Former US Gov’t Official: “The elephant in the room is Fukushima radiation”

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: pl3bscheese


There is no safe "minute possible level". Thats the problem with radioactive contamination. Once ingested, each atom of cesium irradiates nearby cells, destroying some, injuring others, giving rise to mutations and in some cases, cancer.

Yes I know, you choose to stick to the outdated no threshold view, but it's irrelevant. Even under that assumption, rates are not increased with the minute doses.

Which instrument did you use to determine the radioactive elements were "diluted"?

Where did you take your readings "along the coasts"?

Why are you assuming I took any readings? I've already covered this in a thread long ago, tried to dig up the link but no dice so far. The level was 1 becerral per cubed meter of seawater rising to 2 at times, and not detectable at others. The science is clear. There is no statistical difference in cancer rates or reason to believe there will be health consequences from it.

I know you really want to doom porn this one just cause, but frankly... it's 4 freaking years already. Over 1500 days removed from the event and you can't get it together yet. Absolutely ridiculous.

edit:

found it! They're looking for funding to keep the testing going, might wanna put your monies to it if you really believe this is such a doom scenario. Save the planet! lol

Link

originally posted by: Bluntone22
4 years and counting.... nobody is dying.
Doom porn.

Yup! That's what they hope people believe. "If it was so dangerous, how come no one's dying of cancer?!" You cannot have this kind of radiation spewing massive amount into the air and sea *forever* and expect it to be fine. I'd stop worrying about using sun block too...it's NOTHING in comparison. I've heard people say it's such a small amount compared to the size of our oceans. Just because of logistics, this has to be worse than Chernobyl. There is literally nothing they can do about this. There is nothing underway or even in the planning stage. If your on this website, you must know how media is manipulated. This is no longer talked about, what do you think that means? I don't think there is anyone here that thinks that means, "because it's over and all clear". This is some scary shizz.

originally posted by: Hr2burn

You cannot have this kind of radiation spewing massive amount into the air and sea *forever* and expect it to be fine.

Are you freaking kidding me, kid? You realize how much water is in the world's oceans? Do you realize how much natural uranium and other radioactive isotopes are in it? I've posted this at least half a dozen times on this site already. Drop in the bucket.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Yes I know, you choose to stick to the outdated no threshold view, but it's irrelevant. Even under that assumption, rates are not increased with the minute doses.

That statement reflects you have no idea what you're discussing. Or you have an agenda to cover it up.

Which is it?

a reply to: intrptr

Neither, I'm knowledgeable.

Here's a clue...

How many other sources of carcinogens are we exposed to on an ongoing basis? Now, compare that to a minute dose of radiation from hanging out in the beach or chomping on a fishie who spent their life sucking up water with minute doses of cesium.

You scared of bananas, too?

You're too damned stuck on a single point to the see the big picture, and obviously aren't going to get a clue anytime soon. This freaking long and you still haven't bothered to educate yourself, else don't have the mind to really get it. Not wasting any more time on you, but I challenge you to inform yourself better.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

You realize how much water is in the world's oceans? Do you realize how much natural uranium and other radioactive isotopes are in it? I've posted this at least half a dozen times on this site already. Drop in the bucket.

So you are covering up…

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: pl3bscheese

You realize how much water is in the world's oceans? Do you realize how much natural uranium and other radioactive isotopes are in it? I've posted this at least half a dozen times on this site already. Drop in the bucket.

So you are covering up…

Yea, bringing perspective is "covering up" when you're psychotic.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
4 years and counting.... nobody is dying.
Doom porn.

Death isn't the only possible outcome:

This report addresses changes in rates of certain birth defects after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. While we await the critical data from Japan, where the greatest exposures occurred, we focus on the USA. Our hypothesis that areas in the U.S. which received elevated levels of environmental radioactivity from the Fukushima meltdown are at risk for increased birth defects is based on the documented evidence of cellular damage from radiation exposure, the particular sensitivity of the fetus to radiation, and numerous reports of elevated congenital anomaly rates after exposure to fallout from atomic bomb detonations and nuclear reactor meltdowns.

We find a consistent pattern of excess 2010-2011 increases in birth defect rates in the five West Coast/Pacific states, compared to the rest of the U.S., for the eight-month period April-November. The April-November 2011 birth cohort was exposed to Fukushima radioactivity while in utero. Analyses are presented by birth month, state, defect, gestation length, and conception month. There was a greater increase in the five West Coast/Pacific states in 20 of 21 comparisons.

emphasis mine

Open Journal of Pediatrics
Vol.05 No.01(2015), Article ID:54828,13 pages
10.4236/ojped.2015.51013 Changes in Congenital Anomaly Incidence in West Coast and Pacific States (USA) after Arrival of Fukushima Fallout

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That was debunked on this site long ago. Hell I remember the thread, did you post in it way back when?

This from the same Journal, seems it's a dubious source.

The actual count of confirmed cases of congenital hypothyroidism (CH) from the California Public Health Department does not match the authors’ count because they disregarded the actual count given to them. Instead, the authors (1) invented their own definition of confirmed cases of CH, (2) misrepresented the real definition of CH, and (3) invented a fictitious diagnostic category of CH which they call “borderline cases. Unfortunately, the study is widely disseminated as the “proof” of the effect of Fukushima fallout on the west coast.

Making stuff up, just cause the sensation, monies, what have you. Easy to buy up when you got a belief riding on it, right?

Link

Concluded:

Analysis: This is a case of several researchers who are concerned about health effects of radiation exposure using a predatory journal to publish questionable science that bolsters their position on the adverse health effects of low level radiation exposure. Upon publication of the article, they were successful in getting some media outlets to report their findings, and the findings were seen as legitimate because they were published in a scholarly journal. The journal’s publisher remains faithful to its customers (the paper’s authors, who paid to have their article published) and refuses to retract the article or publish a standard response to it. The academic record remains uncorrected.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Now, compare that to a minute dose of radiation from hanging out in the beach or chomping on a fishie who spent their life sucking up water with minute doses of cesium.

You did it again, focusing on 'radiation' instead of radioactive contamination. Prove you know the difference between the two…

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Links or it didn't happen.

Not sure if you're conflating this study with something one of the Gunderson-types was hyping, but this particular study was published only this year.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

And trolling poster content, again without links.

You haven't a clue how respected JadedANDcyncal is around ATS for the work he puts in on the subject.

Trolls just cry debunk, regardless of content.

Yes yes, well respected BS ... I don't care. He's posting nonsense and I'm calling it out. You fools don't wanna learn, that's your deal, but minds who actually care to can take the information in this thread and realize what's really going on.

It's the same two Authors, same Journal, same nonsense. They're LYING and are called out.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Yes yes, well respected BS ... I don't care. He's posting nonsense and I'm calling it out. You fools don't wanna learn, that's your deal, but minds who actually care to can take the information in this thread and realize what's really going on.

You mean,"bananas are more dangerous than nuclear meltdowns"? You did just say that…

You haven't explained the difference between radiation and radioactive contamination

originally posted by: intrptr
You mean,"bananas are more dangerous than nuclear meltdowns"? You did just say that…

From someone who gets this idiocy out of my words?

a reply to: intrptr

I have absolutely nothing to prove to you whatsoever. You're still refusing to take the information I've presented into consideration.

End of discussion with you.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Your' the one with hoof in mouth disease. I already pointed out your attempts to misinform people about it.

Now come on, please describe the difference between radiation and radioactive contamination.

Or don't. Dismissing people like Hillary today in the hearing isn't going to help you.