Fukushima Hysteria !!

Originally posted by Mamatus

I could start posting up links to sites that PROVE that Pacific Tuna are coming up with high rad numbers. Yet the OP would still call that local and regional. I for one have given up Tuna, one of my very favorite foods is Sushimi (not to be confused with Sushi) and I have stopped eating it. This is not due to hysteria, this is due to existing scientific research.

Care to post the scientific research you are reading because what I can find directly contradicts your assertion?

Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood

Abstract
Radioactive isotopes originating from the damaged Fukushima nuclear reactor in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 were found in resident marine animals and in migratory Pacific bluefin tuna (PBFT).

Publication of this information resulted in a worldwide response that caused public anxiety and concern, although PBFT captured off California in August 2011 contained activity concentrations below those from naturally occurring radionuclides.

To link the radioactivity to possible health impairments, we calculated doses, attributable to the Fukushima-derived and the naturally occurring radionuclides, to both the marine biota and human fish consumers.

We showed that doses in all cases were dominated by the naturally occurring alpha-emitter 210Po and that Fukushima-derived doses were three to four orders of magnitude below 210Po-derived doses.

Doses to marine biota were about two orders of magnitude below the lowest benchmark protection level proposed for ecosystems (10 µGy⋅h−1).

The additional dose from Fukushima radionuclides to humans consuming tainted PBFT in the United States was calculated to be 0.9 and 4.7 µSv for average consumers and subsistence fishermen, respectively.

Such doses are comparable to, or less than, the dose all humans routinely obtain from naturally occurring radionuclides in many food items, medical treatments, air travel, or other background sources.

Although uncertainties remain regarding the assessment of cancer risk at low doses of ionizing radiation to humans, the dose received from PBFT consumption by subsistence fishermen can be estimated to result in two additional fatal cancer cases per 10,000,000 similarly exposed people.

“Absolute ly Every One” Bluefin Tuna Tested In California Waters Contaminated with Fukushima Radiation

And see this. CNN reports today: Low levels of radioactive cesium from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident turned up in fish caught off California in 2011, researchers reported Monday. The bluefin spawn off Japan, and many migrate across the Pacific Ocean. Tissue samples taken from 15 bluefin caught in August, five months after the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, all contained reactor byproducts cesium-134 and cesium-137 at levels that produced radiation about 3% higher than natural background sources

The Wall Street Journal quotes the studies’ authors: “The tuna packaged it up and brought it across the world’s largest ocean,” said marine ecologist Daniel Madigan at Stanford University, who led the study team. “We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.”

The Wall Street Journal quotes the studies’ authors: “The tuna packaged it up and brought it across the world’s largest ocean,” said marine ecologist Daniel Madigan at Stanford University, who led the study team. “We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.” *** “We found that absolutely every one of them had comparable concentrations of cesium-134 and cesium-137,” said marine biologist Nicholas Fisher at Stony Brook University in New York state, who was part of the study group.

The bad news is that it is only going to get worse. As Reuters points out: Unlike some other compounds, radioactive cesium does not quickly sink to the sea bottom but remains dispersed in the water column, from the surface to the ocean floor. Fish can swim right through it, ingesting it through their gills, by taking in seawater or by eating organisms that have already taken it in ….

As KGTV San Diego explains: The real test of how radioactivity affects tuna populations comes this summer when researchers planned to repeat the study with a larger number of samples. Bluefin tuna that journeyed last year were exposed to radiation for about a month. The upcoming travelers have been swimming in radioactive waters for a longer period. How this will affect concentrations of contamination remains to be seen. One of the studies’ authors told the BBC: The fish that will be arriving around now, and in the coming months, to California waters may be carrying considerably more radioactivity and if so they may possibly be a public health hazard. Japanese and U.S. officials – of course – are pretending that the amount of radiation found in the bluefin is safe. But the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of radiation … and radiation consumed and taken into the body is much more dangerous than background radiation.

Now Intellihub alone should not be a source but you will note from the quotes below this article quotes multiple sources. Enough PROOF for me......

reply to post by Mamatus


You do realise the source I posted in reply to your claim is a peer reviewed, scientifically published paper?

This is not due to hysteria, this is due to existing scientific research.

As you are aware, the source you posted is a blog.

After reading through your source, it appears to be using strategic snippets of valid mainstream media reports and referencing other purely speculative and scientifically naive blogs to skew the facts of the matter ( such as this nonsensical title Nuclear Cheerleaders Use Voodoo Science to Pretend Low Levels of Radiation Are Safe … Or Even Good For You ).

Many people don't understand that we are constantly bathed in varying degrees of exposure to all kinds of naturally occurring background radiation.

According to the legitimate scientific data available, you are getting a higher dose sitting on a porcelain toilet, leaning on a granite counter top or eating a banana than from a Fukushima contaminated bluefin tuna.

If you are interested in facts, follow the sources through on the blog article you sourced and compare with the data collection and methodology on the paper I sourced.

Then see which holds up under scrutiny...

It honestly is nothing more than scaremongering and no reason to stop eating something you enjoy.

So were a few of the ones I posted....... Always look at who funds a study before you buy into it. IMO the source you cited is only going to find evidence that the Government that pays them, agrees with.

Scientists get paid by providing results that agree with their employers desired results. Always have been always will be.

Originally posted by Mamatus
So were a few of the ones I posted....... Always look at who funds a study before you buy into it. IMO the source you cited is only going to find evidence that the Government that pays them, agrees with.

Scientists get paid by providing results that agree with their employers desired results. Always have been always will be.

In some cases such as climate change I would agree however the supporting hard data on this one looks looks pretty conclusive to me...

Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood
Supporting Information

The author of the paper I cited seems to be well published in his field...
Nicholas S. Fisher
Distinguished Professor & Director, Consortium for Inter-Disciplinary Environmental Research, Stony Brook University
Ph.D., 1974, State University of New York at Stony Brook

...and the Stony Brook University Marine and Atmospheric Sciences laboratory is recognised for making some notable scientific discoveries.
Stony Brook University Research

In fairness to your point, the Wiki article on SBU states other programs have received Federal funding from such agencies of the Department of Homeland Security in the past.

The the concept of peer review is meant to weed out any conflicts of interest although I freely admit that in practice it doesn't always work.

Everyone has their own standards for burden of proof, until somebody can provide hard data showing otherwise I will continue to enjoy akkami and tekka at the sushi bar.