True facts about ocean radiation and the Fukushima disaster

By |2014-01-07T15:04:35+00:00January 7th, 2014|Guest Insights|141 Comments

On March 11th, 2011 the Tōhoku earthquake and resulting tsunami wreaked havoc on Japan. It also resulted in the largest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl when the tsunami damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Radioactive particles were released into the atmosphere and ocean, contaminating groundwater, soil and seawater which effectively closed local Japanese fisheries.

Rather unfortunately, it has also led to some wild speculation on the widespread dangers of Fukushima radiation on the internet. Posts with titles like “Holy Fukushima – Radiation From Japan Is Already Killing North Americans” and ”28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima” (which Southern Fried Science has already throughly debunked ) keep popping up on my facebook feed from well-meaning friends.

I’m here to tell you that these posts are just plain garbage. While there are terrible things that happened around the Fukushima Power Plant in Japan; Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast aren’t in any danger.  These posts were meant to scare people (and possibly written by terrified authors). They did just that, but there is a severe lack of facts in these posts. Which is why I am here to give you the facts, and nothing but the facts.


The radioactive rods in the Fukushima power plant are usually cooled by seawater [CORRECTION: they are usually cooled by freshwater. As a last ditch emergency effort at Fukushima seawater was used as a coolant.]. The double whammy of an earthquake and a tsunami pretty much released a s**tstorm of badness: the power went out, meltdown started and eventually the radioactive cooling seawater started leaking (and was also intentionally released) into the ocean. Radioactive isotopes were also released into the air and were absorbed by the ocean when they rained down upon it. These two pathways introduced mostly Iodine-131, Cesium-137, and Cesium-134, but also a sprinkling of Tellurium, Uranium and Strontium to the area surrounding the power plant.

There aren’t great estimates of how much of each of these isotopes were released into the ocean since TEPCO, the company that owns the power plant hasn’t exactly been forthcoming with information, but the current estimates are around 538,100 terabecquerels (TBq) which is above Three-Mile Island levels, but below Chernobyl levels. And as it turns out, they recently found contaminated groundwater has also started leaking into the sea. TEPCO, the gift that keeps on giving.


Units of Radiation are confusing. When you start reading the news/literature/blogs, there are what seems like a billion different units to explain radiation. But fear not, I’ve listed them below and what they mean (SI units first).

Becquerel[Bq] or Curie[Ci]: radiation emitted from a radioactive material  (1 Ci = 3.7 × 1010 Bq)

Gray [Gy] or Rad[rad]: radiation absorbed by another material (1Gy = 100 rad)

Sieverts[Sv]* or “roentgen equivalent in man”[rem]: how badly radiation will damage biological tissue (1 Sv = 100 rem)

Simpsons Guide to RadiationYou can convert from Grays and Rads to Rem and Sieverts, but you have to know what kind of radiation it is. For example alpha radiation from naturally occurring Polonium-210 is more damaging to biological tissues than gamma radiation from Cesium-137. Even if you absorbed the same number of Grays from Cesium or Polonium, you would still effectively receive more damaging radiation from Polonium because the number of Sieverts is higher for Polonium than Cesium. And kids, Sieverts and Seavers  are both dangerous to your health but please don’t confuse them.


Cesium-137 is product of nuclear fission. Before us humans, there was no Cesium-137 on earth. But then we started blowing stuff up with nuclear bombs and VOILA!, there are now detectable, but safe, levels of Cesium-137 in all the world oceans.


There are a bunch of maps being thrown around on the internet as evidence that we are all going to die from Fukushima radiation. I’m going to dissect them here. Apologies in advance for dose of snark in this section because some of these claims are just god awful. Spoiler: radiation probably has reached the West Coast but it’s not dangerous.

MAP OF TERROR #1: The Rays of Radioactive Death!



This is not a map of Fukushima Radiation spreading across the Pacific. This is a map of the estimated maximum wave heights of the Japanese Tohuku Tsunami by modelers at NOAA. In fact, tsunamis don’t even transport particles horizontally in the deep ocean. So there is no way a Tsunami could even spread radiation (except maybe locally at scales of several miles as the wave breaks onshore). Dear VC reporter, I regret to inform you this cover image could be the poster child for the importance of journalistic fact-checking for years to come.


I mean I guess this is a bit better. At least this map used an ocean model that actually predicts where radioactive particles will be pushed around by surface ocean currents. But it still gets a BIG FAT FAIL. The engineering company that put this image/piece of crap out there couldn’t even be bothered to put a legend on the map. Their disclaimer says “THIS IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME CONCENTRATION.” Then what do the colors mean?


It’s true, oceanographic models have shown that radiation from Fukushima has probably already hit Aleutians and Hawaiian Island chain, and should reach the California Coast by Fall 2014 [Beherns et al. 2012]. The map above is showing the spread of Cesium-137 from the Fukushima reactor would look like right now, I mean radiation is apparently EVERYWHERE! But what is missing from most of the discussion of these maps is what  the colors ACTUALLY mean.

We shall now seek guidance from the little box in the upper right hand corner of the map called the legend**.  The colors show how much less radioactive the the decrease in the radioactive concentrations of Cesium-137 isotopes have become since being emitted from Fukushima. For example, the red areas indicate the Fukushima Cesium-137 is now more than 10,000 times less radioactive concentrated than when released. The California Coast, more than a million times less. The punchline is that overall concentrations of radioactive isotopes and therefore radioactivity in the Pacific will increase from Pre-Fukushima levels, but it will be way less than what was seen in coastal Japan and definitely not enough to be harmful elsewhere (we’ll get to more of that later).

** As Eve Rickert has thoughtfully pointed out, my description of the image is a little confusing. I’ve added corrections in blue to clarify.


Practically, what does ten thousand or a million times less radiation mean? It means that these models estimate the West Coast and the Aleutians will see radiation levels anywhere from 1-20 Bq/m3,while Hawaiian Islands could see up to 30 Bq/m[Beherns et al. 2012, Nakano et al. 2012,  Rossi et al. 2013 ].

I could write a small novel explaining why the numbers differ between the models. For those that love the details, here’s a laundry list of those differences: the amount of radiation initially injected into the ocean, the length of time it took to inject the radiation (slowly seeping or one big dump), the physics embedded in the model, the background ocean state, the number of 20-count shrimp per square mile (Just kidding!), atmospheric forcing, inter-annual and multi-decadal variability and even whether atmospheric deposition was incorporated into the model.

Like I said before, the West Coast will probably not see more than 20 Bq/mof radiation. Compare these values to the map of background radiation of Cesium-137 in the ocean before Fukushima (from 1990). Radiation will increase in the Pacific, but it’s at most 10 times higher than previous levels, not thousands. Although looking at this map I would probably stop eating Baltic Herring fish oil pills and Black Sea Caviar (that radiation is from Chernobyl) before ending the consumption of  fish from the Pacific Ocean.



No it will not be dangerous. Even within 300 km of Fukushima, the additional radiation that was introduced by the Cesium-137 fallout is still well below the background radiation levels from naturally occurring radioisotopes. By the time those radioactive atoms make their way to the West Coast it will be even more diluted and therefore not dangerous at all.

It’s not even dangerous to swim off the coast of Fukushima. Buessler et al. figured out how much radiation damage you would get if you doggie paddled about Fukushima (Yes, science has given us radioactive models of human swimmers). It was less than 0.03% of the daily radiation an average Japanese resident receives. Tiny! Hell, the radiation was so small even immediately after the accident scientists did not wear any special equipment to handle the seawater samples (but they did wear detectors just in case). If you want danger, you’re better off licking the dial on an old-school glow in the dark watch.


For the most part the answer is YES. Some fisheries in Japan are still closed because of radioactive contamination. Bottom fish are especially prone to contamination because the fallout collects on the seafloor where they live. Contaminated fish shouldn’t be making it to your grocery store, but I can’t guarantee that so if you are worried just eat fish from somewhere other than Japan.

Fish from the rest of the Pacific are safe. To say it mildly, most fish are kinda lazy. They really don’t travel that far so when you catch a Mahi Mahi off the coast of Hawaii its only going to be as contaminated as the water there, which isn’t very much.Hyperactive fish, such as tuna may be more radioactive than local lazy fish because they migrate so far. As Miriam pointed out in this post, there is a detectable increase of radiation in tuna because they were at one point closer to Fukushima, but the levels are not hazardous.

To alleviate fears that you may be glowing due to ingestion too many visits to your local sushi joint, Fischer et al. figured out exactly how much damaging radiation you would receive from eating a tower of tuna rolls. Seriously. Science is just that awesome. Supermarket tuna hunters would receive 0.9 μSv of radiation, while the outdoors subsistence tuna hunter would receive 4.7 μSv. These values are about the same or a little less than the amount a person receives from natural sources.

To put 0.9 μSv of radiation in perspective check out this awesome graph of radiation by xkcd. You’ll get the same amount of radiation by eating 9 bananas. Monkeys might be doomed, but you are not.


I hope this list of facts has answered most of your questions and convinced you the Pacific and its inhabitants will not be fried by radiation from Fukushima. I certainly feel safe eating sustainable seafood from the Pacific and so should you. If you are still unsure, please feel free to ask questions in the comments section below.


There’s been a lot of discussion in the comments about the contribution from the groundwater leaks. I did some homework and here’s what I came up with. (Also thanks to everyone for the interesting discussions in the comments!)

The ground water leaks are in fact problematic, but what has been released into the ocean is MUCH less than the initial release (although I admit the groundwater itself has extremely high radiation levels).  The estimates from Jota Kanda are that 0.3 TBq per month (1012 Bq) of contaminated groundwater is leaking into the ocean, which has added another 9.6 TBq of radiation into the sea at most.  The initial releases were about 16.2 PBq (1015 Bq), about 1500 times more radiation. With this in mind, the additional radioactivity leak from ground water isn’t a relatively large addition to the ocean.

The models by Behrens and Rossi used initial source functions of 10 PBq and 22 PBq, which is on par with the most recent estimates.  Since their models used a much higher source function, that says to me that this relatively smaller input from groundwater still won’t raise the radioactivity to dangerous levels on the West Coast, Alaska and Hawaii.  Recent observations around Hawaii by Kamenik et al. also suggest that the models may have even overestimated the amount of radiation that hit Hawaii, which is good news.

But there are caveats to this information as well. The leaking groundwater contains strontium and tritium which are more problematic than Cesium-137. But it sounds like strontium accumulates in bones and is only problem if you eat small fish with the bones in, like sardines (and it will only affect sardines caught near Japan since they don’t travel far). I suspect there might be some precedent for understanding the dangers of tritium in seawater from the 20th century nuclear testing in atolls, but I really don’t know. There is also 95 TBq of radioactive cesium is in the sediment around Fukushima, which is still super problematic for bottom dwelling fish and therefore local Japanese Fisheries. Lastly, another source is terrestrial runoff. These numbers haven’t been quantified but they are probably minor because they contain a fraction of the total deposition from atmospheric fallout, which itself was a fraction of what was released into the ocean.

So even with the new groundwater leaks, the available evidence still tells me I can eat fish from the West Coast, Hawaii, and Alaska.


For more in depth articles about radiation from Fukushima in the ocean you should definitely check out some of Marine Chemist’s Posts at Daily Kos. Written by Jay T. Cullen, a Marine Chemist at the University of Victoria, the posts walk you through the most current research on Fukushima Radiation from a variety of sources. I especially recommend his most recent post on Update on Fukushima Radionuclides in the North Pacific and Off the West Coast of North America, were he discusses the recent detection of Fukushima radiation off the coast of Canada. The most recent observations from June 2013 shows the spread of Cesium-137 was on par with the predictions by Rossi et al., but the concentrations are safe and lower than predicted.


[DISCLAIMER: The creators of the NOAA tsunami map work in my building. I secretly fangirl squeal when I walk past their offices. I recently had coffee with Joke F. Lübbecke, who also works in my building. It was caffeinated.]

*Confusingly, oceanographers also co-opted the acronym Sv for Sverdrups their unit for volume transport. 1 Sverdrup = 1 Sv = one million cubic metres per second = 400 Olympic swimming pools just passed your house in one second.


Behrens, Erik, et al. “Model simulations on the long-term dispersal of 137Cs released into the Pacific Ocean off Fukushima.” Environmental Research Letters 7.3 (2012): 034004.

Buesseler, Ken O., et al. “Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.16 (2012): 5984-5988.

Fisher, Nicholas S., et al. “Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2013).

Nakano, Masanao, and Pavel P. Povinec. “Long-term simulations of the 137 Cs dispersion from the Fukushima accident in the world ocean.“ Journal of environmental radioactivity 111 (2012): 109-115.

Rossi, Vincent, et al. “Multi-decadal projections of surface and interior pathways of the Fukushima Cesium-137 radioactive plume.“ Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers (2013).

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution FAQ: Radiation from Fukushima

Explained: rad, rem, sieverts, becquerelsl. A guide to terminology about radiation exposure

Kim Martini, Ph.D.

Creative Commons license  © Kim Martini, Deep Sea News


Related — “Physicist: There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster”



  1. Chris Graviss January 7, 2014 at 4:14 PM

    As a radiologist familiar w these terms, I’m so glad you did this article, so I can just link it to respond to my chicken little friends.

    • Frank Energy September 6, 2016 at 10:09 PM

      As a member of the medical community who took an oath to “first do no harm” you should be ashamed.

  2. Nate January 7, 2014 at 6:42 PM

    The Google Earth map appears to be a map showing the spread of plankton and other ocean life that were in the vicinity of Fukushima at the time of the disaster. Again, though, no legend and really no explanation of what the colors even represent. Plus this is based on what COULD happen as of 2012, not what did.

    • CFACT Ed January 11, 2014 at 8:16 PM

      That’s the point, Nate, the map is innocent and being used to scare people about radiation which does not relate.

  3. lyradd January 7, 2014 at 7:52 PM

    Can you comment on this:
    David Suzuki has issued a scary warning about Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant,
    saying that if it falls in a future earthquake, it’s “bye bye Japan”
    and the entire west coast of North America should be evacuated.

    • kumachanTokyo January 8, 2014 at 1:22 AM

      Just ask yourself: if with the meltdown of 3 reactors we had ZERO deaths by radiation and 20 thousand by tsunami and the release of most of the inventory of the 3 reactors, what could happen that would make an even much much much much much much greater release of radiation?
      Besides, I`m curious, did this “person” give the numbers of how much Bq/m3 would arrive in the USA to require an evacuation? And then, did IT went backward to give the numbers of how much needs to be released from Fukushima1 to reach that level in the USA?

      Not to mention that the only building that would have been slightly at risk [reactor 4] saw a huge increase of steel pillars and concrete since april 2011 and it`s now being emptied.

      Btw, if you wonder if there has been any big earthquake after THE ONE, this might show you what we had here and no one cared.
      PUMP UP THE VOLUME and have fun!

      For the weekly updates of sea contamination just ouside the plant:

      • Chew January 8, 2014 at 1:29 PM

        “and the release of most of the inventory of the 3 reactors,”

        Only about 4% of the Cs-137 inventory and less than 0.2% of the Sr-90 inventory of the cores has escaped. But your premise is correct. Just because another earthquake and/or tsunami were to hit Fukushima it doesn’t mean the cores will somehow magically release the remainder of their contents and propel it directly at north America.

        Search for “276 PBq” here:

        • kumachanTokyo January 9, 2014 at 3:03 AM

          I knew the NISA numbers of 770PBq [but I didn`t look for the separated components] so I thought it was higher, also because what was releaseable released itself. The rest was mixed in the coria with steel, zircalloy and concrete or attached to any available surface.

          But if by your document I see that [276PBq] 40% is in the water filtered by SARRY and KURION, I can only be happy.

          But again, how could we reproduce even the previous leves of release with a super earthquake after 3 years of exponential decreasing of thermal power with the reactors at 18C, 28C and 25C?

          • Chew January 9, 2014 at 4:11 AM

            The majority of the NISA estimation was mostly iodine-131.

            The cesium and strontium in the basements isn’t dissolved in the water. It is sitting in the basements as lumps and streamers of corium. The secondary containments were cracked by the earthquake and explosions. Groundwater is leaking into the basements, picking up the cesium that is leeching out of the corium (cesium has a melting point of 28 C), and then making its way to the Pacific. When all the corium cools below 28 C most, if not all, of the radiation will stop escaping.

            There is no way to reproduce the previous levels of release. Corium is a melted mixture of fuel, fuel assembly cladding, and control rods. It can’t go critical.

      • Guest January 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM

        This is “this person”, as you called them:

        • kumachanTokyo January 9, 2014 at 2:45 AM

          Exactly, you wrote nothing after “:” because you think It is nothing, but IT is worse than nothing, the “IT” is a special category of Kaiju!!
          I also called “this person” IT as you might have noticed.
          And I call IT all the “persons” like Busby that came to Japan to tell us that we were going to die of radiation but if we bought ITs magic pectine pills we would have had no cancer at all.
          Then there are the Gundersen and the Caldicott kaiju: the former IT that said [check ITs own videos please] that reactor 3 had a nuclear explosion that vaporized pool3 [note: the pool 3 is OF COURSE there with all its assemblies]; and the latter IT, at every presentation of ITs unscientific books, shows this picture to say that the world needs to listen to ITs words.

          A friend of mine also contacted the Australian company whose symbol is at the bottom left corner and received confirmation it was fake. Of course the numbers written already meant it was fake, but he asked this confirmation for the chemtrailers “kind”.
          Just to be clear: if those numbers were real, after a few hours the whole West coast would have died within weeks.

          About Gundy that says to be a nuclear operator: IT should know as every 8 y.o. US citizen that a nuclear reactor [or its pool] cannot PHYSICALLY explode like a nuclear bomb.
          OR, if IT is really older than 8 or really studied some physics, IT knows it and IT knows IT is saying poop that a lot of “people” is happy to buy.

          Then there is the worst kaiju of them all, THESUPERDUMB: it is made by billions of cells, each cell weights an average of 60kg and often they clicks buttons on things like this one:

          BTW the petition started from the poops of the previously mentioned Gundy kaiju, and of course immediately bought by the cells listed in the petition.

          BTW, can you tell me the numbers that I requested?
          How many Bq/m3 are needed for a West USA evacuation and therefore how many Bq and in how much time must be released by Fukushima1?

          • Frank Energy October 20, 2016 at 8:38 PM

            LIttle Bear, you have refutations and accusations, but no facts. Indeed a nuclear reactor can blow up in a TYPE of nuclear explosion, a runaway fission event. Study it here:


            • Michael Mann October 20, 2016 at 8:45 PM

              Frank Energy is an alias of Nukpro he is just trying to generate traffic on his own webpage…

              • Frank Energy October 20, 2016 at 9:46 PM

                My own troll, how special, LOL

                • Michael Mann October 20, 2016 at 10:10 PM

                  Not a troll, just a concerned citizen…..The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

                  • Frank Energy October 21, 2016 at 9:38 AM

                    LOL how trite, troll

            • Michael Mann October 21, 2016 at 3:47 AM

              Your comment is to a post over 3 years old, you are hoping no-one will notice, so ou can post your propaganda without being challenged, I believe the term is “capping” so that people who stumble across this article will see your comment first and not take the time to read further…

              • KumachanTokyo October 23, 2016 at 4:14 AM

                I guess this time it didn`t go well 🙂

                I didn`t know “capping”.

                • Michael Mann October 23, 2016 at 10:08 AM

                  I learned about “capping” from an anti-nuclear person who accused me of doing it when I responded to one of their posts, it makes sense, many people who look at the comments on the “newest” setting and do not scroll to see more comments, if the first page is all anti-nuclear, the casual reader will have the impression that all the comments are anti-nuclear.

            • KumachanTokyo October 23, 2016 at 4:10 AM

              Are you frakking kidding me?
              The real facts come from physics, and physics doesn`t change depending on ideas.
              Nuclear reactors cannot have a nuclear explosion, and there isn`t a second “type” of nuclear eplosion.
              And NO, the link to a website of a mentally disturbed ignorant isn`t a place where other ignorants should “study”.

              The ignorant of your link is clearly disturbed to think it was a nuclear explosion because:
              1- it happened outside the RPV and outside the CV, therefore OUTSIDE the reactor and therefore without uranium or plutonium.
              2- the “nuclear” explosion blew up only the ceiling and the wall of the last floor [as of project requirement in case of hydrogen explosion] and left intact both the cover of the CV and the pool [the pools didn`t even crack and they are keeping water today too].
              Has anyone seen a nuclear explosion that blows up only the last floor leaving the rest of the building intact [with the bomb located at the first floor and underground]?

              And NO, that crazy ignorant cannot mention “runaway fission” because Fukushima1 has only BWR negative feedbak reactors and if you take out ALL the control rods [which is its normal operating mode] the BWR has a top power output of 40%, to reach 100% you need water and circulation pumps.
              The more gas bubbles [the less liquid water] you have, the less fission you have.

              So I suggest you to stay very far from crazy people`s websites.

              Have you ever typed “can a nuclear reactor have a nuclear explosion”?
              BTW do you know that almost 2 years ago they emptied the pool of reactor 4?
              And the explosion was right on top of the uncovered pool.


              OH MY ANUBI!
              The crazy ignorant wrote “We don’t know if it was the reactor or the spent fuel pool, but the
              results are clearcut, 100 tons of uranium and percentage of Plutonium,
              Strontium, Cesium, and other nastiness was launched into the atmosphere
              and measured by the EPA.”!!
              Hey, @frankenergy:disqus, talking about “no facts” why don`t you ask to the insane person that wrote this where he got it from?
              Can he really think you can release tons of uranium that cannot fly away too far given its mass [once more physics is a bitch for ignorants] and hide it?

      • Lisa Greene January 9, 2014 at 10:24 AM
        (What I pasted previously didn’t post…)

        ‘did IT went backward’????

  4. Lisa Greene January 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM

    So areas around Chernobyl, after so many years, are NOW too dangerous to eat food from, but the fallout from Fukushima is ok? How stupid do you think we are? (And we won’t even get into WHY they locate these facilities in such dangerous areas to begin with – near coasts, in earthquake zones, etc…)

    • Chew January 8, 2014 at 1:05 PM

      The reason there is a difference between the Baltic and Pacific contamination levels is Chernobyl dumped about 14 PBq of Cs-137 into the Baltic Sea and the Baltic Sea has 31,000 less volume than the Pacific.The Baltic is separated from the Atlantic by a narrow strait so very little water in the Baltic makes its way into the Atlantic and vice versa.

    • kumachanTokyo January 9, 2014 at 3:42 AM

      What is dangerous around Chernobyl are eventually the small pieces of the reactor that were jettisoned with the graphite explosion.
      Chernobyl didn`t have any Containment Vessel as the democratic countries had at those times and this explains why the total emissions of 3 Japanese reactors are 1/6 of Chernobyl with most of it above and inside the Pacific Ocean, and if it there it`s not in Japan.
      Of course there are some more contaminated zones, but what is dangerous has been restricted beyond reasoning, especially when that crazy woman of the Komiyama set the food limit to 100Bq/kg [USA 1250Bq/kg] with the result that the some of the best European fruit jams have been banned in Japan.

      You put nuclear reactors where there is water to cool them down.
      The problem has never been the earthquake, it was that the power and control lines of the cooling pumps were under water and short circuited, so even when they had the power they couldn`t use them.
      All the list of what happened is very long so I`ll stop here just saying that reactor 6 was able to cool also reactor 5 and Tepco wanted to restart them in the near future but the government said no because people wouldn`t understand.
      Besides the 4 reactors of Fukushima2 will be restarted.
      Do you think that the earthquake did any damage to the Tokyo Skytree which is only 636metres tall?

      Please, don`t ask again “How stupid do you think we are?”.

  5. Chew January 8, 2014 at 1:57 PM

    When I try to counter the doomsdayers who say Fukushima is an “Extinction Level Event” and it will wipe out all humanity I refer them to this document. See page 8 for a handy table.

    It discusses in detail the amount of radiation dumped into the oceans from nuclear weapons testing, nuclear reprocessing, and all others causes. Fukushima is a minor contributor. When people bring up the fact that Fukushima is still leaking radioactivity into the Pacific, I tell them there is already so much Cs-137 in the Pacific from nuclear weapons testing that 700 times as much Cs-137 decays every day than what Fukushima is adding to it. In other words, the leak from Fukushima would have to be 700 times worse than it is just to maintain the amount of Cs-137 in the Pacific.

    • Frank Energy September 6, 2016 at 9:54 PM

      thats stupid. We went from around .5 to 1 Bq/M3 to range of 3 to 5 to 8 to 13

      Linking to anything the IAEA says is a joke, their stated purpose is to promote nuclear, and to do that, one must lie.

      • Chew September 7, 2016 at 7:45 PM

        The IAEA link is to an inventory of nuclear weapons fallout in the oceans. But since you couldn’t even spell the first word of your reply correctly I don’t expect you could even begin to understand the contents of the link so I won’t waste my time with you.

        • Frank Energy September 7, 2016 at 8:30 PM

          Ah the grammer police have decided that it is not even necessary to go all the way to an ad hominem.

          Shame on the nukists

        • Michael Mann September 10, 2016 at 12:16 AM

          Frank Energy is an alias of a self promoting anti-science blogger who doesn’t believe in climate change and loves irrational fear and conspiracy theories….

  6. Robert Hargraves January 9, 2014 at 7:18 AM

    Kim, thanks for the post. I’m also trying to counter radiation fear, with a brochure. If you (or anyone) mails your postal address to me an I’ll send some samples. Or look at

  7. 1cbetta January 11, 2014 at 11:54 PM

    West coast radiation 800 CPM above normal 12/23/13

    High radiation on Norcal Beach 12/24/13

    CA Beach Sand Reads 412 CPM

  8. X-45 January 18, 2014 at 8:31 PM

    “Even within 300 km of Fukushima, the additional radiation that was introduced by the Cesium-137 fallout is still well below the background radiation levels from naturally occurring radioisotopes.” <<<<<<<<<< This is completely insane. Kim Martini, Ph.D you are seriously endangering lives.

    • liltimmy May 7, 2014 at 5:16 AM

      you would think that someone with a Ph.D would not be saying stuff like radiation levels are harmless ,anyone with a Ph.D should be telling you there is NO SAFE level of radiation

      • Michael July 30, 2014 at 8:05 PM

        so you don’t use a cell phone then?

      • Mike O'Brien February 17, 2015 at 12:42 PM

        So then no place on Earth is safe, we are all DOOMED. DOOMED I TELL YOU!!!!

      • Aaron Oakley October 26, 2016 at 10:15 AM

        Radiation is everywhere all the time. All living things naturally contain Carbon-14 (half life 5730 years) and Posassium-40 (half life 1.25 billion years), among others.

        The “No safe level” thing is a regulatory assumption, not science.

        • Brian March 29, 2017 at 1:44 AM

          Cancer is everywhere too. Didn’t ya notice?

          too bad you don’t believe in science.

          The banana argument is really tired. It’s nonsense.

          Bananas are radioactive—But they aren’t a good way to explain radiation exposure

          • Aaron Oakley March 29, 2017 at 8:04 AM

            “Cancer is everywhere too.”

            Cancer is primarily a disease of age. And correlation is not causuation. But bringing up cancer is a great way to frighten people.

            “The banana argument is really tired.”

            …says anonymous internet troll. Meanwhile, real scientists use it when discussing radiation and life, e.g.:


            • Brian March 30, 2017 at 8:26 PM

              Nonsense and you yourself to be a troll. Radon is the main cause of lung cancer. Sun is the main cause of skin cancer. age not a a factor.

              but if you hate old people, tell us.

              • Aaron Oakley March 31, 2017 at 12:09 AM

                “Radon is the main cause of lung cancer.”

                Lung cancer is not all cancers. According to the Australian Cancer Council, the most common cancers for men and women are:

                Men: Prostate, Bowel (colorectal), Melanoma, Lung
                Women: Breast, Bowel (colorectal), Melanoma, Lung

                Also, Brian’s claim re Lung cancer is untrue. Radon is not the main cause of lung cancer. Cigarette smoke is:


                Quote: “Cigarette smoking is the most common cause of lung cancer. Radon represents a far smaller risk for this disease”

                • Brian March 31, 2017 at 1:20 AM

                  Notice the argument for arguments sake.

                  Did you know there is polonium in cigarette smoke?

                  Maybe it’s radiation causing the cancers, but cancer are everywhere.

                  And just as I said, you can’t trace a particular cancer to a particular cause.

                  Thanks for agreeing.

                  • Aaron Oakley March 31, 2017 at 1:28 AM

                    “Notice the argument for arguments sake.”

                    This is hilarious coming from the stalker who has just gone through dozens of my old comments just to have a go at me.

                    “Did you know there is polonium in cigarette smoke?”

                    Yes. Along with thousands of chemicals:

                    “Maybe it’s radiation causing the cancers, but cancer are everywhere.”

                    And if we don’t die of cancer, its cardiovascular disease. Want to blame that on radiation too?

                    “And just as I said, you can’t trace a particular cancer to a particular cause.”

                    You never wrote that on this thread. Try loosening your tinfoil hat before continuing. 😉

                    • Brian March 31, 2017 at 1:39 AM

                      Yes, I blame an LNT calculated amount of those cancer on gradation, as does anyone with a brain.

                      But since other things cause cancer too, it’s perfectly ok to cause the deaths of millions more with radiation from nuclear power and it’s wastes, leak and disasters. Right? Why should nuclear power get to cause cancer too?

                      Notice how professional trolls love to comment on grammar and debating rules?

                    • Aaron Oakley March 31, 2017 at 1:47 AM

                      “Yes, I blame an LNT calculated amount of those cancer on gradation, as does anyone with a brain.”

                      You are mistaking brains for dogma.

                      The LNT is a regulatory assumption, not science. And its a questionable assumption as demonstrated by many scientists writing in the peer-reviewed literature. For example:


                    • Brian March 31, 2017 at 6:52 PM

                      Nope. LNT is the best science. ,1Sv is the regulator assumption.

                      Your pro nuclear folks really love opposite world.

                      Natural radiation already causes cancer, there for any additional radiation will cause more cancers, even if you ignore LNT. hormesis can’t work either, because it’s already busy fighting natural radiation. Plus LNT studies already include in the data any hormesis or immune responses.

                      Who funded your study? hm? The resolution of epidemiology studies is insufficient to prove the hypothesis. The “found no evidence” because their measurement tools were not up to the job.

             1-2% of cancer that nuclear industry workers get are from radiation, proving LNT.

                      Interesting critique of the Kikk study that thinks Kikk was too kind because there was a 5% chance the results were random chance. 95% confidence sounds good to me. (he’s focused on the childhood part. the Kikk study showed LNTfor all other cancers.)
                      Commentary: childhood cancer near nuclear power stations

                    • Aaron Oakley April 2, 2017 at 3:55 AM

                      “LNT is the best science.”

                      LNT is not the best science, as many professional radiation health physicists attest. For example:


                      “1Sv is the regulator assumption.””

                      1Sv is a very large amount of radiation. That large doses of radiation can cause cancer was never in dispute. The problem with the LNT is it extrapolates from effects at high dose to effects at low dose.

                      But since Brain is a radiophobe, perhaps he should be working for the evacuation of areas with higher than average background radiation:


                    • Brian April 2, 2017 at 8:00 PM

                      You mean the professionals paid for by the nuclear power industry? Those professionals?

                    • Aaron Oakley April 2, 2017 at 4:56 AM

                      BTW Brian, have you taken in some of the more recent literature on nuclear industry workers?


                    • Brian April 2, 2017 at 6:55 PM

                      hilarious counter to the studies that show cancer increases in nuclear workers. I have never seen such whining.

                      Please, show us who funded this professor and his study.


                      He is a nuclear industry pr agent. Duh.

                      You too can buy research from him.

                    • Aaron Oakley April 2, 2017 at 6:59 PM

                      “hilarious counter to the studies that show cancer increases in nuclear workers.”

                      Perhaps you should read more carefully.

                      “who funded this professor and his study”

                      Again with the funding conspiracies. You now have the perfect mental trap for ignoring science that contradicts your ideologies.

                      Instead of asking about funding, you should examine the scientific content of the paper.

                    • Brian April 2, 2017 at 7:44 PM

                      Notice he’s here, all the time?

                      There was no cont net, just FUD. He, like you appears to be a pro.

                    • Renè April 13, 2017 at 10:02 PM

                      Why do you spend so much time talking about nuclear power? As an organic chemist, wouldn’t you be more suited to discus photochemistry and solar cells?

                    • Aaron Oakley April 14, 2017 at 2:35 AM

                      Its dangerous to make assumptions, Rene. I am not in face an organic chemist. My specialty is in fact the use of X-ray diffraction to determine molecular structure. As such, I’ve been working with ionizing radiation for over 20 years. And I’m fed up with enviros spreading fear and ignorance about radiation/

                    • Renè April 14, 2017 at 2:44 AM

                      Cool. Do you determine the structure of enzymes?

                    • Aaron Oakley April 14, 2017 at 2:51 AM

                      Many enzymes.

                    • Renè April 14, 2017 at 2:56 AM

                      I have a strange question: I know that many enzymes are globular and free floating. Are there catalytic sites built into structural proteins as well? If so, what percentage of enzymatic activity is carried out by ‘structural enzymes’?

                      I have been wondering about this for some odd reason.

                    • Aaron Oakley April 14, 2017 at 3:16 AM

                      Enzymes have specific binding sites that are part of their overall structures. Most chemistry in the body is catalyzed by enzymes (and most enzymes are proteins), but there are spontaneous reactions as well.

                    • Renè April 14, 2017 at 3:32 AM

                      Do you think that Na⁺/K⁺ ATPase is a unicorn or a real enzyme?

                    • Aaron Oakley April 14, 2017 at 3:42 AM

                      The Na⁺/K⁺ ATPase is an integral membrane protein found in mammalian cells that pumps Na+ and K+ out of and into cells respectively. It’s technically an enzyme because it is powered by ATP hydrolysis.

                    • Renè April 14, 2017 at 3:56 AM

                      I read Gilbert Ling’s A Physical Theory of the Living State: the Association-Induction Hypothesis. I have a first edition hardcover.

                      He makes a very good case for it’s nonexistence. In fact, the differential concentrations of Na⁺/K⁺ inside and outside of the cell can be accounted for by a simple fact. The carboxylate amino acids aspartate and gluamate (deprotonated at physiological pH) have a higher affinity for potassium than for sodium ions.

                      He goes on to describe action potentials through a change in ‘c-value’. This is caused by ‘cardinal adsorbants’ such as ATP which change the electron distribution in proteins through electronic induction. His c-value is merely a measure of electronic polarization.

                      He postulates that a change in c-value can cause carboxylate residues to prefer sodium over potassium and vice-versa. He has done many experiments confirming his theories.

                      He makes a good thermodynamic arguments against the concept of a ‘membrane pump’. I think you should read this book or check out his articles on his website:

                    • Aaron Oakley April 14, 2017 at 4:14 AM

                      It exists, the genes have been cloned, the protein expressed, and the three dimensional structure solved!


                    • Renè April 14, 2017 at 4:25 AM

                      I know it exists, but does it do what they say it does?


                    • Aaron Oakley April 14, 2017 at 4:37 AM

                      Exactly what the name says! You can assay the activity. There is a large body of literature on this on PubMed!

                    • Aaron Oakley April 14, 2017 at 3:17 AM

                      Here is an atlas of biochemical pathways, just to give you an idea:


                    • Renè April 14, 2017 at 4:41 AM

                      Just about twelve hours ago I thought it would be heuristic to create a huge chart linking all known biochemical pathways. This is synchronicity.

                      I was writing an article about serine biosynthesis. Serine can be made from the glycolytic product 3-phosphoglycerate. Serine is required for sphingolipids which compromise a good deal of white matter and myelin. Phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase knockout mice show demyelination, and so do case reports in which genetic enzymatic defects prevent serine biosynthesis showing very low CSF serine levels and epilepsy.

                      The BBB prevents most dietary serine from going to the brain. Massive dietary doses are required to overcome genetic defects. Serine alone eliminates seizures in many cases.

                      If I knew anyone with Parkinson’s or MS, I would recommend high-dose serine. Demyelination in many cases could simply be a reduction in serine biosynthesis.

  9. X-45 January 18, 2014 at 8:32 PM

    As far as chicken little is concerned, you people appear to have completely lost touch with reality.

  10. X-45 January 18, 2014 at 8:36 PM

    “the total emissions of 3 Japanese reactors are 1/6 of Chernobyl” <<<<<<< This sort of comment is bordering on (if not completely) suicidal/ homicidal.

  11. Dave Irey February 25, 2014 at 5:23 PM

    I don’t know…I read those above and “map of terror” showed look better than another
    image as Kim said. Another liar as same thing happened in the past. People got
    cancers everyday more than before since first atomic bomb dropped. Just bring your
    radioactive detector to food store and make sure your seafoods are safe. You will be
    okay but not ok to comments from those Ph.D people – they are not trusted!!!!

    • Frank Energy September 7, 2016 at 8:31 PM

      Very difficult to test foods, the water content blocks most of the radiation.

      • Michael Mann September 10, 2016 at 7:46 PM

        Measuring radiation down to the smallest amounts is relatively easy to do, so is making vague scary statements with a hint of truth, yes, water is a good shield, no it is not difficult to test food.

        • Frank Energy September 10, 2016 at 8:12 PM

          Pretending that the average joe could walk through a grocery store and determine whether what he was buying was radioactive… a lie, very disingenuous.

          • Michael Mann September 10, 2016 at 9:22 PM

            Anyone with a frisker can easily determine if the levels of radioactivity are dangerous, yes most food IS naturally radioactive, but it is NOT dangerous level. It does take knowledge to understand the readings. You make these vague ominous and false statements in hopes of scaring people. The fear you attempt to instill is much more injurious than the radiation that is the truth.

            • Frank Energy September 10, 2016 at 10:31 PM

              Folks, this is the face of the nuclear cartel.

              • Michael Mann September 10, 2016 at 11:02 PM

                LOL! Frank Energy is an alias, a total fabrication, literally representing an anti-science climate denier, and anti-nuclear blogger. I on the other hand am a technician, a real person, not an alias, not a spokesperson, flesh and blood with a lovely girlfriend, stepson and a real life. I am a blue collar, hourly worker, my opinions are my own, based on over 35 years experience, not some imaginary “cartel”. Be a critical thinker, investigate the facts, don’t be frightened by the rantings of this self serving conspiracy theorist.

  12. debj181 March 4, 2014 at 9:47 PM

    the reactors are leaking. kill the Krill and you Kill life. Krill are all thru out the ocean… all they have to do is swim thru radiation…what eats them dies, etc. and so on.
    stupid, stupid to say this will all be OK. these levels.
    not only are you helping to melt the polar ice caps by heating up the ocean but you are irradiating all the fish and plant life in the ocean – getting in the air is whatever moisture evaporates from the ocean… drops radiation back onto the ground. IT IS A NEVER ENDING CYCLE UNLESS U CONTAIN IT> contain it with cement casing lined with lead all around and under – like a dome!!! do it now!!! expensive. lol… yes, its cheaper to just let the Earth die. Get people to DO IT ‘IF’ they want to Live!
    once u kill the world, you cant buy it back.

    • Michael Mann February 17, 2015 at 1:34 PM

      Since the radiation from Fukushima is such a tiny amount compared to the radiation already in the Pacific how on Earth can you justify such hyperbolic fear mongering?

      • Frank Energy September 6, 2016 at 9:49 PM

        LOL I saw such as outrageous comment, and then, yes, it was from the troll of trolls. A true believer, a pusher of lies to cover his false career.

        LOL Because Chitin does not bio-magnify K40 Potassium. But it does biomagnify manmade radiation, and radiation once biomagnified is one of the few things that can damage Chitin (an important biological structure). chitin, BTW is used by ALL of the hardest hit species in the recent mass die offs, OR critter that consume critters that use Chitin are also on the death list.

        Evidence is here:

        • Michael Mann September 9, 2016 at 1:20 PM

          NukePro alias “Frank Energy” is one of many fake names this person uses to try and lure people to his personal website for his own benefit. Compare that to a real person working as a technician, who posts his opinions under his real name and is not told nor paid to post and decide who is a “troll” Don’t fall for his anti-science Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) campaign.

      • Kz July 19, 2017 at 2:09 PM

        Radiation has a bioaccumulate affect, the more there is the worse it gets. That’s ok YOU keep eating the sushi it’s GOOD for you. And I can see it’s already affecting what little upstairs you had.

        • Michael Mann July 19, 2017 at 5:22 PM

          You seem to have several misconceptions, radiation certainly does not “bioaccumulate” you seem to have a misunderstanding of the definition of one or both of these words. Your sushi reference seems rather flippant, but the truth is you could not eat enough fish to increase your dose by any measurable level and even if you could eat that much fish, the lions share of your radiation exposure would be from the naturally radioactive material which has been around since before mankind existed. Yes, everyone remembers college when all the people who couldn’t handle liberal arts, shifted their major to nuclear engineering so they could graduate…. I was in the Navy as a reactor operator (Navy Electronics Technician, Nuclear)

  13. SimbaLover August 25, 2014 at 8:32 AM

    If the radiation is harmless then why are so many US Navy personnel sick from their rescue efforts?

  14. tonygreen February 28, 2015 at 12:20 PM

    Ok, Fukushima: move on, nothing to see here, it’s all a conspiracy theory, right? Does our Ph.D. have the same opinion of depleted uranium, chemtrails & WiFi? And how’s about those twin towers? Vaccines? Agenda 21? Al Gore’s version of global warming? Our trusted “experts” would never, ever lie to a naive public would they?

  15. el laposta March 21, 2015 at 7:12 PM

    I have to disagree with you on this article. Too many factors debunk it, especially Stephen Harper having all “radiation detection stations” along the BC coast line turned off until further notice tell me that there is indeed alot to hide in this disaster. Just how bad will it effect us as compared to japan is yet to see…anyone speculating would be foolish. But with underwater currents and storms the radioactive isotopes and or other waste from the rods could impact anyone bordering the pacific ocean. The FDAA already ok’ed the sale of radioactive fish in American stores and I don’t think they would do that unless they knew we were also absorbing waste from the Fukushima disaster! I say we will find out who is correct and who isn’t. Take everything you read with a grain of salt. There are many false flags and war propaganda stories to keep aspiring conspiracy theorists going.

    • Frank Energy September 10, 2016 at 10:31 PM

      You nailed it.

  16. Frank Energy February 14, 2016 at 3:31 AM

    Kim, could you weigh in on this new hypothesis?

    A Scientific Basis For Destruction Of Ocean Food Chain Via Radiation

  17. helennowlin April 4, 2016 at 3:02 PM

    While the dilution factor is always considered, dilution is not a solution to pollution (opposite of the meme used by industry when discussing the Clean Water Act). If the release of radiation is continuous and by any one’s account unknown as to duration (no end in sight), dilution will become less important as concentration increases. Radiation is still just about exposure and even “low levels” over a longer period of time still have real consequences on the human body. I think it less important to debate “how little is okay” and talk more about how to stop the release all together. No one seems to have any solutions!

  18. Lyovov Oayo Oryla May 22, 2016 at 12:19 AM
  19. Lyovov Oayo Oryla May 22, 2016 at 12:20 AM
  20. Frank Energy September 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM

    Hillary Clinton collapses while leaving the 911 memorial. Somehow that is fitting. Watch this amazing video

  21. chicken little October 20, 2016 at 10:08 AM

    Lost: a few nuclear rods, last seen melting their way into the earth. If found please explain to these cores that they do not exist. (Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see – question everything)

    • Michael Mann October 20, 2016 at 11:02 AM

      I agree that we need to question everything, especially vague fear mongering statements from people who make money depending on how much fear they can create. Science fact over science fiction, be skeptical of everything especially conspiracy theories which try to paint anyone with hands on knowledge as unreliable simply because they have hands on experience. Knowledge is better than fear! Stay informed, not scared! Professional organizations, government agencies and universities are much more reliable than conspiracy websites and anonymous posters.

  22. Frank Energy October 23, 2016 at 9:59 AM

    Uranium Aerosolized Into Atmosphere

    – Fukushima had explosions from WITHIN the reactor vessel and/or fuel
    pool, launching in a Cannon type fashion, TONS of Uranium and Plutonium
    into the atmosphere.

    • Michael Mann October 23, 2016 at 10:03 AM

      Frank Energy is an alias of “NukPro” he is the writer/owner of the personal blogsite he is referencing, he posts on articles like this in an attempt to increase “traffic” at his website. Beware, he may be gathering information about people who visit his site.

      • Michael Mann October 23, 2016 at 12:58 PM

        “Frank Energy” is also a climate denier.

  23. Michael Mann October 26, 2016 at 9:18 AM

    The anti-nuclear pro-fossil fuel climate deniers will have a fit over you debunking their favorite scams, they count on people being ignorant and afraid. The anti-nuclear people are easy to spot, they like to call anyone with knowledge and experience “troll” or “shill” and attempt to use these memes to frighten people who don’t know any better.

    • Arrow Durfee February 19, 2017 at 3:12 PM

      Below is a map of the radiation flow out of Fukushima. Find the video at the top of the article. This is why I will not longer eat seafood from the Pacific Ocean. This is a map at 2.5 years after Fukushima. We are now in year 5. Wonder how it will look 2.5 years from now. I offer the video in this link as evidence. Instead of their rhetoric consider this as you watch the film. The reactors have been leaking now for 5 years, the core is now submerged in the ocean. The core is hotter than its ever been. This is a surface water analysis..What about the deep sea? What about the oceanic plant life? What the film in this article shows us it that things are definitely dispersing and spreading through the ocean. This is scheduled to continue for the next 20,000 years if they can’t find a way to remove these cores from the ocean. So far, 5 years an no luck with that.;

      • Michael Mann February 19, 2017 at 3:33 PM

        From your link ” 10 Bq m−3 during the first two years, followed by a gradual decline to 1–2 Bq m−3 over the next 4–7 years. The total peak radioactivity levels would then still be about twice the pre-Fukushima values. ” 10Bq is a tiny amount of radiation and a cubic meter of water is a lot of water.. knowledge is better than fear!

  24. Arrow Durfee February 19, 2017 at 2:34 PM

    so now we have a bunch of rods sitting in the ocean. Nuclear physicists have said its so hot it will start turning into plutonium.. I think your site is pure BS. Are you Mr. Smith? think Matrix

    • Michael Mann February 19, 2017 at 2:59 PM

      Funny, there are no rods sitting in the ocean, and no nuclear physicist has said anything about “it’s so hot it will turn into plutonium” because heat doesn’t do that in this dimension, the laws of physics do not change because you have a misconception. I think your post is pure BS… think dishonest and fear mongering propaganda.

  25. Arrow Durfee February 19, 2017 at 3:10 PM

    Below is a map of the radiation flow out of Fukushima. Find the video at the top of the article. This is why I will not longer eat seafood from the Pacific Ocean. This is a map at 2.5 years after Fukushima. We are now in year 5. Wonder how it will look 2.5 years from now. I offer the video in this link as evidence. Instead of their rhetoric consider this as you watch the film. The reactors have been leaking now for 5 years, the core is now submerged in the ocean. The core is hotter than its ever been. This is a surface water analysis..What about the deep sea? What about the oceanic plant life? What the film in this article shows us it that things are definitely dispersing and spreading through the ocean. This is scheduled to continue for the next 20,000 years if they can’t find a way to remove these cores from the ocean. So far, 5 years an no luck with that.;

    • Michael Mann February 19, 2017 at 3:22 PM

      Where do you get this BS? There are no “cores in the ocean” you have so many misconceptions it’s hard to know where to start. The tiny amount of contamination in the ocean is not going to have any effect on people, plants, or fish. Do you know any math? What is .00000000000000000000001 times 2.5 ? Try not to be so frightened.

  26. tedskam55 March 19, 2017 at 12:03 PM

    “a sprinkling”? Tepco isn’t very forthcoming”!?!?!?!?
    Nice try, professor.
    Just the collection of propaganda bullshit “news” stories scattered on this page tells everyone all they need to know.
    EVERYTHING written in this “article” is misleading, at best.
    3 reactors in 100% meltdown for 6 years……One reactor (#2) which blew sky high, released 4 million pounds of Spent MOX fuel rods, into the atmosphere and water around Fukushima. Tepco finally, 6 years later, admits that 2 other reactors have completely melted down and THROUGH the containment vessels (WHICH, automatically makes it exponentially WORSE than Chernobyl)…and oh yeah, Tepco has “no idea where the spent fuel is, from 2 reactors.
    Tepco also admits to “300 tonnes a day of highly radioactive water running into (you know, “leaking” like said in this article) the Pacific, every day for the past 6 years. Problem with that number is, it takes 40,000 tons a day, for EACH reactor to keep the fuel cool. 300 tons just doesn’t add up, even using Tepco math.
    This article is misleading, misguided, and most certainly industry sponsored.
    “there is no measurable radiation reaching north America”.
    Then I suppose you believe the EPA shut down over 90% of its RADNET stations after Fukushima, because of “cell phone tower interference” like they stated, huh? Funny how the towers were running just fine prior to Fukushima, then after, why all those pesky cell towers just gummed up the whole process so we just shut em down.
    When Leukemia rates or thyroid cancer rates increase in the next few decades, I’m sure articles like this will say its because of ……….well…use your imagination. Maybe cell phone towers will be the reason given.
    It worked one other time.

    • Michael Mann March 19, 2017 at 9:54 PM

      You are funny! It really punctuates how these ridiculous fear mongering memes are! No one could seriously believe this stuff

      • Brian April 2, 2017 at 9:15 PM

        Yes are sad. you need to prove you life was not wasted sieving nuclear power, so you sacrifice your honest, and your soul.

  27. Brian April 2, 2017 at 6:56 PM

    Gish they raise the limits then claimed the radiation was below the limits.

    Anybody who does that to you is lying. Stop being fools.

    The tobacco and lead paint industry did the same thing to use, resulting in millions of ruined lives and deaths.

    Will you fall for it again?

  28. Brian April 3, 2017 at 1:05 AM

    This is just another pro nuclear pr piece. Move along, nothing to see here.

    Nobody is swimming in the water. Go ahead, get the all the officials of TEPCO and the IAEA to swim in it. Sure.

    All radiation is not the same. Particulate radiation is far worse. micron pu239 particle

    Notice the star shape. That’s the 1 micron particle of pu239. That sized particle easily carries in the wind. Particles up to 25 microns of pu239 do. It’s easily carried in the water.

    Hot particles of radioactive materials are far more dangerous when eaten or inhaled than their standard reported dose would indicated.

    This is a photo of a one micron particle typical of exploding nuclear power plants like Fukushima, specially with MOX. It’s in a pig lung and that’s 2 days of alpha tracks. That star shaped thing. The definition of Severts is that only the irradiated mass of tissue is used to calculate the dose. Instead the industry calculated the exposure by dividing the amount of radiation from the particle by the mass of the whole body or if they are feeling guilty, the mass of the organ they are in. Cancers start small. They son’t start in your whole body or organ, they start a small cluster of cells about 100 microns across, just about what the particle radiation exposes.

    Dogs all got cancer when they were tested with these same type particles. You inhale that particle and you are getting 1000 of severs per month.

    So when you hear nonsense that your dose would be less that a dental x-ray: you are being scammed.

    The gov agencies and media that are supposed to check are all captive to the nuclear power industry. The IAEA is a UN and industry funded pr group for nuclear power. Read their charter below. Yet they are in charge of vetting all UN papers, first response to nuclear disasters and measuring the contamination.

    After Fukushima that USA and Japan govs both raised the “safe” level of radiation 100s to thousands of times, so they could say it was under regulator’s limits.

    If someone does that, you know they are lying.

    The radiation from Fuku-shima is not natural, it’s different isotopes and chemicals, and it’s in particles as well. Tuna cross the entire pacific from fukushima to the west coast Tuna carry Fukushima Japan quake radiation across Pacific to California

    It takes tuna only 600 days to cross the pacific. They tracked several tuna to prove this.

    Notice they assure us it’s under “safe to eat” limits! The new ones.

    They make the claim that fish metabolize the radioactive chemicals, they don’t bother to mention that they bio accumulate them. seals bio accumulate 100 times or so.

    So I stopped eating fish. The fishing industry are over fishing the oceans anyway, give them a rest. There are mass die offs all over the ocean lately, so something is killing them. Another reason to quit for awhile.

    You can find plenty of little articles that slip through the main stream cooperate filters to measurement of radiation in fish on the west coast of the USA. They nearly all assure you there’s nothing worry about, move along. Bad press? no ad money. That’s how the system controls what gets said.

    Just remember, they raised the limits so that they could claim the new higher radiation levels were below those new “safe” limits. We are being lied to and it will kill lots of people.

    The “Atoms for Peace” Agency IAEA. The “Atoms for Peace” Agency.”2. To make provision, in accordance with this Statute, for materials, services, equipment, and facilities to meet the needs of research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful purposes, including the production of electric power,” The Statute of the IAEA

    “Over fifty years ago, purportedly with the intention to deflect a proposal calling for an immediate end to all nuclear explosions,

    it was proposed to the General Assembly of the United Nations that it establish a Committee to collect and evaluate information on the levels and effects of ionizing radiation. Subsequently on 3 December 1955 the General Assembly unanimously approved resolution 913(X), which established the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). “Milestones of UNSCEAR

    Safety rules loosened for aging nuclear reactors

    General Assembly

    Are the EPA’s Emergency Radiation Limits a Cover for Fukushima Fumbles?

    The fools at Reason think it’s a good idea to raise the limits. Because Money.

    Raising the EPA Radiation Limit Will Save Thousands of Lives and Billions of Dollars

    Government Reacts to Fukushima Radiation Crisis By Raising Acceptable Radiation Standards … Instead of Fixing Anything

    250 mSv: temporary increase in the emergency exposure dose limit in response to the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident and its decision making pr… – PubMed – NCBI

    Just wanted to make it clear this is not fake news. The fake news is the industry pr from the agencies that are supposed to protect us, not promote nuclear power.

    Hot particles of radioactive materials are far more dangerous when eaten or inhaled than their standard reported dose would indicated.

    This is a photo of a one micron particle typical of exploding nuclear power plants like Fukushima, specially with MOX. It’s in a pig lung and that’s 2 days of alpha tracks. That star shaped thing. The definition of Severts is that only the irradiated mass of tissue is used to calculate the dose. Instead the industry calculated the exposure by dividing the amount of radiation from the particle by the mass of the whole body or if they are feeling guilty, the mass of the organ they are in. Cancers start small. They son’t start in your whole body or organ, they start a small cluster of cells about 100 microns across, just about what the particle radiation exposes.

    Dogs all got cancer when they were tested with these same type particles. You inhale that particle and you are getting 1000 of severs per month.

    So when you hear nonsense that your dose would be less that a dental x-ray: you are being scammed.

    This is very effective pr and propaganda, just like the tobacco and lead paint folks got away with for decades right in front of us. They killed and ruined the lives of millions of people. So don’t seem surprised that the trillion dollar nuclear power industry is doing the same thing, only nuclear has the advantage of gov and military help.

    Particles of radioactive alpha materials references: 100,000 times as carcinogenic. That is clustered damage from radiation is much worse than distributed.

    Hot particles

    Plus the folks deny LNT and claim a little radiation won’t hurt you. Not true.

    Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS) | The BMJ Another proof of LNT.

    We are already getting cancers from natural radiation. That means we have already crossed any limits. Even is there was a threshold, we passed it with natural radiation. Any increase in radiation increases the risks of cancer. Period. It’s been proven to death, literally.

  29. doru001 May 15, 2017 at 4:52 AM

    She is lying. There is info that Pacific is deserted. Info coming directly from a sailor who traversed it after the disaster. The richness of life in Pacific before the disaster can be seen in “Kon-Tiki”. They did not have to fish. They just gathered flying fish fallen on their raft during the night.

    • Michael Mann January 21, 2018 at 3:41 PM

      Yes, Helen Caldicott is lying, it’s how she makes a living. The Pacific is NOT deserted (enenews is a collection of some of the worst conspiracy and fear mongering on internet)

  30. Brian May 19, 2017 at 12:33 AM

    Everything is fine, nothing to worry about, gradation is good for you, like tobacco and lead paint, haven’t you seen Sleeper? The gov and the industries have never told the truth till forced, even then. The tobacco and lead paint folks still claim it’s safe.

    As pointed out, the massive leaks of unnatural radioactive isotopes will cause an increase in the mutation rates. This includes a lot of isotopes not found in nature. It is know that fish concentrate radiation of the sorts released, 1000’s of times. There have been suspiciously coincident massive unprecedented ocean dies of just after the main ocean plume passes.

    Since we had not even seen the inside of the reactors, claiming you knew what was released is absurd. We now see a complete rector and melt through the floor.

    Particulate radiation sources that are inhaled or eaten, are 1000’s of times more carcinogenic than external dose estimates.

    Even the estimated doses are expected to cause 400,000 excess cancers. Any additional radiation exposure increases your chances of cancer. If you multiple the x-ray times 9 billion people, that a lots of cancer to expect statistically.

    “The smallest risks are for repeated mammography (0.3–0.6 cancers per 1000 women screened every three years from age 47–73). ” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go

    So if all 7 billion people got that dose…let’s do some math. 28 years/3 = about 9. Take an average value of .5 cancers per 9000. That’s 500 per 9 million, and

    400,000 additional cancers for all 9 billion people globally.

    Nuclear power is a trillion dollar industry and they spend millions, probably billions on pr and influence.

    • Be January 22, 2018 at 2:05 PM

      The standard repeat the same nonsense reply below. Solar and wind alone can achieve about 60-80% of our energy demand. The rest can be filled in with carbon negative fuels from wastes in existing reserve generators.

      Over the next decade, a day of grid hydro/battery storage will be installed for most places and that will allow solar and wind to reach nearly 100% of demand. Then the reserve generators will become emergency generators that run only one a month, then once a year in some places. They will fun on fuels from wastes, not fossils. They will have vanishingly small capacity factors: under 1%. Some much for supporting fossils.

      Nuclear is also a trillion dollar industry that has capture the DOE, the IAEA, the UN, the US, Russia, Japan, France, and others. But let’s pretend nuclear is not a pampered welfare case. The Nuclear folks eny LNT, they deny the million of deaths they cause. They deny the mining. They deny the wastes.
      The deny the load following and peak fossils fuels plants nuclear needs.

      Germany reduced their CO2 emissions one for one as they installed renewable. The same reserve generators have always been on the grid

    • TimS January 25, 2018 at 10:23 AM
    • Be January 25, 2018 at 12:43 PM

      Have you notices the insulting attack reply with no data? That’s fear.

  31. Acecase1955 October 12, 2017 at 8:54 PM

    Well now it’s been 4 more years and Kim is touching off his nuclear toys like they are fire works. I wonder how it will affect the globe if he launches one into the Pacific Ocean like he plans too?

  32. TimS January 26, 2018 at 9:40 AM

    Nuclear: deaths/TWh reduced from 0.4 to 0.0013
    Chernobyl: the only incident with fatalities.
    Fossil fuels and renewables: deaths never stop.

Comments are closed.