[Code]

Pacific Genocide

Summary;  

Life in the oceans has been decimated! There are numerous, largely anthropogenic causes.  It appears that we eat them and poison them.  85 percent of global fish stocks are "overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion."

The populations of all large predator fish in the oceans have declined by 90 percent in the last 50 years.  

Obviously civilizations wont survive with a dead ocean. 

Nuclear fallout is consistently disregarded as a causative factor.  However rigorous studies of the Chernobyl disaster show that very low levels of nuclear fallout produce morbidity....levels that could occur across the Pacific considering bioaccumulation  and other concentration factors.   The radiation dose found by Bandazhevsky et al to cause harm from Chernobyl fallout is under 100 bq/kg  which is equivalent to the normal internal background radiation dose. This highlights the difference in toxicity of different radionuclides, and the failure of standard dose models.

The radiation dose model is what drives the mainstream narrative.  The risk model used is the ICRP linear no threshold model.  It has been shown by extensive research post Chernobyl to be inaccurate and oftentimes simply inapplicable.  An alternative risk assessment was formed by the European Committee on Radiation Risk

http://euradcom.eu/

The ICRP model is based on outdated and inaccurate ideas and data.  It underestimates nuclear fallout danger by hundreds of times.  The error is greatest for internal particulate forms of fallout.   Even the concept of radiation dose has been shown to be flawed and misleading.   The effects of low level radiation are dominated by secondary effects which dont register on a radiation meter.  The bystander effect and the photoelectron effect illustrate the failure of the concept of radiation dose.  The complex interactions on a large ecological level  also invalidate the dose concept.  Simply measuring the cesium in the water and equating it to a dose from a dental x-ray, as Woods Hole Institute does, ignores bioaccumulation factors, biological secondary effects and ecological cascade factors, nuclear fallout particulate forms, updated toxicity coefficients and toxicological interactions with other pollutants.    The resulting message from our agencies is that nuclear fallout is essentially of no concern.   

A more comprehensive insight is that nuclear fallout is not uniformly distributed on the macro and microscopic level, affects the metabolism, neurology and  immunity of animals and alters the dynamics of ecological systems.  

After Fukushima many tragic animal effects were seen.  The dogma of the ICRP dose model and probably political forces caused the science community to deny that nuclear fallout has anything to do with it.


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

studies show that California fish populations have declined by 75% 
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/oct/29/sc...-declined/

citizens have noted a major die off of life in the tide pools.  There are many  reports of unusual mortality events throughout the Pacific, including a wide range of species.  Fishing for several species has been suspended. Many of the top species are down by 90%.  

citizens raise the alarm while agencies seem unconcerned or complacent.
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com/20...-over.html

The decimation of sea life has been noted and ongoing for several decades.  Fukushima is not the only cause. There are many stressors to the oceanic ecosystems, many chemical toxins, fishing pressures, fishing line entanglement, plastics, ship strikes, military operations involving high sound pressure devices, natural and unnatural fluctuations in weather.  Nuclear fallout is an under reported and usually dismissed contribution to the alarming....maybe horrific is a better word...Pacific genocide.

High mortality events have increased dramatically since 1950.  There is no question that adding some of the most toxic substances known (nuclear fallout) to the environment can only contribute to the dire state of the ecosystem. 

"an analysis of 727 published MMEs from across the globe, affecting 2,407 animal populations from the time period 1940 to 2010 showed that the magnitude of MMEs has been intensifying for birds, fishes, and marine invertebrates; invariant for mammals; and decreasing for reptiles and amphibians"

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/4/1083

---------------------
Blaming any one thing for the Pacific genocide is not scientific or rational and is in fact a detrimental attitude.  Only a dramatic and comprehensive change in human thought and behavior would provide a chance of ending the death spiral of the ecosystem.  We must put nature and health above profit.  

"Ocean dead zones with zero oxygen have quadrupled in size since 1950,  while the number of very low oxygen sites near coasts have multiplied tenfold."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240

The job of marine biologists should certainly include the study of the super toxic radioactive fallout events including the bomb tests, Chernobyl and Fukushima.   Our best institutes, like Woods Hole and NOAA  demonstrate they are not up to date on the large body of research on low level radiation.  

Even though the measured radiation levels of Fukushima nuclear fallout are comparatively low, it is not scientific to assume that a large release of super toxic material will cause no harm.  The explanation given is that the ocean dilutes the poisonous material to benign concentrations, but this is not true for a few reasons.

A large percent of the fallout is in the form of 'hot particles' composed of an alloy or amalgamation of nuclear fuel, glass and metals which does not dissolve like pure cesium for example.  Then bio-concentration factors can increase radiation levels to biologically significant doses.

Certainly one of the biggest impediments to understanding nuclear fallout effects is that radiation dose is often misleading. For example, a dose of 70 bq/kg from potassium is not damaging, whereas the same dose from cesium-137 has been shown to result in heart function defects and general morbidity.  That radiation dose level was exceeded by sea life for a large radius around Fukushima and bioaccumulation and concentration could result in that dose for many animals across the Pacific.

The contamination of the Kurushio current, an ecosystem which feeds much of the north pacific could lead to secondary effects, for example a reduction in the quantity of the food chain.  

An informed and honest conclusion is that the Fukushima catastrophe has contributed to the dire state of the pacific ocean ecosystem.  In some cases it may be the major factor, like the sea star decimation.  Seastars are known to be sensitive 'canaries in the coal mine' to Americium-241.  Despite theories to the contrary
 (http://www.deepseanews.com/2013/12/three...ndrome/55/)

the bioaccumulation and biological sensitivity of seastars to nuclear fallout could predispose them to seastar wasting disease.  Low level radiation can reduce the immune system function.  The metabolism is altered in complex ways.

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/20...-a-series/

Bioaccumulation has been studied for a long time.  Some organisms can bioaccumulate certain radionuclides to 100,000 times.  These are usually the very small and chitinous organisms at the bottom of the food chain.  

ALPHA-RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 
https://open.uct.ac.za/bitstream/handle/...sequence=1

IAEA-TECDOC-329 BEHAVIOUR OF RADIONUCLIDES RELEASED INTO COASTAL WATERS
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLColl...074369.pdf

---

The reason that science (and the trusting public) dont believe Fukushima did any harm is because the amount of background radiation is approximately 1000x higher than fukushima radiation across the pacific.  If our best and brightest at Woods Hole and Scripps are going to change their belief, they need to come up to speed on the radiation science of the last 15 or 20 years.   The old school, which includes the ICRP linear dose model is outdated dogma, and can under-predict fallout danger by hundreds or even thousands of times.  On the other hand it ascribes a danger to background radiation which is not shown in scientific tests.  The science of radiation effects is in fact almost entirely an extrapolation.  You will not find studies on individual radionuclide effects at different doses, different forms, (like nano particle alloys), and different exposure routes. 

The so called bystander effect certainly has a lot to do with the Pacific Ocean Ecosystem crash.  
To get some background, see the CafeRadLab thread on the bystander effect

[piajensen]

It seems a good place to start is with Dr. Ernest Sternglass' research.

https://ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries/ejs1192.html

" The following excerpts are taken from the complete interview which begins on page three (https://ratical.org/radiation/inetSeries...html#BEGIN):

. . . the atomic bomb project was always a secret project. It was born in the lie. The very first detonation at Alamogordo--it was announced that it was an ammunition dump that blew up. So it was a matter of public policy to deny and lie about the existence of the bomb, its manufacture, its health effects, and all the effects of fallout were classified secret until 1957 when Congress held hearings on the need to build bomb shelters. That's the only time when they were forced to come clean and talk about how to protect yourself from fallout, whose existence they had denied. It was only by accident that some Japanese fisherman aboard the boat the Lucky Dragon were dusted by some explosions in the Marshall Islands in the late fifties and that caused a huge outcry all over the world.

Until then all this was secret. In fact they did studies on animals as early as 1942, `43, `44 that showed that very small amounts of radioactivity would lead to low birthweight and crippled new-born dogs and rats. They knew all this. In fact they were actually planning that if the bomb should fizzle or if the bomb could not be built in time, that they would use the radioactive wastes from their reactors that made all the enriched uranium and plutonium . . . and spread it over Germany to kill as many people as possible. . . .

That's all in a book that describes the whole atomic age. It details a story about the plans to use the strontium-90 that was being manufactured in the plutonium reactors to poison the water supplies in Germany (and also later on I suppose in the islands in the Pacific). The book is by Richard Rhodes and is called, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. It's a comprehensive history of the whole thing. . . . In it is the story in which Oppenheimer and Fermi discuss the possibility of using all of this radioactive strontium-90 to kill as many Germans as possible. And in fact they were themselves afraid that the Germans, who were also trying to build nuclear bombs, would send missiles filled with radioactivity over to Chicago. They literally believe that what was called radiological warfare was going to take place.

In other words warfare with these fission products which are of course the most powerful biological weapons that man ever invented. So instead of just being an ordinary explosive like TNT, this is really a biological weapon and it it turns out to be far more deadly, a hundred-million times more deadly than any micro-organisms that you could put into the atmosphere. Because any other toxins are not nearly as insidious as strontium-90 going to the bone like calcium and then irradiating the bone marrow with long-range beta rays that cause a weakening of the immune system and then people die of all kinds of conditions.

They die of every kind of cancer because when the body is unable to fight these cells then naturally any type of tumor multiplies much faster. That has now been seen in the September 3, 1992 issue of Nature. There is a story that completely confirms that we were lied to about the enormous increase in cancers that would take place after Chernobyl. It shows that in the Byelorussia area just 100, 200, 300 miles north of Chernobyl where the fallout came down, instead of two or four children dying of thyroid cancer per year it increased to a maximum of fifty-five within only a few years. And that's only the beginning. We haven't even seen all the other cancers and therefore we are headed for an enormous economic and health crisis in all of Eastern Europe and I'm sure now that the recent downturn in economic productivity both in East Germany and Poland and Russia and many European countries, was vastly aggravated by the enormously unanticipated effect of the Chernobyl fallout.

. . . Oyster Creek is near Atlantic City and New Jersey and it affected all the vegetables and the food that was delivered to New York City. Another serious accidental release occurred at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant (which we only discovered earlier this year) that actually took place in '85-'86 according to the Brookhaven National Laboratory's reports about the releases. Those releases in '85 and '86 combined were equal to what was released from Three Mile Island and yet nobody was told about it. All this occurred right next to the water reservoirs of New York City and Groton, right near where the large amounts of water are stored that are shipped into the metropolitan area."

[piajensen]

Government and industry practices of hiding information from the public eye ought be considered a crime against humanity. Their nuclear exploits are really no different than the medical horrors and deaths by the hands of Nazi doctors in WWII. IMHO.

[Code]

Pia, thanks for the research from Sternglass.

Theres a glaring problem; most science says Fukushima and other anthropogenic radiation is of no concern.  They usually conclude this by comparing to background radiation;

 "The human doses from anthropogenic radionuclides were ~ 100 to ~ 10,000 times lower than the doses from naturally occurring radionuclides. A morbidity assessment was performed based on the Linear No Threshold assumptions of exposure and showed 7 additional cancer cases per 100,000,000 similarly exposed people. Taken together, there is no need for concern regarding the radioactive harm in the open ocean area of the Northwest Pacific."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28692938

If the anti nuclearists want to make an impact into the science world....and its the scientists that create radiation exposure limits and influence public opinion....the failure of their radiation risk assessment will have to be convincingly explained

[piajensen]

Well... in a perfect world, Code, those anti-nuclear folks with medical backgrounds and medical personnel with bio-physics backgrounds would be given a place at round table and granted respect for their research and findings. Bit curious you choose to place onus on anti-nuclear folks when it's government, mil and industry that block and shut down honest dialog about relationships between nuclear radiation and disease and death.

Let's dig into Sternglass' legacy and go from there.

[Code]

Pia...well I dont see many anti-nuclear folks with medical backgrounds and medical personnel with bio-physics backgrounds explaining much of anything.  Of course Hellen Caldicott...Busby...a few, but where do you read an explanation that tears down the ubiquitous fallout to background radiation conundrum?    One can hardly fight the radiation numbers....its when they are turned into sieverts, the problem begins.  

Busby's group is the only one Im aware of that gives high dose coefficients for fallout.  He does not address background radiation though.   

When fallout is 1 to 10 bq per cubic meter, and potassium is 12 thousand....how do you explain to the curious person that the smaller dose is the dangerous one?

Im putting the onus on anyone who can explain it.  If Busby were here....Sternglass....that would be great.  For now...its just us.  Ive got quite a lot on it, and much is related to the bystander effect.  Hopefully, I will put together many posts on this issue...enough so that professionals and students will have something substantial if they were to find this site

[piajensen]

Busby and Caldicott.... Dr Mihail Iliev (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...octor.html) and The Belarusian National Academy of Sciences and Leonid Ilyin of the State Research Centre of Russia’s Institute of Biophysics (bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/accidents-and-incidents/2010-01-chernobyl-area-doctors-and-researchers-contradict-predicted-un-mortality-figures-as-being-far-too-low-years-after-disaster) and all the doctors who treated Marshall Islands residents, and all the doctors who treated/treat Hanford workers and the women whose babies were born with deformities and all the researchers whose University work has been censored and all the professionals who commented against changing federal Standards for Radiation Protection.... there are may people with medical and biophysics backgrounds whose collective intelligence could add greater knowledge of the impacts of radiation on health, but, they aren't "invited to the public dialog." Hopefully some of them will get wind of your thread and chime in.

I understand and support your concern, but I think the onus ought be on governments and agencies responsible for manipulating and censoring data and on media who assists governments and industry in hiding information from the public eye.

I look forward to the information you will bring here - it has to start somewhere.

Some background on Linear no-threshold debate

"Disproving what critics of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) Risk Model have claimed and also disproving the theory of hormesis (that radiation doses are good for you), Ian Goddard has compiled solid research on the incidence of cancer in relationship to radioactive dose exposure.  Goddard based his research on well established reports and peer reviewed data from the National Library of Medicine, and he shares this information in an easy to follow fashion in this video.


Although the LNT model is favored by the National Academy of Science, the LNT model has been disputed by zealots, who promote nuclear power, and who propose there is a threshold of 100 microsieverts or below of radiation dose at which that there is no risk of cancer when people are exposed to radioactivity at this level.

Some of these atomic proponents and LNT critics even promote the controversial theory of hormesis that claims low doses of radiation decreases the risk of cancer. In 2006, the Beir VII report titled, “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation” examined solid cancer data from atomic bomb survivors and found the incidence of cancer to best fit the LNT model. By taking a look at epidemiological studies of the past decade with dose point graphs within the disputed region of 0-100 microsieverts, Goddard concludes from his collective graph that these reports best fit the LNT model, and that this relationship between cancer to radiation dose most likely reflects the causal relationship."

Source: Fairewinds’ Maggie & Arnie Gundersen Tell All to EON’s Mary Beth Brangan & Jim Heddle at Point Reyes Station, November 21, 2015 http://www.fairewinds.org/newsletter-arc...s-with-eon

Historic data from CTBTO's global inventory would be nice to make freely public to help the discussion. Go here to request data: https://www.ctbto.org/specials/vdec/ maybe some of you will qualify...

[Code]

Ian Goddard;...if anti nukers would only make videos of that quality....alas no.  
Here is a question....when the graphs say zero radiation dose....is that zero, or is it the background radiation level?  

If Goddard and all who believe in that dose model are correct, then we have nothing to worry about.  And they tell us that too, in case there is any question.  

The story of radiation and dose is more complicated than the nice animation of tracks of radiation that may or may not hit a DNA strand, DNA that may or may not repair itself and which may leave you unharmed or start cancer (stochastic theory, now known to be incorrect dogma).  It is these extra layers of complexity that help to explain why we DO have something to worry about. Indeed, Goddards videos are a powerful blow against the anti nuclear community.

Is the ocean life harmed by Fukushima, Chernobyl and the bomb test era?  Proponents of the linear no threshold dose model look at their handy and quite scientific looking dose coefficient reference papers and conclude there was no harm, there cant possibly be any harm to any life because if that were so, everything would be dead many times over from background radiation.

Lets review it again;   Radiation from Fukushima across the pacific is less than 10 becquerels per cubic meter.  But the ocean contains 12,000 becquerels per cubic meter of radiation naturally. This is where science stops and Goddard concludes...no problemo, everyone is an alarmist because they just havent taken (what he thinks as) the scientific approach.  But what if that radiation was all inside your body, one might argue? For example by consuming fish or drinking water?  That has to be worse?  Yes about 300 times worse, roughly speaking. What if it bioaccumulated 10 or 30 times up the food chain?  Still, no danger Woods Hole tells us, you already have 70,000 bq per cubic meter of internal radiation, since birth, accumulating radiation damage, causing genomic instability, changing your metabolism, giving you some small extra roll of the dice chance to get cancer.....or DOES IT?   - in fact, they GUESS this is true, because they have no studies to prove this supposition.

No, obviously, the people and animals with the highest level of health possible have this constant radiation dose that is not 100s but 1000s of times higher than anything they or aquatic animals would get from Fukushima radiation.  (of course in waters right next to Fukushima there are very high levels of fallout, but, as even Busby assures us, it is quickly diluted).

So is Ian Goddard and his oh-so-scientific video and conclusion correct or not?  Some answer to this is given by Chernobyl studies. Bandazhevsky and others show  the onset of morbidity and heart disease at 25 and 50 bq/kg from fallout. This is much much less than the radiation everything has naturally. (More or less equivalent to background radiation in bq/kg, but which gives a lifetime of rad exposure, starting from conception, the most vulnerable age.)  

I hope to show that Goddard and the others who follow that line of science and thinking...including Gundersen, are not up do date on nuclear radiation dose science.  The zero dose level on Ians Graphs are not zero at all.  Fallout has a different biological effect than intrinsic radiation exposures, I will show the conclusions drawn by the comparison of the two is entirely incorrect (off by a factor of THOUSANDS), that the dose response is not linear and is highly dependent on the type of radionuclide, that hormesis is a quite well studied effect and helps explain why fallout is such a bad thing.  Low level radiation danger does not require ANY radiation exposure to any particular DNA or even cell, or as it turns out, even an entire animal.  See the thread on bystander effects to learn more

[piajensen]

My take on Ian Goddard

Very scientific fellow, but, [supposed] education & training in nuclear bio-physics squarely places him in camp with pro-nuclear crowd.

His one redeeming research study is important (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJrqqj_RzUI), but is overshadowed by the majority of his work.

What we need are people whose allegiances are not strapped to industry or gov.

We need to also embrace new findings presented by folks like Marco Kaltofen (http://bostonchemicaldata.com/biographies.html) and those who are currently studying the Dogs of Chernobyl (https://cleanfutures.org/projects/dogs-of-chernobyl/). As well as the medical professionals who've studied & collected data of Marshall Islanders and Chernobyl exposure victims.

[piajensen]

Code: "when the graphs say zero radiation dose....is that zero, or is it the background radiation level?"

Background level is a moving target and not well defined by any organization or agency. There is no interactive graph demonstrating the increase, or decrease, of 'background radiation' and how it relates to weapons testing and nuclear facilities' breaches, or, more importantly, to health.

The whole premise established by authorities about what's lethal, or not, is punk shit garbage.

Man-made radiation does not insult life on a linear or other "confined" supposedly scientific understanding of how health reacts to assaults.

So, when, for example, Japanese government, or anyone else states non-detectable doses, they are hiding the truth about radiation's impact, especially when it comes to women, fetuses, and children. Not to forget sensitive ocean life and other life forms.

Because CTBTO restricts access to data, there is no easy way to discover the truth.

Everybody needs to throw away everything they think they know about radiation because their controlled and limited education is biased towards government and industry goals.

[Code]

Is Ian Goddard actually traditionally educated in radiation dosimetry or even physics?  His Journal is here
http://iangoddard.com/journal.htm

Ian is methodical, puts time and skill into his videos.  This makes them seem legitimate, but I will show they are based on partial, or outdated radiation science and the conclusions are not correct.  He even 'debunks' Busby.  I dont care for that word debunk...it carries an insinuation of stupidity or conspiracy that Busby and the ECRR dont deserve.  The scientists at ECRR are actual physicists and scientists, not just video art and philosophy people as Goddard seems to be.

The problem with Mark Kaltophen is that he applies the ICRP dose model to his hot particle investigation.  As far as I can tell, that seems to be the case.  That means his extrapolation of danger is an underestimate by 1000 or more times.  Kaltophen is one of those people you would love to get behind....thoughtful, articulate, good looking, scientific.  

THe problem with expertise is that people tend to be very confident in their background studies....they learned it through rigorous study of college texts.  But texts get outdated.  

What is the radiation dose that deforms butterfly larvae?  1/5 of a becquerel.  The LD50 is about 2 becquerel. All over Fukushima and Im sure across Japan, the pacific ocean and the U.S. there are deformed plants and animals.  Yet students are walking around with radiation counters declaring there is no danger...less than background! 

Those students and our professionals and even artists....Kaltophen, Buesseler, Cullen, Goddard....they are using the same science.   If one wanted to debate them, make an argument that Fukushima IS contributing to the pacific genocide (and not just global warming as they all quickly allude to) one needs to know whats wrong with that science....

Much more on this subject later

[piajensen]

Awesome revelations. Very much look forward to your presentations. Really.

[piajensen]

(12-23-2017, 04:04 PM)Code Wrote: Is Ian Goddard actually traditionally educated in radiation dosimetry or even physics?  His Journal is here
http://iangoddard.com/journal.htm

 Please note my edit to my comment above - [supposed

[Code]

(12-23-2017, 03:50 PM)piajensen Wrote: Code: "when the graphs say zero radiation dose....is that zero, or is it the background radiation level?"

Background level is a moving target and not well defined by any organization or agency.

Pia, the background radiation has now come to include weapons fallout. Sometimes medical tests.  But I confine it to potassium because this is the largest internal dose for life and which exists in the ocean.  There is no ambiguity about it. In fact that radiation source was much higher at the beginning of life on earth,....it is well known, established and does not vary...as for example the huge increase in C14 from bomb tests.  Potassium radiation dwarfs fallout except at ground zero. 

 The other large background source is radon. This is something I havent gotten into to a large extent. Radon is the harmful alpha emitter, which science says is about 20x more dangerous per rad dose than beta or gamma. But radon does not effect the skin...and there is assumed no danger unless it is internal.  There may be ways that biology has protected itself from this alpha source. Mucous in the lungs, or tissue resistance, maybe even electrostatic charge deflection...things not yet considered.  

IS the entire radiation science community in conspiracy to skew data, withhold, lie etc?  I personally dont think so.  I think most sincerely believe in their outdated extrapolations.   But...there IS in fact well documented conflict of interest, say with the WHO and the IAEA. The poster at ENEnews,  MVB  does an excellent job of documenting suspicious gaps in radiation monitor data.  So, yes collusion and lies are there, but the awareness of it may not hit many professionals.  Buesseler comes to mind.   Is he sincere or a lying deceitful sack of balderdash?

[piajensen]

I actually took a long moment to dialog directly with one of the WHOI team, and an instructor at UCSB, not so easy to find via google searches anymore, took a very strong stance against the idea that man-made nuclear radiation could impact life in any meaningful way. Still searching for his UCSB work, my emails were compromised a few years ago - no record of that conversation exists now. Though, I did post news about that in social media back then.

[piajensen]

Upon immediate search, I find that UCSB's Cullinan (or Cullinen) has been wiped from google searches... not finding immediate reference with WHOI, either. did Cullinan(en) blow his cover when going after Durnford and insisting on his claim through UCSB resources?

[vital1]

Dose is a very poor way of presenting the degree of hazard created by radioactive contamination!  They keep the public focused on Cesium Bq levels and nothing else, and leave out the other multiple significant dynamics.

1. Every artificial isotope's has a different chemical toxicity. K-40 is not chemically toxic in the quantities it is normally found in the body or other living creatures, whereas Cesium is definitely a toxic heavy metal!

2. Internal ingestion presents much more danger because the chemical toxicity levels and radiation levels to which local cells are exposed to are exponentially greater.

3. Bio-accumulation, the fact that a 4Bq environmental detection can be bio-accummulated by tens of thousands of times.

I was sent this resin encapsulated sample of black fungus like material. It had reportedly come from somewhere in the Minamisoma area Japan. A contact in Japan sent a friend this sample. This is my test chart of it. For those of you who have not looked at a chart like this before. The position of the peaks in a the chart indicate what isotopes are present.

This fungus started growing on the concrete, and rock surfaces in Japan after the Fukushima Nuclear disaster. It appeared to be bio-accumulating Cesium.

This comment was posted on a forum discussing the the possible weight of the Black Fungus sample from Japan. 

"I'm an expert on weighing objects (sell scales, use different ones daily, some precise to .01g). Fungus in that form does not appear to hold too much water weight and would likely weigh less than a gram given the scale. If it jis thin and flakey type fungus, it may be under .25-.5g. Is it thick like a mushroom cap or more like lichen? I've only observed extremely thin fungi growing on concrete, and I would err on the very low side. My best guess is .3g."

My reply

"That means the black fungus sample from Japan is very, very, hot.
Test results 117 Bg Cs-137 and 58 Bq Cs-134
117 + 58 = 175 Bq x (1000 grams/0.3 grams) = 583,333 Bq/Kg of Cesium
Even if it was 10 times greater in weight 3 grams, it would still be 58,333 Bq/Kg of Cesium."

On this test chart below I present how much more radiative Cesium-137/134 is by weight than Potassium-40.

(Right click and select "View Image" to see larger version.) [note by Pia: this version in the comment here is larger than the source]

4. The Toxicity Multiplying Effect.

In my opinion, it is not just the radioactive contamination from Fukushima directly poisoning the sea and causing the large Pacific Ocean die offs, it is a combination of interrelated factors, because everything is interconnected.

North Pacific Ocean water is now a mixture of toxic industrial chemicals washed out to sea during the tsunami, a variety of radioactive isotopes, not just Cesium, but also Tritium, Strontium, Americium, and Plutonium, etc. A lot of these isotopes are heavy metal toxins, as well as being radioactive. All this has now been added to the toxins that were already in the Pacific Ocean, before Fukushima.

A huge amount of radioactive contamination, conservatively equal to 10,000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs, has been released from the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe site. The Fukushima nuclear catastrophe site is still releasing huge amounts atmospheric radioactive contamination, plus thousands of tons of highly radioactive and chemically toxic contaminated water is still flowing into the Pacific Ocean every day!

A single toxin in the environment can be a hazard, and maybe an organism's natural biological defense system can deal with this effectively. If an organism has multiple toxins present, radiological and chemical, to deal with at the same time, you get a biological toxicity multiplying effect. The human or animal defense systems become weaker the more toxins they have to deal with.

Biologically, one toxin plus one toxin, does not equate double the toxicity effect. Studies show you can get a multiplying toxicity damaging effect 10 to 20 times greater.  The organism becomes overloaded dealing with too much toxic stress at once.

The Fukushima radioactive contamination would be lowering the fertility and weakening the immune systems of any sea life coming in contact with it. As immune systems become weakened, it would be logical to expect viruses and bacteria that would normally be under check, to become more infectious. This radioactive contamination could also potentially stimulate viruses and bacteria to mutate into more infectious strains.

All this massive amount of radioactive environment pollution from the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe has resulted in the Pacific Ocean food supply crashing! Like the human embryo, embryonic sea life including fish eggs, are hypersensitive chemical and radioactive contamination. This has decimated the ability for embryonic plankton, zoo-plankton and higher life forms progeny like fish etc., to reach maturity. 

There are an increasing number of media reports coming in, of Pacific Ocean fish, whales, birds and other sea creatures dying in large numbers. The majority are starving to death because of a lack of food, before they die of cancers or immune diseases.

Here is a summary of the environmental effects.

Planetary Thermal Imbalance & Extreme UV Levels (If this site is not working, use the back up site below it.)

http://sccc.org.au/extreme-uv-levels-in-summer


http://technologypals.com.au/extreme-uv-...-in-summer

[vital1]

Code in reply to your statement in your Caferadlab "Bystand Effect" tread, "On the other side, mainstream scientists outright deny that Fukushima caused any problem at all." 

The information in this question posted on Armstrong Economics, points to widespread censorship of scientific research, on the effects of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe on the Pacific Ocean.

 
Quote:
 

"I have just returned from visiting my friend, who is a senior cetacean biologist at one of the large west coast universities. While there, he described an amazing situation to me that has alarmed me greatly. He said that research at his university has conclusively identified the complete or almost complete collapse of several dozen food chains within the Pacific Ocean, all within the last 36 months or so.

Further, in “unauthorized” exchanges with the relevant departments in other coast universities, he learned that the numbers involved may well be more like hundreds of chain collapses in the same timeframe as opposed to dozens. Finally, in talking with authoritative figures in Vancouver, they apparently believe that the figure is likely closer to 1000."

"As bad as all of this sounds, here is the real rub. Regarding these findings about food chain collapses, mutations, and injuries, my friend’s university has instituted a policy that forbids them from publishing their findings, from discussing their findings (on this subject) publicly or in private with other researchers outside their own campus, or finally from taking “unauthorized” radiation readings as part of their research. The penalties for violating these new rules are severe: loss of tenure, civil lawsuits for violation of contract, and potentially employment termination."

[Code]

Vital1, nice inclusions to this discussion, thanks.

regarding chemical toxicity; Actually the chemical toxicity of cesium is generally listed as approximately equal to salt. The electrolyte imbalances possibly created by potassium, cesium and sodium chloride I dont really consider chemical toxicity per se. Considering the ultra low levels, I think the heavy metal chemical toxicity explanation is not valid...at least on the face of it.

regarding the quantity, Im afraid I was part of the 10,000 Hiroshima bombs estimate. Early on I messed up 'inventory' vs 'source term'.  I have asked 'aGreenRoad' journal to take out my contribution but he has not.  The total release of fallout from Fukushima is not a good descriptive metric perhaps, inasmuch as the toxicity of the various forms (nano alloys, bucky balls and the unknowns) is not known.  

regarding internal vs external...yes, internal is much worse. But a large part of my focus is on the constant comparison of quantity of radiation from fallout and background.  The largest background rad source IS internal and is there since gestation. I described this above.  Saying that internal cesium, and bioaccumulation, is  the key to understanding the toxicity and Pacific genocide does not solve the essential conundrum; there is just a lot more radiation which is intrinsic or natural to life than the radiation from fallout.  Bioaccumulation of radiation in plankton is extremely high, and one might think that translates up the food chain.  I will dig out figures I have found in later posts, but by memory, I think we are looking at bioconcentration factors of closer to 30, not 10,000, generally up the food chain. It depends a lot on which animal. Plankton concentration can be at that 10,000 level.  I think the 'experts' consider this carried the worst of the fallout to the bottom of the sea with the dead plankton.

regarding the other radioisotopes. Yes, they are there...or as in the case of iodine131 were there.  I think the dismissing of iodine effects by our professionals is unscientific and criminal....just because it has decayed away doesnt mean the damage has not been done.  Iodine was about 10x the cesium level.  The other fallout is bad also, especially with strontium.  Plutonium and Americium are considered in the range of 20x as toxic as cesium per becquerel.  The work of the ECRR and Busby shows the mainstream toxicity coefficients are way off in any case.  But the quantities are not to be overestimated.  Strontium is perhaps a fortieth the level of cesium and the others less still.  Then you have fallout that is not considered toxic and is at high levels, like noble elements and hydrogen.  I have not embarked on a search of true toxicity levels for those.  All that said, trying to pin the Pacific Genocide to the other fallout species, just because science does not recognize the damage from cesium is not a powerful argument.

regarding the ongoing radiation release. It is of course a terrible tragedy. The quantity of the initial release was the big hit however.  I think the definitive incrimination of Fukushima fallout as the cause of the pacific ocean crash, plant and animal deaths and disease lies in overturning the science dogma. Science gave it a shot...they were wrong. They sold out also, as we see with the WHO and as suggested by the Armstrong article.  Its not clear how much our institutes know.  Buesseler and Cullen....they arent stupid, that is for sure. But I get the feeling they actually believe their position, even if they are aware there is some news blackout.  

Thats all I have time for at this time....more details later

[vital1]

[quote pid='4585' dateline='1514257833']

Code,

"regarding chemical toxicity; Actually the chemical toxicity of cesium is generally listed as approximately equal to salt. The electrolyte imbalances possibly created by potassium, cesium and sodium chloride I dont really consider chemical toxicity per se. Considering the ultra low levels, I think the heavy metal chemical toxicity explanation is not valid...at least on the face of it."

Cesium-137 is not the same as stable Cesium. It is a completely different chemical creature because it decays to a new element Barium-137m or Barium. (See Chart Above) The biological chemical properties and radioactivity of the decay daughters have to also be taken into account. Water soluble barium compounds are also toxic.

Here we have Cesium-137 as an example, showing that once ingested the cells of the life form have to deal with more than one unstable radioactive isotope, and more than one toxic chemical element.

The Toxicity Multiplying Effect must be considered when dealing artificial man made isotope decay.

Potassium-40 decays to Calcuim-40 and Argon-40, a completely different chain of events has occurred.

Consider the radioactivity a toxic component, and the chemical toxicity to be another.

"Biologically, one toxin plus one toxin, does not equate double the toxicity effect. Studies show you can get a multiplying toxicity damaging effect 10 to 20 times greater.  The organism becomes overloaded dealing with too much toxic stress at once."

Once ingested the biological life form has to deal with both the the radioactive damage, plus the chemical toxicity.

It not just a bullet, it is a poisoned bullet!

Other man made isotopes can have much longer decay chains, creating many more elements, all with different radioactive and chemical properties.

[/quote]