Saturday, December 5, 2015

Pacific Ocean Contaminated by Fukushima's Ongoing Emissions but Alaskan Fish Reported Free of Contamination



Life is full of contradictions but the contradictions about radiation contamination are particularly troublesome.

On the one hand, the mainstream media and government officials are saying that seafood is free from any Fukushima nuclear contamination. On the other hand, radiation contamination from Fukushima has been detected in North American Pacific coastal life since 2011 and radiation contamination in the Pacific has not ceased, but rather is continuing unabated almost 5 years after the disaster.

Some sources in the mainstream media are going so far as to say that "no radiation contamination" was ever detected in the state of Alaska, as illustrated here:
Dan Joling (AP), No Fukushima radiation in Alaska seafood. Juneau Empire, December 1, 2015, http://juneauempire.com/state/2015-12-01/no-fukushima-radiation-alaska-seafood

[excerpt] "Sampling has never detected radioactive contamination from Fukushima in Alaska, but that has not stopped the rumors. Misinformation spread online has caused much concern in the last four years, said Marlena Brewer, an environmental protection specialist for the Division of Environmental Health."
However, it is simply NOT TRUE that radiation from Fukushima was never detected in Alaska, as evident from testimony made by Lisa Jackson, former EPA Administrator:
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, (2011). Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/16cf19b9b7f7014a85257870006dd410!OpenDocument

Release Date: 04/12/2011
… Air samples obtained through the RadNet system have, to date, contained very small amounts of iodine, cesium, and tellurium, which are consistent with possible releases from the damaged Japanese reactors. The largest amounts were found in samples from Alaska on March 19 and 24, 2011, but all of the radiation levels detected during the detailed filter analysis are hundreds of times below levels of concern.
Although Lisa Jackson promised that the levels would pose no risks, her account does not incorporate ramifications of four years of ongoing ocean contamination coupled with processes of bioaccumulation that concentrate the low levels of radionuclides found in water and soil at higher levels in flora and fauna.

Radiation contamination was detected in Alaskan life in 2011.

Cesium-134 from Fukushima was indeed detected in Alaskan islands Amchitka and Adak, as noted in the 2013 Biological Monitoring Report, which discusses data collected in 2011:
Amchitka Island, Alaska, Biological Monitoring Report, 2011 Sampling Results U.S. Department of Energy. Doc. No. S08833 September 2013 Page x  
The concentrations of 134Cs in samples [ of reindeer lichen and soil ] collected from Amchitka and Adak indicate that atmospheric transport of airborne contamination from the Fukushima Dai-ichi event may have contributed to the levels detected.
Radiation Levels Aren't Dropping

Moreover, Cesium levels in seawater off the Pacific Coast have risen substantially, from a pre-Fukushima background level of ½ to 1 Becquerels per cubic meter of seawater to the latest and highest detection of 11 Becquerels:
Courtney Sherwood. Radiation from Japan nuclear disaster spreads off U.S. shores. Reuters, December 3, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/japan-nuclear-usa-idINL1N13S33220151203#G13IzT6Z2XHcww8q.97

Last year, Woods Hole reported detectable radiation from about 100 miles (160 km) off the coast of northern California, and in April radiation was found off Canada's shores.

The latest readings measured the highest radiation levels outside Japanese waters to date some 1,600 miles (2,574 km) west of San Francisco.

The figures also confirm that the spread of radiation to North American waters is not isolated to a handful of locations, but can be detected along a stretch of more than 1,000 miles (1,600 km) offshore….

Higher levels of Fukushima cesium detected offshore. Phys Org December 3, 2015, http://phys.org/news/2015-12-higher-fukushima-cesium-offshore.html#jCp
Scientists monitoring the spread of radiation in the ocean from the Fukushima nuclear accident report finding an increased number of sites off the US West Coast showing signs of contamination from Fukushima. This includes the highest detected level to date from a sample collected about 1,600 miles west of San Francisco. The level of radioactive cesium isotopes in the sample, 11 Becquerel's per cubic meter of seawater (about 264 gallons)…

Almost any seawater sample from the Pacific will show traces of cesium-137, an isotope of cesium with a 30-year half-life, some of which is left over from nuclear weapons testing carried out in the 1950s to 1970s. The isotope cesium-134 is the "fingerprint" of Fukushima, but, with a 2-year half-life, it decays much quicker than cesium-137. Scientists back calculate traces of cesium-134 to determine how much was actually released from Fukushima in 2011 and add to it an equal amount of cesium-137 that would have been released at the same time.
How can cesium 134 and 137 from Fukushima be in the soil, lichen, and sea water, but not in the sea life? Lack of detection could derive from a variety of factors including sampling methodology and laboratory procedures. I am checking into those issues further.

It is also possible that cesium simply hasn’t bioaccumulated at all in the sea life, but that conclusion is counter to findings of contaminated tuna in California reported in 2012:
Daniel J. Madigan, Zofia Baumann, and Nicholas S. Fisher. Pacific bluefin tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan to California. PNAS (Published online before print May 29, 2012)http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/22/1204859109.full.pdf+html
The lack of contamination in Salmon is also surprising when one looks at a model proposed by scientists on the Pacific Northwest marine food web, which featured orcas as an apex predator likely to suffer significant levels of radionuclide contamination over time. Read the entire abstract. Realize that the study is not empirical but is a model. Even so, its conclusions raise concerns about the scope of testing being done to ensure food safety:

Alva, Juan & Gobas, Frank (2011, October 4). Modeling the Bioaccumulation Potential of Cesium-137 in a Marine Food Web of the Northwest Pacific, Canada[9080]. Paper presented at SETAC North America 32nd Annual Meeting in Session 498: Environmental Radiation: What Do We Know and What Should We Know for Assessing Risks http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233869698_Modeling_the_Bioaccumulation_Potential_of_Cesium_137_in_a_Marine_Food_Web_of_the_Northwest_Pacific_Canada

[Excerpt from Abstract] The steady stated model showed that concentrations of 137Cs predicted in the male killer whale were approximately three orders of magnitude higher relative to its major prey, Chinook salmon, and > 13,000 times higher compared to phytoplankton. The time-dependent model showed that after 30 days of radioactive spillage, the 137Cs concentrations accumulate gradually over time in high trophic level organisms (salmon and killer whales), which exhibited low concentrations likely driven by slow intake rates, while it bioaccumulates at faster uptake rates in low trophic level, gill ventilating organisms (phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates and planktivorous fish), exhibiting concentration about one to two orders of magnitude greater than that in killer whales. At 9125 days (25 years), the predicted concentrations of 137Cs accumulate in a higher degree in killer whales, being >2 orders of magnitude greater than that predicted in Chinook salmon and 10,000 times higher relative to phytoplankton. The levels of 137Cs predicted in biota (shellfish and fish) exceeded well above the 137Cs action level for commercial food/beverage of 1000 Bq/kg established by the Canadian Guidelines for Consumption following a Nuclear Emergency.
Bioaccumulation was expected after detections of radionuclides in soil, lichen, and water but the fish are still being reported as contamination free, even when the levels of contamination being detected offshore Japan are higher than expected and indicate ongoing contamination by both cesium and strontium:
Mathew P. Johansen, Elizabeth Ruedig, Keiko Tagami, Shigeo Uchida, Kathryn Higley, and Nicholas A. Beresford Radiological Dose Rates to Marine Fish from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident: The First Three Years Across the North Pacific. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1277−1285. DOI: 10.1021/es505064d

ABSTRACT: A more complete record is emerging of radionuclide measurements in fish tissue, sediment, and seawater samples from near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) and across the Pacific Ocean. Our analysis of publicly available data indicates the dose rates to the most impacted fish species near the FDNPP (median 1.1mGy d−1, 2012−2014 data) have remained above benchmark levels for potential dose effects at least three years longer than was indicated by previous, data-limited evaluations. Dose rates from 134,137Cs were highest in demersal species with sediment-associated food chains and feeding behaviors. In addition to 134,137Cs, the radionuclide 90Sr was estimated to contribute up to approximately one-half of the total 2013 dose rate to fish near the FDNPP.
 On page 1277 of this article by Johansen et al, concerns are raised about dispersion of ocean borne contamination:
Some of the released radionuclides are being carried long distances within the circulation of the North Pacific Gyre. Plume spreading is complex,20,21 and, although predictions vary, modeling suggests radionuclide concentrations will rise in the western North American coastal waters ca. 2014,22−24 and in Australian and southeast Asian waters ca. 2020−2030.22 To date, an evaluation of FDNPP-derived doses to marine fish on the Pacific scale has not been reported.
I am guessing that “an evaluation of FDNPP-derived doses to marine fish on the Pacific scale” will NEVER be publicly reported and the data that are reported will be selected to reinforce the official “NO HARM” MEME that I’ve demonstrated in my published research as quite problematic even while the "truth" remains elusive.

Its all very confusing, contradictory, and suspicious....



6 comments:

  1. Maybe this is why the media and govt lie about nuclear and fukushima contamination. The oligarchs who run things have a lot of money invested in nuclear. Facts is these phony speculations prop up many bankrupted hedge fund and stock market equities. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/04/gates-nuclear-folly-the-breakthrough-we-really-need-is-fast-implementation-of-renewables/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great article. Meglo-maniac men, who believe the technological dream of progress spun by atomic propagandists decades ago, disregard the obvious genotoxic failures of their fetishized energy.

      Men, I've found, too often prioritize technology without regard for the human consequences, particularly for children.

      Of course, not all men are like this but too many follow this pattern, including some of my own family members.

      Delete
  2. Remember this?
    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/11/high-radiation-levels-found-in-north-american-seafood-fukushima/

    ReplyDelete
  3. 14 diseases on rise in america. autism makes sense from increased nuclear pollution. so do kidney and liver cancer. rest could be from immune system depression. I wonder if cystic firosis and other genetic abnormalities are still on the rise. http://www.medicaldaily.com/feeling-sick-14-diseases-are-rise-america-363744#big-shots/363744/1

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wrote to Robert F Gerlach, VMD to ask about the specific page for the results noted in an article claiming no radiation was found in Alaska seafood. He replied.... caferadlab.com/thread-284.html - methodology +

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this the full link? Its not working for me.

      Thanks Grant Research!

      Delete