Fukushima Contaminated Entire Pacific Ocean

[PaulW]

I would guess that very few of the people who accept the provable fact that Fukushima has had zero effect on Hawaii actually work for the government or have Nuclear shares. I certainly don't. There goes that model of the world. Hmm, what other possible reason could people have for saying 1+1 = 2?

The internet must be a scary place if you can't spot the bogus websites but kudos for admitting it, it gets easier as you go along.

[Chas]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulW

I would guess that very few of the people who accept the provable fact that Fukushima has had zero effect on Hawaii actually work for the government or have Nuclear shares. I certainly don't. There goes that model of the world. Hmm, what other possible reason could people have for saying 1+1 = 2?

The internet must be a scary place if you can't spot the bogus websites but kudos for admitting it, it gets easier as you go along.

---

... like I said....
[]

[PaulW]

"Granted, the zerohedge article was misleading because it used a tsunami graphic where it "should" have used a radiation graphic"

Do you wonder why it didn't use a radiation graphic?

[terracore]

There are only two options I can think of: 1) There is no radiation or 2) Nobody is tracking radiation in a way that can be represented via such graphic.

[ElysianWort]

No possible 3rd option of a government cover-up?

[geochem]

which government? all governments? who is directing those governments to cover up the radioactivity?

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

which government?

Our government for one:

When it comes to the Government and nuclear testing,
history shows the problem has not just been a fallout of
radiation, but a holdout of facts. Information has come to
light that officials of the U.S. Government were aware that
fallout from nuclear blasts would contaminate areas that were
hundreds, even thousands, of miles away.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-105sh...g44045.htm

The exposure of millions of children is especially troubling because much of it could have been avoided. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) learned of the risks of fallout and the prevalence of hot spots with the first atomic test, and the AEC was aware of the danger of consuming contaminated milk during most of the years of testing at NTS.
http://www.ieer.org/latest/iodnart.html

No fathers or mothers think their own children ugly; and this self-deceit is yet stronger with respect to the offspring of the mind. -Miguel de Cervantes, novelist (1547-1616)

[Lodestone]

I was a Health Physics Tech for a decade or so, and worked at several nuclear power plants as well as for a national laboratory. I know a few guys who participated in the emergency response to the Fukushima accident. I am unaware of any "cover up", and am dubious of the parties involved ability to keep a surprise birthday party a secret, much less a multinational cluster-xxxx like Fukushima.

Anyway, on to the my two cents:

1. Did any radioactive material make its way to Hawaii?
Absolutely. Winds blow, currents flow. At least a few atoms found their way here.

2. Did this radioactive material pose a health risk to Hawaii?
Nah. Folks, the universe is (and has always been) home to ionizing radiation. The sun is a gigantic thermonuclear reactor. So is every star in the universe. Our planet is made of formerly (mostly!) radioactive star-dust, and some of the longer-lived isotopes have not finished decaying. Most people receive about 300 millirem a year from natural sources. You received much less than 1 millirem extra from Fukushima. It's not zero, but it is less than a dental x-ray, or living in a concrete building, or a taking a flight to the mainland.

3. Were seafood and crops from the area safe to eat?
Ummm... let's just say no. It was chaos. You've got techs waving geiger-counters from helicopters. You've got reactors with no electricity, personnel trapped in the reactor building, exploding spent fuel buildings, uncontrolled leaking of contaminated water into the ocean, and OH BY THE WAY emergency rescue from a tsunami that killed 20,000 people and injured about as many. At the time, resources were focused on identifying which local towns needed to be evacuated and making sure things didn't get any worse. Eventually, we knew how much radioactive material was released and more or less where it went, but as far details like which Japanese fishing boat's catch was where and when...no. When in doubt, throw it out. Did everybody do the right thing and refrain from selling potentially contaminated food? We'll never know.

4) Why don't we have more accurate maps of where the radioactive material went?
At sufficient distance and time from the event, the radiation levels are so low that they are extremely difficult to distinguish from the natural radioactivity already present. Such is the case for nearly all of the Pacific Ocean. At some point the task becomes both pointless and impossible. Sure, you could spend billions of dollars tracking it, but to what end?

Hope this helps.

[PaulW]

Thanks Lodestone, very well put.

[Lodestone]

From the Wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_...r_disaster

Contamination in the eastern Pacific[edit]
In March 2014, numerous news sources, including NBC,[175] began predicting that the radioactive underwater plume traveling through the Pacific Ocean would reach the western seaboard of the continental United States. The common story was that the amount of radioactivity would be harmless and temporary once it arrived. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration measured cesium-134 at points in the Pacific Ocean and models were cited in predictions by several government agencies to announce that the radiation would not be a health hazard for North American residents. Groups, including Beyond Nuclear and the Tillamook Estuaries Partnership, challenged these predictions on the basis of continued isotope releases after 2011, leading to a demand for more recent and comprehensive measurements as the radioactivity made its way east. These measurements were taken by a cooperative group of organizations under the guidance of a marine chemist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and it was revealed that total radiation levels, of which only a fraction bore the fingerprint of Fukushima, were not high enough to pose any direct risk to human life and in fact were far less than Environmental Protection Agency guidelines or several other sources of radiation exposure deemed safe.[176] Integrated Fukushima Ocean Radionuclide Monitoring project (InFORM) also failed to show any significant amount of radiation[177] and as a result authors received death threats from supporters of Fukushima-induced "wave of cancer deaths across North America" theory.[178]