• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Fukushima Fallout in U.S.?
#1
Is there enough fallout from Fukushima in the U.S. to be concerned about?

I was perusing Fairewinds and saw this interview with Marco Kaltofen.  I get the impression he does not find any radiation of concern by looking at hot particles in Seattle.  Nothing to be stressed about...

https://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energ...ioactivity

MK: 'And then in Seattle, I call this my stop whining graphic because really there is not much happening in Seattle. West Coast of the United States, lower the stress level, we are fortunately not seeing it there.'

 'We have never detected radioactive material from Fukushima in children's shoes in the United States. None of the samples were positive. All of our shoes from Japan show that there is cesium 134 and cesium 137 present.'

Should we stop whining about Fuku fallout in the U.S.?  Who is whining about Fuku radiation in the U.S.?

Are bananas more of a radioactive hazard than fallout contaminated fish?  If not, why not?
https://oceana.org/blog/worried-about-fu...ctive-fish

Aha! I found a whiner.   I havent gone through his points to check for validity.  Anyone?
28 Signs That the West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried with Nuclear Radiation from Fukushima
https://www.globalresearch.ca/28-signs-t...ma/5355280

"We live in a sea of radiation. The danger comes from the radionuclide and its form, not the dose"
Hold on...who said that?  Not Ken Buesseler.   So what is it in reality,  no danger from Fukushima in the U.S.  or some detriment?

from last year 

7 Years After Fukushima Disaster: Little Radioactive Material in US Waters
The U.S. and Canadian coastal waters in the Pacific are contaminated, analyses show, but radiation levels are still well below federal standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency, said Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 
The levels are so low, that swimming eight hours every day for a year would only increase a person's annual dose of radiation to an amount that is 1,000 times less than a single dental X-ray, Buesseler said.
"It's a very small risk that I consider negligible," Buesseler told Live Science. "I'll go swimming in those waters. I will eat seafood from those waters without any concern."
https://www.livescience.com/61986-fukush...evels.html
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#2
Hot Particles and Measurement of Radioactivity From Fukushima Daiichi
May 08, 2012
https://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energ...ioactivity
I'd note that the video was done back in 2012.  In the first part he says no Fuku particulate matter fallout had been found yet in the US,  yet at the end it sounded like he said the smaller sized particles, of concern, would travel further and he had found some.  I may be misunderstanding, the audio was difficult for me to follow.  I really like it better when there are transcripts.  As he and others have said, any micro-particles are hard to detect but are of the most concern for internalizing.  I've seen later work where he focuses more on micro particles and methods of detection.  One important point I heard in the video is the different radionuclides have different characteristics, some more dangerous than others and this has not been studied enough.  He mentions that sea transport to be the most likely route.  Indeed, the Global Research article a year later you cite mentions detections in sea life.   The second article, written 2017 talked bananas so I disregarded the whole thing because it's bad science and likely propaganda.  The fourth article, 3-11-2018 quoting Ken Buesseler did not mention hot particles at all, only levels of detections.  

These articles, to me, highlight how little information we are getting from the disaster to today.  In fact, Marco seems to be the only one mentioning hot particles, the importance of the size of the particulate matter, and the dangers of internalizing vs. the external doses that come with the initial high dose releases.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#3
Is there fallout in the U.S. from Fukushima and is there a health impact from it?  My understanding is that the fallout aerosols were found to circle the earth with a cycle of about 40 days.  The quantity of this aerial fallout is relatively small by weight, so of course there is a huge dispersion by the time it travels across the ocean.   Nevertheless, fukushima fallout is a radioactive component of our lives.  The iodine was perhaps 10x the radiation dose of the cesium and in some regions contamination was above federal standards.  I think there was a relative news blackout about this aerosol fallout. Instead we heard about the slow movement of the oceanic radiation.   Concerned citizens were scoffed at in any number of ways by experts and the media, even the president was there to assure us there was no danger.  

I take it at face value that Marco Kaltofen didnt find any fallout in Seattle using his method.  The vast majority of the science community were not concerned about this 'low level' of fallout.  They are taught in school all about radiation, alpha beta gamma, half lives, cumulative dose, risk factors, radiation quality and so on.   The ICRP dosimetry is complex enough that its a scholastic accomplishment to master it. 

If it were not for the dedication, sacrifice and rigorous science of those members of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, and a few others, the story of radiation would pretty much end there.  Nuclear power, weaponry and 'medicine' is a well established machine.  But the controversy did not end, and from here the story unfortunately gets very complex.  In fact the story is so complex that we can make an unequivocal statement about it;  Mankind doesnt actually have all the answers, we dont have the comprehensive understanding.  Biology is extremely complex and electromagnetism is complex and the two together is rather extraordinarily complex.  Human psychology enters in, and one could do a life long study of sociology.  So we could hope to look to professionals for true answers, but in fact we havent figured it out yet.

 Its an incredible thing that some 60 million people can be killed from fallout and the world does not notice.  We could well pause and consider the implication of that fact;  How do we get our world view?  What do we really know about whats going on around the world,  the truth of history, politics, business and so on?    In fact we have a narrow window...the news outlets, some history books.   

Noam Chomsky is one person to have written about this.  He has a book, some books and here for example is a short video and a long video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYrEE1lAtkw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoNOQ7LMR8c

The reach, the extent of this control on our mind, our world view extends everywhere.  Consider that we present a different face to the world than our inner reality....we dont want to be seen as stupid, we may want to be friends and so curtail the myriad of judgments we have on peers etc.   School is a major factor here.  Human ego is such that teachers and professionals always present their knowledge as extensive, intelligent, comprehensive...often absolute.   By the time you learn all about the ICRP dosimetry you feel like you have a really good handle on radiation danger.  Its understandable Marco Kaltofen or anyone in that field would tell us to stop whining about a little radiation exposure.  They have numbers, education and their studies.

So lets get back to the question  of the U.S. fallout 

This study by Mangano et al was pretty well publicized. No doubt people like Arnie Gundersen, Marco Kaltofen, Ken Beusseler etc were aware of it;    note the date 2011

International Journal of Health Services: 14,000 U.S. deaths tied to Fukushima reactor disaster
Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986.
http://www.q-mag.org/international-journ...aster.html

Many people slammed the study for faults.  Pro nukers were especially derisive of it.    But the Mangano papers kept coming out.  I dont have links to all of them, but for example this one is co authored with Chris Busby

Changes in confirmed plus borderline cases of congenital hypothyroidism in California as a function of environmental fallout from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown
https://ratical.org/radiation/Fukushima/...fromFF.pdf

'The highest readings occurred at the station in Anaheim CA, a suburb of Los Angeles; 7 of the 17 measurements in the month after Fukushima were over 172.0-3  picocuries per cubic meter, compared to an average reading of 6.7-3
 for that period in non-Fukushima years'

So whether or not one wants to tear into the studies, its nevertheless some evidence that Fuku fallout is causing disease, deaths, and likely retardation...and most certainly that the fallout is here.

How much fallout...what is our DOSE?   Well here is a study...

http://eagerlabassistants.com/images/fin...rt2015.pdf

Summary: The findings of this report are the results of gamma spectroscopy tests to detect presence and estimate activity of both natural radiation and potential radioactive contaminants in soil and sand samples collected in 2015 across the United States. Uranium-238 activity was estimated 25.3 – 162.4 Bq/kg. Thorium-232 estimates of activity, if present, were approximately 15 - 90 Bq/kg, Potassium-40 ranged from 40 - 620 Bq/kg, Cesium-137 activity levels ranged from 1.6 – 13.0 Bq/kg and Cesium-134 levels ranged from approximately 1.0– 6.6 Bq/kg with detections at other energy levels included.

We can make this observation;  the ratio of Cs137 to Cs134 is pretty good evidence a lot of the fallout is from Fukushima...and its roughly speaking equivalent to background radiation levels.  Thats some indication of our DOSE

Which of these statements is more accurate;

"We live in a sea of radioactivity, the danger is in the dose"
or
"We live in a sea of radioactivity, but it never caused exclusion zones, leukemia, microcephaly and thyroid cancer until the inclusion of mankinds radionuclides"

Well we have to decide for ourselves on this because there is not a consensus, in fact there is a huge disparity of opinion.  We can read the Woods Hole version
https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/ABCs_of_R...167865.pdf

and we can read numerous papers that show harm from fallout at these radiation levels around background


'Fallout from Chernobyl reduces the intelligence at levels considered harmless'
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40506270?se...b_contents

And certainly one of the most informative is the findings from Bandazhevsky;   Cesium137 at a dose of 50 bq/kg causes irreparable heart pathology, whereas the healthiest persons to ever live have had a constant radiation dose of some 70 bq/kg from K-40, the 'banana radiation.'

And we can see from the study of cognitive ability in Sweden that those 'low' levels of fallout, equivalent to background, that it causes mental retardation.  And thats not all...a complex impact on metabolism.  

In my profusely humble opinion, its reasonable to conclude that fukushima fallout is in the U.S. and is causing SOME LEVEL of biological impact, which may include cognitive impairment, and various metabolic impacts which are part of the cause, the etiology of any number of chronic disease states, including cancer.   I mean fuku fallout has an effect on the health of everything.

Thats my conclusion, but the same conclusion cant be made for natural background radiation.  This in fact goes back to the root of the hormesis debate...they find several places around the world with naturally high background radiation and oftentimes no negative or sometimes even a 'positive' health impact.   There is an association of high radon with lung cancer. It could be noted that our contemporary housing is largely responsible for high accumulations of radon and ventilation is often the solution advised.  In short, background radiation is by in large harmless, while the SAME DOSE from fallout is harmful.  This is a major finding.


So for example we could look at this study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674188/

and it could be emphasized that 

" However, despite extensive knowledge of radiation risks gained through epidemiologic investigations and mechanistic considerations, the health effects of chronic low-level radiation exposure are still poorly understood." 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19454802

I glean from the Gundersen - Kaltofen interview above that M K  is generally viewing background radiation as a potentially adverse radiological exposure.    And this is of course the prevailing view.  Anti nukers, pro nukers, citizens and scientists believe this.   We put 'ionizing radiation'  into one conceptual basket.     But this is far from the complexity of the truth in terms of biological response.   

Very broadly speaking, Man-made radiation is different  than background radiation.  One of many examples is the HUGE difference in radiation intensity per mass, the specific activity.  What importance this may have is not yet completely known.  This is a very big and complex subject!  It goes beyond the quality factor of alpha, beta, gamma, high or low density ion tracks and so on. The bystander effect is an important aspect of this.   Unnatural radiation is registered biologically as the poison it is.  Even low levels cause an informational alert to travel through the body, even crossing animals and species untouched by radiation.  Some scientists say that low level radiation effect is dominated by the bystander effect.   The results of this bystander effect are many. It can increase repair mechanisms but also result in metabolic dysfunction, chronic inflammation and contribute to disease, including cancer.

You cant poison the world and claim it is safe
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)