see this primarily as a public relations issue, so we must consistently assert the true dimensions of the elephant in the room...

  4. I believe we are all familiar now with how significant information likely to impact social, political or economic matters is carefully processed and packaged to avoid stirring up concern, dissent, etc. in the mass of citizens. In short, a well educated and informed citizenry is to be avoided at all costs! This has been done for so long and so expertly that most people now just swallow down whatever TV proclaims. Attempts to edify most of these people is in vain as the informant is viewed as Fringe--presumably something like possessed by the devil in former times. It is as though a lock has been placed on their critical faculties which only "experts" and officials can open. It seems clear to me that research in the area of radiation and health has been deliberately kept to a bare minimum, and so very little is actually known. Thus it is easy for the media to say "low level", harmless, etc. Hence, we are part of a possibly fatal experiment on the West Coast. We may also find that "what you don't know won't hurt you" is a bad guide to wise behavior.

  5. What I don't understand is why people in CA and Alaska are not more concerned about the sea lions and seals.

    How can the surfers and fisherfolk not be more vocal when surely they can see what is happening to sea life?

    Have we lost our capacity for survival?

    1. I think you have hit on something there...we have lost the will to fight. The malaise and inertia which surround us is incredible. From disintegrating starfish to freak whales, nothing startles us anymore.

  6. Maija you are not a nuclear scientist.

    1. Thankfully, Majia is not a "nuclear scientist"; because, if she was, chances are like you Turd, she'd be shoveling your namesake with disinformation about the real conditions and dangers to humans and the biosphere.

      The so called "nuclear scientists" and their ideology are why we are here today. GFY!

      Cisco from ENENews

    2. It would seem that it doesn't take a nuclear scientist, nor a rocket scientist, nor a brain surgeon - such as yourself - to figure out that those employed as such are wittingly or not actively deceiving the public when communicating levels of radionuclides and only cherry-picking Cesium and obfuscating levels of other unstable isotopes.

      Turd, please "drop you Palmer" elsewhere.

      Quote: "AL Didn't you think just maybe there might be something wrong when the label said
      Chernobyl Farms? I mean, how many chickens have flippers?

      PEGGY Don't blame me for that. I thought it was just an extra head. Bud, you liked it, didn't

      BUD It was tasty, but hard to eat. Everytime I cut off a piece it would grow back."


      "AL You're not gonna ruin my moment, Peg. Now everyone stand back and feast your eyes on...


      KELLY (SOTTO TO PEGGY AND BUD) Is it just me, or is that a toilet?

      AL Not just a toilet. A Ferguson, the king of bowls."

      quoted from:

      Grab your plunger, you have been acclaimed King Turd. :)

      (for your Father, majia)

  7. LOL, you trying to pimp over here, boy?

  8. Haiku for "Turd"

    nuclear stooges
    want more nuclear power
    they are really dumb


  9. rads have been seen in spawning salmon at adams river bc even back in 2012

  10. If Majia is not a nuclear scientist then one would expect
    the renowned nuclear scientists to be at least scientists if not nuclear scientists and be able to draw a proper diagram of what a half-life looks like and a synchronized full life, but they either can't or don't believe their own theorems or hope that others understand it the way they were taught to pass it on - or off rather. Then they would say "Whenever something like this happens.." Hell!! It should never happen.