Estimation of Nuclear-Energy Excursion Possibility during Fukushima-1 NPP Accident, CTBTO: Science & Technology, June 2013: [March 15 at Takasaka monitoring station ~250km SW of Fukushima-1] registered levels of radioactive aerosols exceeded the possible ranges of measurements [...] The highest values of radioactivity were indicated on March 16. [...] iodine-135 (half-life period = 6,6 hour) reached value of 74 Bq/m3, and the ratio of iodine-135/iodine-131 activities reached value of 24 that pointed indicated on “fresh” fission products from the damaged reactors, and also testified to possibility of emerged uncontrollable nuclear reaction. Unfortunately, the data of radioactive noble gases concentrations were not correctly obtained at Takasaka’s station because of too high levels of their content and equipment pollution. [...] reinforce or reject the hypothesis of secondary criticality at the Fukushima-1 accident could be possible [...]
Sulfur-35 in Southern California, June 2013: [...] data in favor of the criticality is given in  where the results of the determination of radioactive sulfur-35 in sulfate aerosols and gaseous SO2 in the oceanic air on the Pacific coast in the village of La Jolla, California. This data indicate exposure of sea water to neutrons with fluence 4 x 10^11 neutrons per m2. Radionuclide sulfur-35 is formed from seawater containing chlorine-35 by neutron irradiation.
- Expert: People on West Coast right to be concerned about Fukushima plume — Things “could get much worse” — Lots of radioactivity flowing into ocean — Gov’t not testing water or fish (AUDIO) (ENENews, Dec 1, 2013):
The following three nearly identical Letters-to-the-Editor are signed by a John Lewallen of Philo, California. According to the www.johnlewallenforcongress.org website, “my wife [...] Barbara and I own and operate the Mendocino Sea Vegetable Company devoted to hand-harvesting [...] seaweed”:
- Times-Standard, Dec. 1, 2013 (emphasis added): Fukushima rads won’t hurt us here [...] “The situation is of concern near Japan coast where fisheries remain closed,” [WHOI Senior Scientist] Ken Buesseler wrote in an email to me on Nov. 17. “There is a lot of radioactivity left in the tanks (they have removed much of the cesium, but strontium-90 is still very high), contaminated groundwater that flows to the ocean, and spent fuel pool. Something could get much worse“
- Anderson Valley Advertiser, Nov. 28, 2013: Scientific team finds no harmful radiation from Fukushima on West Coast
- Sonoma Index-Tribune, Nov. 21, 2013: No Fukushima radiation on West Coast
Here is what Buesseler said on the radio two days ago (at 10:00 in): “I completely agree that no radiation has been seen in the regards that we’re not really testing for it ((laughter)) in any organized way [...] We have very few data; it’s not really being organized. The government says we don’t really need to do that because we’re predicting very low levels. On the other hand, you could argue I’d very much like to see study on our side of the ocean just to confirm these values and build some confidence with the public that’s been concerned about this. They’re right to be concerned — as scientists we’re telling them they shouldn’t be, but it’d be nice to have a few more data points to fill that gap […] I’ve been told that there’s very little testing going on.”
Buesseler statements on Friday give new meaning to headlines like ‘No Fukushima radiation on West Coast‘ and ‘Scientific team finds no harmful radiation from Fukushima on West Coast‘.
- ENSSER Comments on the Retraction of the Séralini et al. 2012 Study (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, Nov 29, 2013):
ENSSER Comments on the Retraction of the Séralini et al. 2012 Study
Journal’s retraction of rat feeding paper is a
travesty of science and looks like a bow to industry
Elsevier’s journal Food and Chemical Toxicology has retracted the paper by Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini’s group which found severe toxic effects (including liver congestions and necrosis and kidney nephropathies), increased tumor rates and higher mortality in rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified NK603 maize and/or the associated herbicide Roundup. The arguments of the journal’s editor for the retraction, however, violate not only the criteria for retraction to which the journal itself subscribes, but any standards of good science. Worse, the names of the reviewers who came to the conclusion that the paper should be retracted, have not been published. Since the retraction is a wish of many people with links to the GM industry, the suspicion arises that it is a bow of science to industry. ENSSER points out, therefore, that this retraction is a severe blow to the credibility and independence of science, indeed a travesty of science.
Inconclusive results claimed as reason for withdrawal
- Cell phone radiation breast cancer link – New study raises grave concerns (Natural News, Nov 27, 2013):
A new study raises concerns of a possible association between cell phone radiation exposure and breast cancer in young women.
The research team, led by Dr. Lisa Bailey, a former president of the American Cancer Society’s California Division and one of California’s top breast surgeons, studied four young women – aged from 21 to 39 years old – with multifocal invasive breast cancer.
The researchers observed that all the patients developed tumors in areas of their breasts next to where they carried their cell phones, often for up to 10 hours per day, for several years. None of the patients had a family history of breast cancer. They all tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2 – breast cancer genes linked to about one-half of breast cancer cases – and they had no other known breast cancer risks.
Imaging of the young girls’ breasts revealed a clustering of multiple tumor foci in the part of the breast directly under where their cell phones touched their body.
More articles on the buckyballs nightmare HERE (at EnviroReporter.com):
“… new UC Davis report about uranium-filled “buckyballs” and proof that sea mist carries radiation inland for hundreds of miles …” (Source)
- CBC: Gov’t scientists are now detecting Fukushima’s radioactive plume offshore of Canada — Professor: It’s headed to our coast, I think monitoring rainfall over next couple years would be prudent (AUDIO) (ENENews, Nov 27, 2013):
Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds chief engineer, Nov. 26, 2013 (at 3:15 in): [It's] really a mixed blessing […] What saved Japan was that the wind was blowing out to sea. Now I said it’s a mixed blessing because the contamination is heading to the West Coast of the United States. >> Watch the Fairewinds video here
CBC interview with Jay Cullen, associate professor and marine chemist at University of Victoria’s school of earth & ocean sciences, Nov. 20, 2013 (at 8:15 in): I think we could definitely have more monitoring. I know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — the Institute of Ocean Science –- [the lion-p?] program which is a time series program that monitors the chemistry and biology of the North Pacific that’s headed up by Maria Robert. They’re making measurements of these Fukushima-source radionuclides offshore, and they’re starting to detect the presence of the plume of radioactivity. Again these elements, the concentrations are really quite low compared to natural* radionuclides, but it is making its way towards our coast. But I do think it would be prudent to monitor both precipitation and what’s going on in the oceans, especially over the next couple of years. 1: for what we can learn about how the oceans are operating; and 2: to really – again — put these risks into perspective. I think that the public’s perceived risk, especially when it comes to radioactivity in the environment, is sometimes way out of line with what the actual risks are.
- Explained: rad, rem, sieverts, becquerels (MIT News, March 27, 2011):
A guide to terminology about radiation exposure
Sometimes it must seem as though reports on releases of radioactive materials from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant in the wake of the devastating earthquake and tsunami are going out of their way to confuse people. Some reports talk about millisieverts while others talk about rem or becquerels, when what most people really want to know is much simpler: Can I drink the milk? Is it safe to go home? Should people in California be worried?
- “Radionuclides from Fukushima due to hit U.S. West Coast any day now” — Senior Scientist: “Really bizarre” U.S. gov’t not testing for it — Concerned officials contacting him about threat (ENENews, Nov 24, 2013):
Cape Cod Times, Nov. 24, 2013:
With the first plume of water carrying radionuclides from Fukushima due to hit the U.S. West Coast any day now, [Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Senior Scientist Ken] Buesseler’s latest project is to convince the federal government to monitor radiation levels in the sea water. [...] He predicts the radiation will be so diluted after the long journey across the Pacific that it will pose no threat [...] But he knows that’s not enough to reassure the public. [...] he knows people are concerned [...] he fields regular phone calls from surfers and salmon fishermen as well as congressmen. [...] Continue reading »
YouTube Added. Nov 19, 2013
Oceanus Magazine, May 2013: Prior to Fukushima, however, the levels of cesium-137 off the coast of Japan, as cataloged by Michio Aoyama at the Meteorological Research Institute in Japan and others, were among the world’s lowest, at around 2 becquerels per cubic meter (1 becquerel, or Bq, equals one radioactive decay event per second). Against this background, the concentrations measured in early April of 2011 were all the more alarming. […] The amount of cesium-137 radioisotopes from the Fukushima disaster in surface ocean waters was 10,000 to 100,000 times greater than amounts that entered the ocean from the Chernobyl accident or atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.
Ken Buesseler, Senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, March 11, 2013: I’ve had to use this crazy tall and logarithmic scale to get the range of concentrations […] how much cesium was in the ocean off Japan. Each red point is a sampling by an individual taken in, actually released by TEPCO. A little complicated to find the data but they were openly released and I translated them to the right units and made some corrections. Each red dot will tell me how much radioactivity was at that point along the coast on a given date. So they start out here around 10,000, the very first measurements that were made, peaking up here, up to 50 million [becquerels per cubic meter]. That’s a very alarmingly high number [...]
See also: Senior Scientist: Chernobyl was nothing with potential of Fukushima right on ocean — No way to contain all this radioactive water — You can’t stop groundwater flow — Every bit of news we’re getting is radioactivity numbers are going up