Alameda Sun: Fukushima Fallout 4/22

[Generic Other]

I opened the Alameda Sun on Friday, April 7, and read with horror its front page article, "Nuclear Scientist Counts Radiation Levels Locally," The article states that UC Berkeley professor Kai Vetter installed three radiation detectors, and began collecting rainwater on the roof of Etcheverry Hall on the Cal campus on March 17, in time for the radioactive plume's arrival on March 19. The article further states that Vetter says fallout in our area from the Fukushima disaster is nothing to worry about, and that "the extremely low levels of both iodine and cesium he measured should reassure people that there is little danger in the presence of these elements.

<snip>

I don’t know about Alameda Sun readers, but I think it is criminally irresponsible for Vetter, a nuclear scientist, to lie to us about the safety and amount of radiation he is measuring, and that the public is being exposed to. Radiation is cumulative, is much more dangerous when it is ingested than when it is outside of you, and Vetter’s own tests have shown the levels to be 181 times the MCLs on March 23.

The nuclear industry has been bending over backwards in this tragedy to protect their continuing interests in building plants throughout the world.

They could care less about you or I or anything other than themselves, and by telling us that we have nothing to worry about from this ongoing disaster, and to let our dogs drink the rainwater, Vetter should be the last person to take advice from regarding this ongoing tragedy.

http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8433&Itemid=11

[upi402]

1. Norwegian Institute of Air Research - NILU calls bullshit on US propaganda

"Rising Risks: Fukushima radiation is blanketing most of the United States and Canada according to the data and visuals published regularly by the Norwegian Institute of Air Research. The risks of that radiation falling with rain, have been downplayed by U.S. government officials and others, who say its impacts are so fleeting and minor so as to be negligible. Nonetheless, radiation falling with rain can cover grass that is eaten by cows and other animals. It can also fall on food crops or contaminate reservoirs that are used for irrigation or drinking water."

[readmoreoften]

4. Do you have a link? I'd like to read this article.

[Generic Other]

10. Here's a site I monitor closely...I think they post Norwegian data

http://enenews.com/fukushima-forecast-series-radiation-clouds-hit-west-coast-beginning-april-24-video

[Thunderstruck]

49. What is the history of that website? Is it credible? I don't know...

According to WHOIS records, the domain was register secretly on March 16, 2011.

So, what gives this site and those behind any credibility?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------





=-=-=-=
Visit AboutUs.org for more information about enenews.com


Registration Service Provided By: UK2 Group
Contact: [email protected]
Visit: http://uk2group.com

Domain name: enenews.com

Registrant Contact:
DomainSecrecy.net
Private Registrant ()

Fax:
164 N. Gateway Drive
Providence, UT 84332
US

Administrative Contact:
DomainSecrecy.net
Private Registrant ([email protected])
+1.4357553433
Fax: [phone]
164 N. Gateway Drive
Providence, UT 84332
US

Technical Contact:
DomainSecrecy.net
Private Registrant ([email protected])
+1.4357553433
Fax: [phone]
164 N. Gateway Drive
Providence, UT 84332
US

Status: Locked

Name Servers:
dns1.vps.net
dns2.vps.net

Creation date: 16 Mar 2011 19:18:00
Expiration date: 16 Mar 2012 14:18:00



Get Noticed on the Internet! Increase visibility for this domain name by listing it at www.whoisbusinesslistings.com
=-=-=-=
The data in this whois database is provided to you for information
purposes only, that is, to assist you in obtaining information about or
related to a domain name registration record. We make this information
available "as is," and do not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
whois query, you agree that you will use this data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (1)
enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that stress or load
this whois database system providing you this information; or (2) allow,
enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited,
commercial advertising or solicitations via direct mail, electronic
mail, or by telephone. The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or
other use of this data is expressly prohibited without prior written
consent from us.

We reserve the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by these terms.
Version 6.3 4/3/2002

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Buzz Clik]

2. I guess the Alameda Sun doesn't mind publishing groundless hysteria draped with slanderous language.

[DCKit]

5. Your future lies (in every sense of the word) in politcs or PR. nt

[readmoreoften]

6. Pointing out that radioactive fallout can cause radioactive contamination is now "slanderous"

and "outrageous", didn't you get the memo? CAN'T YOU JUST ACCEPT THAT THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO IGNORE THIS PROBLEM?!!! :sarcasm:

[Buzz Clik]

9. Calling a scientist who is reporting facts a liar is slanderous.

Tuck in your hyperbole and relax. I'm not suggesting that this isn't a problem.

[readmoreoften]

51. Denying that scientists slant research to support their own projects is anti-science.

I don't trust individual scientists. I trust SCIENCE, which is a group process, not the moral or procedural characteristics of a person. I want DATA and analyses, PLURAL, from multiple scientists. Not data from one scientist working in the nuclear industry. Science is examining multiple fields of data from multiple researchers. It's not blind faith in one guy's analysis. That's called religion.

[Buzz Clik]

58. So, you trust the body of scientific work, but you do not trust individual scientists.

That's pretty convenient, but SCIENCE is the result of individuals' research, not some global team project.

Do you have a problem with Kai Vetter specifically? Are you somehow convinced that his rooftop rainwater monitoring is part of a funded project that he's protecting with lies and fabricated data? That is most certainly your implication.

Do you know what Kai Vetter's research area is? What he teaches?

[Aerows]

65. Good point

Always good to remind people of that.

[Generic Other]

11. Japanese govenrment and TEPCO hope to make talking posting anything about Fukushima illegal

Silence is not my strong suit, so they better just arrest me now.

[Buzz Clik]

23. I don't think that TEPCO has the power to arrest you, or to influence anyone to do so.

You're probably safe to keep talking.

[Generic Other]

44. Karen Silkwood thought she was safe too

I don't feel safe when any government announces they will attempt to make discussion of their problems illegal and try and enforce censorship of the internet.

[Buzz Clik]

56. That was TEPCO?

Or are you wandering off topic?

[Generic Other]

59. I don't know what TEPCO is capable of...I just want then to level with us all

I want the worldwide scientific community to cooperate to bring this thing under control. Then I want to have the conversation about whether nuclear reactors are too dangerous to continue to be built or operated.

The safety issues are being downplayed by the industry that wants to build more of these reactors. The rest of us should have a say.

[Buzz Clik]

7. No, my future will be the same as my present and past: scientific research.

I work in the area of risk assessment (quantitative, "boots on the ground" stuff). The observations from Berkeley are consistent with every shred of data coming from everywhere else. The only argument anyone has is that the real experts are refusing to predict the end of mankind.

(You really should be more careful with your insults. You never know when you might run into someone who actually knows what they are talking about.)

[Yo_Mama]

13. Same field

And I am awed at the disinformation.

[Buzz Clik]

16. The raw data is being reported. The problem is in the interpretation.

Surely you must be aghast when medical scientist of excellent reputation make the claim that all radiation from Fukushima -- where ever you may be on this globe -- is potentially lethal. It's irresponsible to make such comments.

I'd be very interested in hearing specific comments from you denouncing the claims made by the Berkeley scientist in the OP.

[Yo_Mama]

28. As far as I can tell Vetter is right

I think the commentary on the Alameda Sun's article is disinformation.

What bothers me about most of the reporting on this topic is the lack of scaling. When I think of the procedures and time spent on trying to decide what data means, I am appalled at the way information is being reported. I spend endless hours trying to assess measurement error, and then a lot more time trying to establish confidence levels.

I do think that it is relevant to know that MCLs apply to drinking water, not rainwater, and that the sample tested was distilled - not rainwater as it is found in nature.

Admittedly MOST scientific reporting that makes it into mainstream journals seems to be badly reported, but the way this has been misreported appears to have scared some people into taking iodine pills and injuring themselves.

Communication is mostly contextual; if I ran into a supermarket screaming "we're all gonna die!!!!" most people would assume that I meant that there was some clear and present life-threatening danger (or that I was a loon). It is true that we are all going to die, but that is not news, so the average person would assume that I was not talking about senescence.

[Buzz Clik]

30. Thank you.

A very reasonable reply.

I truly believe that you and I are seeing things in much the same way. We might differ a bit in our interpretations, but that's what discussion is all about.

[Aerows]

14. I've run into a lot of people

that claim to know what they are talking about, and then go on to use specious arguments in an attempt to minimize this incident.

The latest was when there was talk of fission occurring, one proceeded to explain that it wasn't occurring despite the evidence of neutrons and Cl-38 which has a half-life of 37 minutes. The person then attempted to explain it away in the framework of C-14, rather than acknowledging that within around 6 hours, there should be nearly no Cl-38. They also couldn't explain the neutrons. Lo and behold, it came out that fission was occurring.

I also recall the story that the "sheen on the Gulf" a few weeks ago was "silt dredge up from the bottom of the Mississippi River" - and it just suddenly decided to float. Oh wait, it WAS an oil spill.

There are hordes of "experts" that have made claims about this disaster, and I have been following it from the beginning. I've seen a lot of them make a bunch of claims, the claims get dis-proven, and then they disappear never to comment on another article about Fukushima again.

Excuse me if I take your claims of "expertise" with a grain of salt, especially since I have a background in Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics. People have a right to be concerned.

I'll also mention what I mentioned to one of them that claimed "You're just Anti-Nuke!". Allow me to clear that up - I *wasn't* anti-nuke until I have seen how this incident has been handled, but above and beyond that, I am firmly Anti-Bullshit.

This situation stinks, and all of the sweet words and assurances aren't going to clear the air until there is some actually truth being told.

[Buzz Clik]

18. I was called a liar by DCkit after I posted a single sentence.

Your unwillingness to buy into any claim I make is wise -- bullshit is the norm on the internet.

However, let's consider this comment of yours: "This situation stinks, and all of the sweet words and assurances aren't going to clear the air until there is some actually truth being told." The researcher from Berkeley in the OP isn't making some specious claim on an anonymous discussion board, and the response was to call him a liar. I challenge you to tell me what lies he told.

[Aerows]

20. I have issues

with how this situation has been reported on. I have issues with how government officials have handled it. I have tremendous issues with the fact that we do not get daily reports and data.

I know why we aren't - because everyone would like for it to go off the front page, just like with the BP situation. It is on-going, and the public has the right to know raw data. If it hurts the nuclear industry and someone's paycheck in the nuclear industry, that's not nearly as bad as radiation affecting someone's health.

Could this potentially halt all production of nuclear plants? Possibly, and considering how this has been handled, it probably should.

I wasn't just referring to THIS article or what ONE researcher has claimed, I am talking about in GENERAL. The media is complicit, and government is complicit because there is a financial motivation to cover bad information up. Period.

I'm not going to bother arguing semantics. I've gone a few rounds with the "it isn't that bad" people enough to know that if you are arguing fervently that "it's not that bad", probably in a few weeks I'll learn it IS that bad. Did they or did they not expand the evacuation zone? I heard at the beginning of the month "Oh, it's not that bad, they won't have to expand it."

Please tell me what you position is that "isn't that bad" so I can prepare myself to find out a few weeks later that it is - I'm being facetious in some ways, but the damage control people drive me up the wall. I realize you are probably only saying what you have been told to believe, but some of us have been around this particular block a few times and know how this game is played.

[Buzz Clik]

21. We all have our own perspectives.

The best advice is to keep informed -- from informed sources! -- and to keep an open mind.

[Aerows]

24. I figured you wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole :)

And that tells me all that I need to know.

[Buzz Clik]

29. I asked you a specific question, and you answered with generalities.

I'm not in the mood to analyze your issues.

[Aerows]

36. Yes, I know

You want to go around and around over one little specific fact in order to attempt to discredit the whole.

I've seen that show before, and that's why you won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

[Buzz Clik]

39. Oh, please. Save the melodrama.

Do you really want me to comment on your issues with:

1. How the government has handled the situation
   
2. That we don't get daily reports.
   
3. That everyone wants the news from Fukushima to go away.
   
4. That the mess created by BP was deplorable
   
5. That people's health is more important that the nuclear industry
   
6. That the media is complicit with the government in this
   
7. That you refuse to argue semantics about how bad the situation might be
   
8. Whether or not they expanded the evacuation zone.
   
9. That you heard someone (not me) say they would never expand the evacuation zone
   
10. That you are convinced that I will change my argument in a couple of weeks.

No, I don't want to address all those issues. I had very specific comments, and you are the one who attempted to change the subject.

[Aerows]

42. I'm not claiming

to be someone who relies upon "scientific fact" and then turning right around and telling people to function on faith.

Admit it. You are doing damage control, otherwise you wouldn't have launched into the whole hope and faith spiel designed to keep people from raising hell to get accurate data. Because that is what you are doing - you are claiming science, then telling others to operate on faith.

I didn't have to wait a few weeks for you to change your argument - you did it in one thread!

[DCKit]

25. Thank You.

The Accuser

[Generic Other]

32. Thank you for articulating so well the current situation

Most of us do not have the expertise to know how dire the situation may or may not be. And we need to hear honest objective information. The public discourse about this emergency is being co-opted by those with a vested interest in defending the industry and its practices. Most of us don't have the scientific background to refute their lies. I appreciate your dedication to exposing the truth.

[Generic Other]

22. Can you predict the future? How much more radiation we will all absorb?

Can you tell us which of us will be impacted in the future? Who will get cancer directly related to contamination, who will have genetic abnormalities? You can't make predictions based on not knowing what is heading our way.

I don't really trust the nuclear industry. I don't trust the judgment of those who choose to work in it, promote it or defend it. They work at reactors where women of child bearing years are not allowed to work. There's a reason this is so. They have higher than average rates of brain tumors and thyroid cancers. They choose their poison.

I do not.

The amounts of radiation enveloping the globe are not insignificant especially since we do not know the condition of the reactor cores, whether they have melted down, how bad the damage actually is. The information is being suppressed by the Japanese, by the nuclear power industry and their lobbyists, and by those who have some investment in seeing nuclear power gain public acceptance. That many do not trust what they tell us is certainly understandable.

I didn't believe the lobbyists for the tobacco industry all those years they told us how harmless smoking was. It was a lie. And everyone--including smokers--knew that.

The same is true of the ridiculous attempts to assuage fears about the current situation. Your educated opinions are duly noted and weighed for bias at this point. Those who have vested interest in promoting nuclear power in any capacity need to be up front about it.

You can't assess the future risk when we don't even have a clue what the worst case scenario might be. You can only assess past risks which allow you to say with confidence that most (not all) reactors have never melted down. Risk management has made it impossible to insure a nuclear reactor. The government must do this because insurance companies are not willing to take on the liability. The only time insurance companies say no is when they know it is too risky.

I clearly do not know as much about nuclear issues as you, but I know I want to live in a nuclear free environment. I think I should have that right. I think many people agree with me. I don't think it makes us people who don't know what we are talking about. To me, living under the shadow of a nuclear reactor is like living in a house where people cook meth. I don't want to take that risk.

[Buzz Clik]

27. "How much more radiation we will all absorb?"

As indicated by the Berkeley scientist in the OP, we can indeed predict radiation absorption when we know ambient concentrations. It is a very mature science with decades of scientific validation. bsorb.

Your parallel to the tobacco industry is understandable but flawed. The only scientists who claimed that smoking was not harmful were on the industry's payroll. That isn't the case today about radiation exposure.

Nobody wants to live in an environment contaminated by radioactivity, and just like you, I worry that it will get worse. However, we cannot let our fears cloud the reality of the risks we are facing right now. Our current exposure in the US is generally below background with very few exceptions.

[Generic Other]

34. what about my Ibaraki relatives south of Fukushima?

What do I tell them since the Japanese government and TEPCO have gone silent?

[Buzz Clik]

37. I, too, have friends in Japan.

We can only hope that they will be monitored and evacuated as dictated by the information at hand.

The information flow is not fully dependent upon TEPCO and the Japanese government.

[Aerows]

40. See that's the problem

"We can only hope." Those are the words of someone that wants everyone to operate on pure faith.

You don't rely on science, you are asking people to rely on faith. Now, what conclusion are we to draw here? You are an expert, or you operate on faith?

No, we raise hell until we get information, which is EXACTLY what the nuclear industry, the government and those with vested interests do not want to give out.

I have to LOL. "We can only hope."

[Buzz Clik]

60. WTF?

"We can only hope" is commonly used phrase like "with any luck" or "herding cats". I use the phrase "herding cats" often to describe groups of people who are difficult to manage, but I most certainly am not implying that people are cats or that I have any experience in herding cats. It is just a phrase.

And, please -- don't pretend that you have some level of scientific comprehension of what is going on here because it is abundantly clear that you do not.

What information exactly do you think we are not getting? EPA has live data updates right now, and those links have been posted on this thread.

Laugh all you want, but your incredible hysteria has gotten the best of you.

[Aerows]

43. Those doing damage control

would like for you to tell them to "have faith" and "hope". They shouldn't raise hell for accurate information, and they shouldn't demand that there be more transparency and scientific readings - they need to have faith in their government and TEPCO.

[Generic Other]

47. It's why I am screaming...again

I screamed every day this past year about BP--pretty much to no avail. And now the people of the gulf who know they have faced catastrophic destruction of their coast are now forced to have hope that it will work out since no one will help them and they need to make a living. They may feel sick but they will try and convince us to eat the seafood. They may have tarball covered beaches, but they will try and get tourists to vacation on their. It really sucks for them. And no one seems to care what happens to some of the most beautiful coastline in the US.

Now this nuclear situation sounds like the same thing. Where's the tipping point where the planet and our species can't recover from all this destruction? I wish I had faith in scientists' ability to control their creations, but I feel like Mary Shelley. They create monsters they can't control.

[Aerows]

48. I live on the Gulf Coast

I live a mile from the beach. I watched TAR MATS - not balls, SHEETS of it wash up. It was barely covered in local media, and NOT AT ALL nationally. My eyes burned when I went outside for 2 weeks and there was a strong smell of oil in the air.

Did you hear any of that on the national news? I didn't even hear about it locally, though everyone talked about the smell.

I understand you asking where is the tipping point for our planet, but my question is where is the tipping point for public ANGER, and we finally get sick of people trying to buff turds and spinning misinformation to keep people calm?

You can't even take a breath in one of these articles about a huge corporation like BP or now Fukushima without it being inundated by damage control people lying and spinning their asses off. The internet is the only place you can even get information because the corporate controlled media certainly isn't going to talk about it.

I agree that something needs to be done. Raising hell is about the only thing left to us. We are fighting the corporate machine on all fronts - environmentally, economically, medically and politically. The more people that realize that by listening to and becoming corporate mouthpieces they are destroying themselves right along with everyone else, the better.

[Generic Other]

57. The way they pile on to discredit anyone asking questions or posting info

is pretty surprising. Like they are paying people to make sure no one listens to me. What a waste of money. Like anyone listens to me! LOL.

[Aerows]

64. It's not just you

Anyone that attempts to have a civil conversation about it gets leaped on. It's damage control to prevent people from thinking there is any harm or any harm in the nuclear power industry.

For sanity's sake, I just put the two main ones in this thread on ignore, because they aren't hear for a discussion, they are here to do public relations. They aren't the first to do this at DU.

[readmoreoften]

54. So post that data, then. If you have access to it, post it. Not hypersensitive hyperbole.

The point of scientific research is that anyone can have access to it and come to the same conclusions. Salivating over the defense of one scientists' work is not "pro-science." It's anti-science, slanted, and arrogant. Posting outrageous hyperbole and strawmen against people in search of ongoing information from multiple sources is illogical and anti-scientific.

I have NO IDEA whether Fukushima presents any danger to those outside the immediate radius of the event. That's why I'm looking for all possible data. And, no, I'm not going to trust one pro-nuclear (or anti-nuclear, for that matter) scientist on the issue. That is not "slander." It's being science-minded.

[Buzz Clik]

61. Ok. I'll just copy various sources off this thread.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/japan-faqs.html#drinking-water
http://www.khou.com/news/investigative/I-Team-EPA-under-reports-radiation-in-Americas-drinking-water-.html
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#water

I note that you have already been given this information.

[Aerows]

66. Well said! n/t

[readmoreoften]

3. Is there any new information on tests of the US water supply? Any news on Fukushima at all?

It's really outrageous that Yahoo is running an article on Kid Rock's feelings about his name while I can't find any information on the status of an ongoing crisis that is one of the worst nuclear accidents in history

[Generic Other]

8. Japanese want all information off the internet!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=312173&mesg_id=312173

This site has data collected worldwide:
http://enenews.com/fukushima-forecast-series-radiation-clouds-hit-west-coast-beginning-april-24-video

[Aerows]

19. That's the problem

They aren't reporting any of this information, and THAT is why people are nervous. Nuclear industry insiders and those employed by it don't want that discussed, because they don't want people reminded that it is still going on - they want it to drop off the front of the newspaper and for people to forget about it.

What the hell is wrong with some data? What the hell is wrong with being reminded that YES, nuclear power can be dangerous? What the hell is wrong with reminding people that this hasn't been handled very well, there have been past coverups at this very plant, and that the situation is on-going?

Oh, I know. We don't want people thinking about that because it might affect someone's paycheck. It might affect someone who they don't know's health, but by God, it better not affect somebody's paycheck and *their* life!

[Yo_Mama]

12. A few points

I agree with Vetter, but here's a few factual points.

There is no MCL for rainwater. The MCL is for drinking water. Amounts found in rainwater will not be the same as amounts found in drinking water. Drinking water is tested separately.

The 181 MCL level for rainwater was taken off a DISTILLED sample - i.e. purposely concentrated so that Vetter's crew could detect smaller trace amounts. Here's their page about it:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/1906
To omit that fact when comparing it to MCL levels is surely an attempt to distort the significance!!

As for the Norway crew, they are apparently unaware that the US has and has had a drinking water and milk testing program for a very long time.

Our MCLs are set using the LNT hypothesis, which is for all practical purposes debunked, but which is a good way to avoid risk, and assumes that you drink water that contaminated every day for 70 years. I have no idea what safe dog exposure is, but it isn't going to have much relationship to human exposures, because your dog is not going to be exposed for 70 years.

I take radiation dangers seriously, but so far I have seen nothing to worry about from the Fukushima Daiichi releases in the US. In Japan, it's different.

Here's the EPA FAQ page:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/japan-faqs.html#drinking-water

In terms of US drinking water, the major danger is from radon and its decay products:
http://www.khou.com/news/investigative/I-Team-EPA-under-reports-radiation-in-Americas-drinking-water-.html

A lot of people with well water don't know that they need to be concerned and that in certain areas they should get their well water tested. Activated charcoal filters can remove a lot of it. What gets me about this is that we are ignoring a much greater natural risk, but getting all hysterical about a relatively tiny risk. This is clearly done for propaganda purposes.

Drinking water from water treatment systems is tested, but as the last link above explains, the testing is probably not thorough enough.

You can see the drinking water monitoring tests here:
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#water

If you will all scroll down through that to PA, you'll note that the Philadelphia area has by far the highest I-131 results in the nation. You will also note that in fact they are lower than they were in February, which should tell us all something. It is pretty unlikely that most of the I-131 found in Philadelphia drinking water comes from the Japanese source. Here is a press release from the utility pointing that out:
http://www.bcwsa.net/for-the-public/press-releases/3-press-releases/192-iodine-131-found-in-philadelphias-drinking-water.html

[Aerows]

17. I'm less concerned

about the I-181 than I am about the Cs. Well, other than the fact that I-181 tends to accumulate in milk.

I'm stunned at the amount of obfuscation that has taken place. This is exactly like the BP incident "no one could have EVER imagined it was this bad!"... several weeks after they already knew it was bad. Feel free to dispute that, but since I am related to one of the VP's of one of the companies involved (first cousin - he had to testify), I am familiar with the damage control that gets done.

This situation is probably not going to amount to a massive threat to the US, but people do have a right to be informed. The problem is that those in Japan are clearly getting fed a line of bull, and if I lived in SK or China, I'd be pretty angry about it.

[Yo_Mama]

38. I just posted a bunch of links to the EPA monitoring data

It's out there.

You probably aren't going to get that much press coverage because it is ho-hum stuff.

On this page you can track the EPA testing for drinking water, milk and air:
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html

The data posted does include cesium isotopes, and you'll see that a little has been found in milk. For background as to what those levels mean, see EPA's FAQs:
http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/japan-faqs.html

The assumption that there is some huge, complicated scientific conspiracy to suppress evidence of dangerous US contamination levels is bizarre. Everyone drinks water; scientists have kids who drink milk, and certainly we all breathe the air.

Further, many types of independent organizations have to do ongoing testing. E.G. Nuclear plants must test. Hospitals that work with radioisotopes have to test. Many universities have labs working with radioactivity which require testing. Each one of these organizations has an independent responsibility to test and report something unusual, and each one of them could incur heavy liabilities for not doing so. In fact, corporate interests conspire to make a governmental conspiracy to suppress information about radioactivity impossible.

So even if you presume that all these scientists are so willing to ignore their own and public interests (not to mention their senses of ethics) to suppress information, the fact is that corporations will not be willing to let them do it.

Why does everyone believe the least credible sources out there, and disregard all the people who have expertise?

It seems to me that many are making a tautological argument. They take as evidence of a conspiracy to suppress information the fact that high levels of contamination have not been found in the US. Do you really find this reasonable?

[Aerows]

45. I'm extremely concerned

When there are EPA reading devices that are taken off line because the results "can't be right" because they are too high, which has happened, when Japan and TEPCO are establishing a wall of silence and actively attempting to get information scrubbed from the internet, and when there are flocks of people popping up doing OBVIOUS damage control.

OBVIOUS damage control. This isn't new, people know when they are being mislead, and the problem is that those with vested interests want to ensure a future in nuclear power. Governments certainly don't want to end up liable for people getting sick and getting sued. If you prolong admitting the bad news long enough, people just go "oh, yeah, we knew" rather than nipping it in the bud and raising hell about it.

[Yo_Mama]

50. Japan and TEPCO are a non-issue

For radiation contamination in the US. Nothing they do or say can affect the local authorities.

If you are in Japan, that could be an issue for you. I do not think it is (I've been following closely), but I also disagree with some of the risk decisions the Japanese have made so far. (That is, I would have made different decisions, but I am not sure that my decisions would be evidentially superior - I may just have a lower tolerance for risk to the GP.)

For the US, I do not think there is any cover up at all. As I explained, because of the number and nature of independently-mandated testing, it is not possible to have a US cover up. You have all these differently controlled and owned testing and reporting entities; their obligation is legal and failure to meet it could result in high liabilities. Many of them are corporate owned. They have a huge stake in correctly establishing and documenting any external sources of significant radiation contamination, because if they don't everyone will presume that the radiation comes from them, and years down the road they could face high civil liabilities. So even presuming that they are all willing to listen to some Evil EPA scientist telling them to hush, corporate management would not allow it, because the courts and juries are not controlled by the EPA.

Further, Japan can control some testing within its own borders, but there are independent sources there testing also. There is a worldwide radiation monitoring net that works quite well!

As for the detection equipment in the US, some of it did malfunction. That's relatively normal, although I do think this incident woke people up to pay a little more attention to our equipment maintenance. Which is good.

But I do not understand why you think there is some sort of conspiracy, or even how you think it could be done.

Take doctors, as in medical doctors. There are many doctors who work with radiation. They have considerable expertise. You are postulating either that damaging radiation levels could be hidden or that all those in authority could be agreeing to lie about what is damaging. Neither hypothesis makes sense to me. I find it impossible to believe that hundreds of thousands of persons with expertise would join in some conspiracy to understate risks to the general population.

Lastly, the general population has access to geiger counters, and the information cannot be controlled:
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/RadMap/map.html

Whatever else is true, if we were getting high levels of fallout radiation we'd be seeing considerably higher CPM readings.

[Aerows]

52. Please refrain

from telling me what I am postulating, because that is putting words in my mouth.

I'm saying, straight-up, no nonsense - we are not getting complete information. There is more to this than just radiation monitoring of the air. We have many other sources that could also become contaminated.

Seafood, for instance. Where is the discussion on the impact this will have on Pacific seafood? Where is the discussion of the impact this could eventually have on food supplies? Water supplies?

When we get some complete information, and some honest evaluations of the long-term impact this disaster will have, and discussions of what is actually happening now (we know the rods are melting, Kyodo told us that a couple of days ago), then I'm sure a lot of people will be less skeptical.

When you dump TONS of highly radioactive water into the ocean, it is going to have some cumulative effects on the larger fish. Do you want to eat radioactive Tuna? I don't.

More importantly, I'm getting concerned, considering how TEPCO has handled this and how our own government handled the BP incident, about the nuclear reactors in our OWN nation. I certainly don't want anything TEPCO designs here. If that costs several people a paycheck, too bad, so sad. When corporations and government work hand in hand to deceive the people either by omission of data or deliberate misinformation, they shouldn't be shocked when people cease to believe what they have to say.

[Yo_Mama]

62. But this information is being published

You can get ongoing reports in english from TEPCO:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/index-e.html

JAIF is posting good summaries of various articles, etc:
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/

NISA posts updates and has links to a lot of the radiation measurements:
http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/

Tons of links at this page (scroll down to the bottom for press conferences):
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/incident/index.html

Radiation measurements of various sorts in English here:
http://eq.wide.ad.jp/index_en.html

This is a pdf with the last sea measurements:
http://eq.wide.ad.jp/files_en/110422ocean_en.pdf

There has been tremendous discussion of the impact in and around Japan. Since the incident is ongoing, the discussion is ongoing.

In the US, so far the discussion has been limited because the effects have been quite limited. If monitoring were to show rising concentrations of significance (I-131 levels are dropping, but cesium levels could accumulate) you will see discussion.

As far as net effects in the Pacific, starting from current data and current contamination levels in sampled seafood some types of food have been banned.

For quicker summaries, perhaps IAEA's accident log
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

and Wikipedia's summary is pretty good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents

Several different organizations are trying to model Pacific results. Here is a March 26th summary of efforts to date:
http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/fukushima-potential-marine-enviroment-impacts

This is an update as of the 19th:
http://www.slideshare.net/iaea/fukushima-marine-environment-monitoring-19-april-2011

Because detected levels at the periphery are low and decreasing, at this point far coast contamination levels are not anticipated to very serious. That is partly because TEPCO installed barriers to prevent site run off into the ocean. Localized contamination is severe enough that one fish species has already been banned in Fukushima. They will be actively monitoring.

It's not that anyone is ignoring this stuff. I don't think information is being suppressed either. The accident is ongoing. This stuff will gradually spread and gradually dilute.

[Aerows]

68. It will spread and dilute

Just like what they said after the BP accident. Of course NO ONE is getting sick, and NO wildlife has been harmed. Not even dolphins, crab, shrimp, people that worked near the disaster, people that worked at the disaster...

[Yo_Mama]

63. PS: TEPCO doesn't design anything. It's a utility co n/t

[Aerows]

67. Not according to these sources

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110315/tr_ac/8065482_fukushima_disaster_cast_doubts_on_south_texas_nuclear_project_expansion

Via Yahoo

http://www.japantoday.com/category/technology/view/tepco-to-invest-in-us-nuclear-power-business

Tepco to invest in US Nuclear Power Business - May 2010

http://archive.truthout.org/tokyo-electric-build-us-nuclear-plants-the-no-bs-info-japans-disastrous-nuclear-operators68457

Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants - Mar 2011

http://wonkette.com/440692/obama-administration-picks-tokyo-electric-to-build-u-s-nuke-plant

Obama Administration picks Tokyo Electric to build US Nuke Plant

[Yo_Mama]

71. Good Lord!!!

I had no idea - thank you so much for posting those links.

TEPCO is an investor, not a designer, but a major investor has a great deal of power. I am not comfortable with this, and I wouldn't be even if Fukushima Daiichi were now running safely. The company has had too many historical black marks.

Now THAT'S something we need to correct.

I read through all the incident reports on several TEPCO plants. It wasn't great reading. Admittedly NRC seems to be more active than NISA, but it is hard to change company culture and nuclear power is not a fitting demo project.

[Aerows]

74. It shocked me, too

The last thing I want is them anywhere near a nuclear plant in the US LOL!

[Buzz Clik]

31. +1

[barbtries]

15. yes indeed

agree with you all the way. we can handle the truth gawd dammit

[jimlup]

26. Vetter is caught between to competing propganda models.

One side wishes to say that any additional radiation is harmless.

The other side to say that any additional radiation is of grave harm.

Neither is correct and Vetter said exactly what I would have said in his position. Not a reason to be worried. Seriously, it isn't. Yeah, yeah, but it is a very small increase above background. If you don't like it, move to Denver where it will be a lower fraction of the background because the background itself is significantly higher.

[Buzz Clik]

33. ... and if radiation really bothers, drive and don't fly.

[readmoreoften]

53. Another strawman. And faulty analogy to boot.

No one is saying that radiation equivalent to flying a few times a year is a problem. What people find problematic is an information blackout on an ongoing crisis and a lack of scientific information from multiple disinterested sources (or even sources of competing interest).

Moreover, saying that the fallout from radiation in a water supply and radiation from occasional air travel are analogous is false. One can only travel by air at low radiation level spots for so many hours a day, but one can immerse oneself in water and drink water all day long.

[Buzz Clik]

55. You have much to learn about radiation. You should read more often.

[Aerows]

69. Not to mention

the seafood, and it settling on crops that animals then eat. The problem isn't the "minor" amounts, the problem is when the "minor" amounts get consumed by animals in large quantities, and we then eat those animals and crops. They have already found I-181 in milk in Phoenix. Yes, it has a short half-life, but I-181 isn't the only thing getting to the US. They have found Strontium from Alaska to California. Hell they found it in Guam and Honolulu.

Those are isotopes that LAST and build up.

[jimlup]

75. Don't misunderstand my statement. I agree that the information is spares and incorrectly reported.

But the public conception of "radiation" is indeed weak. I can understand why a Ph.D. physicist would be reluctant to comment on the scope of his radiation measurements. And, afterall, that is the media's responsiblity not the scientist's or am I wrong?

[spin]

35. Radiation might solve our coming Social Security problem. (n/t)

[Generic Other]

41. Except it is the young who die

the old die of old age before the cancer hits.

[Aerows]

46. Except for the increase in birth defects

Which creates a lot of people that depend on public assistance.

[hayu_lol]

70. The nuclear group at Berkeley under Vitter was...

was the first group to set up really sensitive counters and devices on their roof at Berkeley. This was prior to any radiation at all reaching us from Japan. They are to be thanked for the material they have released to date.

The confusion that has arisen from all the faulty data being released by journalists--not scientists--is at the root of our problem is attempting to reach valid conclusions. Journalists will frequently get headlines about material they got from any individual who demonstrates that they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

It actually may be months before we get any really valid data converted into numbers that we are capable of understanding. The people who really know, are quite busy right now, and are not out talking to a motley crew of reporters.

[ljm2002]

72. There are a number of bioradiology scientists at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory...

...I wonder why they are not weighing in on the dangers (or not) of the radiation from Fukushima? They have the training and expertise regarding various radiation sources and their effects on living things.

Nuclear scientists per se are usually not trained in the biological effects of radiation and so they will often compare amounts of radiation from a dental x-ray, for example, without necessarily considering the fine points of particulate radiation and its effects on the organism from within. Not to mention the eventual concentration of radiation due to its getting into the food chain.

[senseandsensibility]

73. Good point.

Lawrence Berkely Laboratory actually was called Lawrence Radiation Laboratory in the 6o's. They are the experts. We should be hearing from them.